TOC Editorial/
The public transport operators (PTO) have made application for fare adjustment to the Public Transport Council (PTC) ; and this too while Singapore’s public transport system faces tremendous strain due to short-sighted, reactionary planning of those that are in-charge.
Towards the end of the 1980s, there was quantum increase in Singapore’s transport capacity with the introduction of the MRT. ‘Competition’ was then introduced by the Government to ensure that the PTO would not fall into inefficient operations and to minimise overall wastage.
But in reality there was no real competition because when this happened, the Government instead of allowing the PTO to compete on a free-market basis, created artificial competition where the PTO must plan their system and market it as a single entity, as the Government was concerned that the PTO would only concentrate on profitable routes.
Which means that the PTO operate like an unregulated monopoly in their area of operation; and as all unregulated monopolies do, the PTO limits the availability of the service, in order to obtain a high price and maximum obtainable profit from the commuters.
This is the reason why the profits of the two operators have risen manifold since 2003. In 2003, SMRT’s profit was $72 million, as at 31 March 2011, SMRT’s net-profit was $161.1 million. Comfort DelGro’s profit in 2003 was $134 million, its net-profit was $228.5 million, as at 31 December 2010.
Despite these high-income generated by the PTO, PTC has never not approved applications for fare adjustments by the PTO. PTC has been heavily criticised repeatedly because of this and also because the regulator is perceived to be more pro-PTO than pro-commuters.
For example, commuters who do not pay the correct fare on public transports, will be fined S$20, while those who abuse concession cards face a penalty of S$50. An additional penalty of S$1,000 will be imposed if the cheating commuter does not pay the fine; and repeat offenders may be fined S$2,000 or be jailed up to six months, or both.
These penalties are many times more than the value of a single trip on the public transport, and it is meant as a deterrent for the fare cheats.
The PTO however have no such effective deterrent for failing Quality of Services (QoS) standards. The penalty for each non-compliant day on each non-compliant route for both headway adherence and loading is only $100; which means that it is more profitable for the PTO to breach QoS standards instead of investing in capacity/infrastructure to meet QoS requirements.
The PTO have enjoyed the carrot, but have never enjoyed the stick of punitive sanctions.
The way in which the QoS standards are defined may also be defective. The Transport Minister, Lui Tuck Yew also alluded to this on his Facebook note when said, “our current QOS standards for buses is not sufficiently stringent. MOT and LTA are in the midst of a study on how to tighten this”.
The question to ask really is, “why are QoS standards not linked to fare increases?”
The only penalty for QoS breaches have been a fine, but the regime should be modified so that operators who fail QoS standards are not entitled to fare increases.
This is only fair, since if PTO are not doing a good job, why should they be rewarded with a fare increase? This will directly incentivise PTOs to invest to meet QoS standards, and ensure that commuters at least will not face a double-whammy of sub-standard service and high fares.
Fare increases in the past have been rationalised by comparing our fares to the fares of cities like Hong Kong, London, and New York, instead of justifying it by linking it to QoS standards.
Perhaps PTC’s perceived siding with the PTO is an attempt by the Government to hide its own short-comings in forward planning.
In 1991, in line with Government’s overall vision of providing for a higher quality of living for Singaporeans, the Ministry of National Development expounded the Revised Concept Plan (URA, 1991) to be implemented in three stages of physical development: up to Year 2000, to Year 2010 and to Year X projecting for a population of 4 million.
Former-Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan revised that forecast in 2000, and he predicted that Singapore’s population would rise from the then population of 3.9 million to 5.5 million by 2040 or 2050.
But by the end of 2010, we had already almost reached the projected population growth targeted for 2040 or 2050. This surge must have surely caught the Government off-guard as they had probably not planned for an increase that they expected to happen in 40 or 50 years, happening instead in 10 short years.
The changes in the population profile and characteristics, as well as growth in economic conditions have exerted tremendous public transportation problems for the country as the government did not identify the transport problems early enough to take definite corrective actions.
The over-crowding on our public transport did not happen overnight but happened incrementally over many years. Singapore’s lack of tolerance for perceived inefficiencies, and as a result, the quest for greater automation may have also contributed to the squeeze in our public transportation.
in the days before One-Man-Operation (OMO) buses, when there was a conductor who would punch your tickets when you boarded the bus, there was no incentive for the PTO to pack their services; because then, the conductor would not be able to issue a ticket to everyone, and this would have affected adversely affected their income significantly.
Greater efficiency also dictated that services of the public transport operators are integrated, and in 1989, the Government-inspired Transit Link Pte Ltd was set-up to do precisely that. Besides information integration, network integration and physical integration, Transit Link especially facilitated fare integration.
Fare integration required a common ticketing system in the form of a common TransitLink farecard developed for use on all public transport systems. Incentives in the form of transfer rebates were offered to commuters transferring between operators, to encourage cashless transactions. Fare integration was accepted as rebates were significant.
Of course apportionment of revenue received from the fare-box was a key concern of the PTO. Transit Link allayed this concern by assuring PTO that apportionment of revenues will be based on usage. With this, the incentive for the individual operator to compete fairly in the market (to the benefit of the commuter) is adversely affected.
Despite the unhappiness expressed by Singaporeans that they cannot accept fare adjustments when services are so sloppy, fare increase seems like an eventuality. The Prime Minister himself have indicated that fare increases are inevitable, and have asked Singaporeans to relax because the PTC is doing their job.
What the Prime Minister perhaps fails to realise is that the PTC’s track-record does not inspire confidence in the daily commuters that PTC has their best interest in heart.
What the Prime Minister seem to have overlooked is that it is very difficult to relax when our public transportation system is as such, as it contributes directly to greater stresses at place of work, detrimental to our quality of life, and could also be a cause for Singapore’s falling birth-rate.
Capability planning and development for public transportation, should be about the survivability of Singapore, because delayed actions can be quite costly. It seems however that there is very little political will to solve our transport problems.
The problem of public transportation has now reached such an acute level that quick decisive actions are needed from the Government.
And until these decisive actions are taken, any fair adjustments would be deemed unacceptable.
–
See the Quality of Service standards for public transport operators HERE.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Quality of service is linked to fare increases, but it’s not the only factor, as cost pressures are important too. To say that fares can be increased only when quality of service improves is not correct coz the burden will then fall unfairly and entirely on the transport operator.
The overcrowding will be resolved automatically with the completion of the Downtown Line & Bukit Timah Line. Passengers will have more choices to get to their destinations then. So the population increase brings about only temporary inconvenience.
Finally, if the proposed 2.8% fare increase is approved, this is still way below the overall inflation rate of 5%. Considering all the above-mentioned factors, this is but a passing phase which people should have no problems coping.
The 60% who voted in the PAP ask for it.
Serves them right.
There will be more cost of living expenses to increase in the coming 5 years till 2016, and just before the next Election, we would be given “ang pows” as a bait, a
bait that will be taken away almost immediately after voting, in the form of price increases. Give you something from the right hand, and then swiftly taking them back from the left hand.
Daft people.
Stay at home and sit and wait
Minister will come with rice cooker and a packet of rice for you to cook and eat
For the whole year through
And you need not work and can smile and say
I’ve got a magic rice cooker and an endless packet of rice to stay at home all the time to stay alive and be Happy, you see ?!
Unfortunately, the two PAPPIES incharge of transport (LTY and Joesphine Teo) have neither the political will nor vision to make radical changes for improvements!!!
What the he’ll why making so Many noises,the 60% ask for it.If they voted to pay more so be it after all we are only 40%.nothing lah.see how long they can continue to pay ha ha ha don’t tell me our 40% is poorer then 60% ha ha ha
“Fare increases in the past have been rationalised by comparing our fares to the fares of cities like Hong Kong, London, and New York, instead of justifying it by linking it to QoS standards.”
Bob Crow wanted tube drivers to be paid 90,000 pounds a year. That is why train rides are so expensive in London. Do you want to go down that route?
What political will? Who are the major shareholders of SMRT and SBStransit? The govt linked companies. The govt can intervene anytime if it wanted to do something.
In the end, fare prices will increase. No brainer on that. However, the govt will implement some additional measures to justify the fare increases and to soothe the public.
Whether the measures are effective is another issue. Don’t hold your breath.
Steven Kho
The overcrowding will be resolved automatically with the completion of the Downtown Line & Bukit Timah Line
……………
this is what smrt says when its xtend from yiochukang station to woodland
and ^POOR^ tib bus routes was discontinued..
what happened..every train that picked up before angmokio already had its cabins FULL and now tih sengkang norton lines?
also a bloomin FOOL full
so steven ole khoo..you are a parroted kookoo bird thats is henpacked…
tan ku ku for presidente is even better
Wine Bottle
For the whole year through
And you need not work and can smile and say
I’ve got a magic rice cooker and an endless packet of rice to stay at home all the time to stay alive and be Happy, you see ?!
…………….
wei wei.. you saw me shoppin for groceries har?
i eat what you print…
every night without fail…
@ Steven Kho
if what u believe in is true, the crowd at Jurong East Mrt would have automatically disappeared when Ponggol Mrt went up and running.
n pls do not be mistaken, i am not trying to be sarcastic.
according to the grand logic u presented some time ago, the communters at Jurong East can wake up 2 hours earlier to take taxi over to Ponggol so that they can board the train there, it solves all our problems.
if u have trouble taking mrt from Bukit Merah to Tanjong Pagar, not to worry, i have good advice for u, u can buy a car, wake up 1hour eariler, drive to Simei, park your car there and take mrt from Simei instead.
The PAP Govt would imporve the public transport servce a little bit when it is near the next GE in 2016. In the meantime, please relax and live like a sardine!!
@Chanel,
I think you overestimated our govt.
imo, they will simply promise to change (i.e. no action), and that the change is dependent on us voting them in.
Although PAP is the sole party in government, there are different factions in the PAP considering the fare increase. All sides of the argument will be presented, and eventually the transport minister will decide. The pros & cons will be weighed up and the final outcome will be as fair as possible to all parties. We can’t assume that just because the fares increase mean the issue was not debated and it’s unfair to consumers. We have to give & take sometimes, can’t always expect things to go our way.
Alvin Chua 26 July 2011
Although PAP is the sole party in government, there are different factions in the PAP considering the fare increase. All sides of the argument will be presented, and eventually the transport minister will decide
…………….
yeah right..
who don’t know internal pap ministers fight amon themselves..with kids boxin gloves
in the end…ircasions mushroom by TWO with peasant$ lo$$in their entirely savin$ to the xtend of usin spouse member$hip to gain entry…
do i see evn ahTIN shout in parliament bout the fares beyon control?
why no poor peasant in marine parade$?
I have little confidence in a government populated by No-Action-Talk-Only ministers being able to solve a problem which they created for common Singaporeans when they have little incentive to deviate from the usual formula and look for solutions outside the box.
@Alvin Chua,
why are you still posting your comments here at TOC? I thought I have already advised you to go websites such as REACH, PAP, PA, etcs to be with like minded people like you there? Tolong! Tolong lah! Please go to pro pap website leh!
Singapore’s transport system was built and will be built by taxpayers money.
The increase of FTs & FWs has reached more than a million against Singapore’s 3 million plus.
Why should we always bear the burden????
Since the govt. open the doors wide open to them the burden of increase should be theirs as they are the ones crowding our transport system.
May I suggest all Singaporeans be given an easy link card similar to that for Senior citizens to receive a rebate and increase the fare by 8% for all other cards issued.
How much cost can logistics incur as compared to the benefits for us CITIZENS??? Salaries of Transport ministry for half a month will cover the cost.
the constitution can be proposed to be debated in parliament for any national transport price increase, look at now after election power supply utilities bill increase, oil prices increase, transport fare increase, cost of living increase…
at least let the nation officially aware that they cant do it every time after election and that it should be approved by parliament(which is unlikely due to greed) but at least highlighted
yes, erp rates increasing… and satellite erp under trial and will come!!
SMRT/SBS are just another state owned enterprise. They are not entrepreneurial, they are just profiteering. The government, transport providers and the PTC are in cahoots. Please sack the CEOs and PTC, all are sleeping.
What has PM Lee apologized for during the GE 2011 when he refered to resentments of the people over the rising costs of living, housing and influx of foreigners that apparently caused such problems?
His answers to this question will determine his true leadership quality and talent.
Alvin Chua
I have answered your repeated justifications for privatizing of the essential public transportation that has created a monster for government to hoard taxes and self-reward to their GLC CEOs at the expense of the people.
Isn’t it quite clear that PM Lee Hsien Loong has sincerely apologized to the electorate over their resentments over the rising costs of living, housing and influx of foreigners saying he would transform the governing system (significantly after talking over with ex-FM George Yeo who said the same to the electorate)?
So what is left to be done? Shouldn’t he fulfill his solemn promises to the electorate to shake up the tax and privatize system that created the GLC vampires to suck monies from the people?
Isn’t it the only way to tackle the perpetual rising costs at the root in transportations and other essential public services for which government is in the first place elected to serve the people.
I suggest LHL dressed in his casual attire and wait at Jurong East MRT every morning and evening peak hour for his much needed relaxation.
CASE STUDY on Singapore “NATO” Politicians:
(i) “…we can always do BETTER if we try HARDER. We ALWAYS MUST try HARDER.
Don’t just do NATO (No Action,Talk Only)…”
– PM Lee Hsien Loong(CNA 5 May 2005)
(ii) At the recent Singapore International Water Week, PM Lee was obviously trying to impress his international audience:
” He (PM Lee) said REAL CHANGE will come about only if these regional governments have the POLITICAL WILL to act.” (CNA 5 Jul 2011)
S’PORE VOTERS ask:
>> In May 2005 (six years ago), Philip Yeo generated widespread public anger when he used defamation legal threats on a 23-year old former PSC scholar.
It is most unbecoming of a mere bureaucrat like Philip Yeo to use public funds for such a petty and personal purpose.
Way back then, WHY did PM Lee not exercise the “political will” and “political leadership” (as rightly expected by S’pore Taxpayer-Voters) to “sack Philip Yeo on the spot” ???
NO MAN IS INDISPENSABLE, much less a mere Bureaucrat like Philip Yeo !!!
And now, with Philip Yeo at age 65 (way past the official retirement age of 62), WHY is PM Lee “still sheltering” Philip Yeo behind the long-winded fanciful title of “Special Adviser for Economic Development in the Prime Minister’s Office” and allowing him “to live off taxpayers” ???
>> In similar vein, WHY did PM Lee so “generously” allowed all three of the following PAP TERRIBLE TRIO to “retire from the Cabinet” (face-saving words) and thus to remain as MPs in order for them “to live off taxpayers” to the tune of S$1 million* per person over their next 5-year term (on top of collecting million-dollar PENSION):
[*MP Allowance = $15,000 per month = around $1 million for 5-year term ]
– Wong Kan Seng (monumental screw-up: Mas Selamat Great Escape Saga)
– Mah Bow Tan (monumental screw-up: sky-rocketing HDB flat prices)
– Raymond Lim (monumental screw-up: jam-packed public transport)
Just received letter, The medisave of self employed contribution is 2.17percent to 8.5percent of total net income… The bastards in name of medical cost are raising another form of income tax whereas lots of medical treatments can’t use the money to treat or major portions can’t use…
Really disappointed…
I totally agree with the writer, just look at India a country who has some of the highest political well. Gandhi can bring the Indians to the beach and teach them how to make salt just because the British imposed tax on salt. LHL make cover walkway for you if it rains, so who has bigger political well?
India has also the best transport system in the world, their Bombay railway system is world famous. Singapore should replace the MRT system with Indian railway system and also we can copy their lunch box delivery system using their railway transport so that all our office worker can eat more healthy home cooked food. One stone can kill two kuku bird.
Medisave is another form of raising taxes directly and indirectly
PM should not make any judgement as the PTC is still working on it. Now the direction is “increase is inevitable”, i think the PTC got to head in that direction. Like contractor, they will markup the cost a little, as you know after discount, you will planned for. Most will be less sad/stupidly happy, afew will be happy to get their guaranteed $Million bonus.
Only way to stop the increment of the monolopolies is to vote against the PAP.
Reduce their percentage in parliament is the most effective way to stop them profiteering and foreign rubbish imports.
For a start don’t vote for Tony Tan for president.
Yes, service standards must be linked with fare increase. We cannot depend on transport operators to raise standard as their motivation is rightfully the bottom line.
But a seamless and efficient transport can be a trump card for us to attract foreign investment compared to other densely populated cities.
Hence there is a national interest in making sure our standards are world class or at least not deteriorate further.
The 2.8% fare increase is not a big issue by itself. But over the next five years, if improvements are not made to peak hour waiting time, offpeak waiting time, overwhelmed platforms, aging trains and tracks which lead to high breakdown frequency, etc. the resentment will only build up for commuters.
http://hugewhaleshark.tumblr.com/post/8040300505/public-transport-in-singapore-let-the-numbers-speak
Was overcrowding really due to ridership growth outstripping capacity growth, or was it also due to deliberate restraint in operated capacity?
Could the pappies be controlled by Aliens or foreigners so their policies are tilted favorably towards foreigners, in that case the ep hopefully not pappies linked
DavidLKSee, excellent observation!
I agree with your comments.
Some ah tiong bus driver just made fool out of me. Poor attitude, poor service. SBS better raise their service standards before even suggesting a fare hike. (Full story on my site. Click on my name.)
The issue of privatization of public services has been a thorny subject for years. There is as yet no effective solution to this date with one minister passing the buck to the next. There is a lack of political will to face the issue squarely and go for long-term sustainable solution without all the wayang we have been seeing all these years. Let netizens be fully aware of the ploy and tricks used by the monopoly/duopoly transport operators to ask for fare increased at the expense of fairly serving of the citizens once and for all.
As a saying goes, when one intends to find an excuse, (to justify fare increases) any reason is good enough. In this case, human ingenuity to counter demand for fare increases again once more on the ground of Qos (objectively can be better controlled by per passenger per trip cost) knows no bounce.
If I am the manager of such a monopoly, with no one competing with my bus fleets on my routes, I will not proffer increased bus trips in any route because this will cut my immediate profitability.
I take it easy or drag my feet to hold back adding bus fleet even when there is going to be increased ridership due to recent two years of influx of foreign labor to give my operator higher profitability.
I will be very shrewd to use every available opportunity to outwit PTC/minister/public to ask for fare increases e.g. Qos,(for more trips or shorter waiting time etc) oil price fluctuation or salary adjustments.
I will not provide any KPI like overall per passenger per trip (KM) costs on overall routes (OPPTC)for long term efficient operations because this OPPTC will expose me of my inefficiency or failure to allow for trip expansion to cater for increased ridership.
For example SIA will keep up with competition by closely monitoring its per passenger per KM trip cost that allows objective forward capacity planning to meet relevant Qos and adding of ridership demand or adding of fleet for long-term sustainable growth.
The main issue now is whether when Lui Tuck Yew himself been outsmarted by the bus operator who saw yet another golden opportunity to demand fare increases like before in all previous years taking advantage of public outcry over service quality issues or congestions – symptom of past neglect in forward planning of increased fleet to cater for increased ridership.
The minister of transport whether he was Raymond Lim or Lui Tuck Yew ought to have the decisiveness and good judgment to see through the ploy of the monopoly/duopoly operator and not be outsmarted by bus operator by any counter demand for fare increases to bolster profits even though it is the job of the operator to meet the minimum Qos in providing adequate trips with timely additions of buses in increased ridership situation which actually is a gold mine for many private operators who are presently being shut out.
Had there in the first place not been a monopoly or duopoly operators would not be so daring or quick to exploit on such a demand for better services due to operator’s own fault in failing to plan ahead of time for increased ridership demand as a result in oversight in tracking per ridership costs per trip.
With the influx of foreign labors by the millions, it has been a happy opportunity for the monopoly or duopoly to make exceptional profits through closely monitoring per passenger per trip costs and correspondingly adding new fleets to anticipate minimum Qos.
Had the OPPTC been used to track service/cost/bus investment return been used like in running of SIA over the past there would have been transparency and accountability to overcome any suspicion of compromises of the PTC/ministers who should be proactive in monitoring costs versus Qos with hands-on control over OPPTC.
I am sure with monitoring of OPPTC there will be sharper and shrewder private operators on the sideline all the time hoping to catch the current gold mine for long-term sustainable growth.
Please do not keep taking advantage of the public whenever there is any poor public service and blame it on the people.
Do the proper thing – serve the public efficienty with talents otherwise refund the exceptionally outrageous talent salaries and bonuses taken or paid by default.
Let the public transport services be open for greater competitions by removing the current monopoly or duopoly.
Issue the Service licence (SL) with added safeguard conditions for non-exclusive competition that allow more efficient operators achieving the lowest OPPTC to encroach or take over another operator’s route in the event of any instant poor service justified by OPPTC.
Let the private operators on SL be rewarded with unlimited additional trip offers from other routes found falling short of Qos.
In this way, the public taxpayers will not be short-changed due to outcry on poor Service level (Qos) At the same time any inefficient operator will be penalized without the public having to feel the pressure due to poor public service by privatization out of such services by the government.
The government should not be excused in the meantime for privatizing out such public service in order to hoard taxes for its own convenience in the guise of avoiding welfarism.
The government is making tons of monies out of public housing from land sales and COEs, ERPs, road tax and petrol tax etc. It should not use the welfarism fear to make huge privatization profits.
It should use part of the increased indirect taxes like these to foot improvements and upgrading of facilities for providing efficient public services like transportation which is not just extraneous services but necessary to increase economic investments and tourism. It should foot part of the infrastructure costs in such services to lessen the opportunities for GLCs to ask for more fees over such items at the expense of the public.
Where there is a political will there will be a way to solve such a long-standing problem.
Rising cost cannot be used as the reason for fare increase when profit is increasing. At the end of the day, public transport benefits the entire society, not just for those who use them. Hence, the positive externalities created by the users should also be taken in account.
PTC INCREASE & PRICE HIKE (IF YOU) MUST BUT NOT AT THE EXPENCE OF SR.CITIZEN PLEASE! HAVE A HEART FOR THEM (SR.) CAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE AN INCOME IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO WILL PTC PLEASE SEE TO IT THAT THE SO CALL “CONCESSION” FARE OF .86 CENT BE REDUCE TO .50 CENT AND THE TIME OF TRAVEL FROM 9AM ONWARDS ONLY BE SCRAP FOR ALL SR. TO TRAVEL WITH NO TIME LIMIT DAILY.
REMEMBER AFTER GETTING THE CONCESSION AFTER THE AGE OF 60 ONLY THEY (THE SR.) HAD ONLY ANOTHER TEN TO TWENTY YEARS ONLY TO ENJOY THE SO CALL ‘CONCESSION’ FARE FROM SBS AND SMRT.(WHO IN THE MEANTIME ARE MAKING TONS AND TONS OF MONEY YEARLY WITHOUT A SINGLE THOUGHT FOR THE SR’S IN ANYWAY AT ALL.
HAVE A HEART AND THOUGHT FOR ALL THE SR’S IN SINGAPORE WHO EITHER HAD TO WALK TO SAVE A ‘FEW’ CENTS PER DAY OR WAIT FOR 9AM TO COME ALONG TO SO CALL ‘ENJOY’ THE SO CALL ‘CONCESSION’
I live in Punggol, and in peak hour, there is a train every 3 mins. But in off peak hours, it is 6 mins. Consequently, “off peak” hours suddenly become packed with people. It is now peak period any time of the day!!!! Is is service quality? I want to say TUCK YEW… still want to increase fares.
A very comprehensive and well written article deserve the attention of Transport
Authority. GOOD WORK
@Alvin Chua Chu Kang 26 July 2011
@Alvin Chua,
why are you still posting your comments here at TOC? I thought I have already advised you to go websites such as REACH, PAP, PA, etcs to be with like minded people like you there? Tolong! Tolong lah! Please go to pro pap website leh!
This is a democracy. TOC is democratic platform. Every one has the right to post here, regardless of race, language or religion or political affiliation. Just because he holds different views from you, does not render him ineligible to post here. Singapore has no place for bigots.
Lui Tuck Yew is not Minister material. His arguments are full of flaws, as many readers have pointed out. He should be replaced by Josephine Teo. She handled the arguments well when she rebutted cogently, point for point Gerald Giam’s myopic proposal of nationalization of public transport. She has been to India and China and saw how nationalization do not work. China just endorsed her view this week, with the two trains crashing into each other. Josephine can also sell her viewpoint much more convincingly than that ugly sod, Lui Tuck Yew.
Low Yeng Lin is another pretty PAP MP to watch. She is learning fast and will make a good Minister one day. I find her already better than that stupid Major Chan.
@iVOTEahMENG 27 July 2011
you did mentioned josephine is so beautiFOOL just like babu the bengali above
you wouldn’t by any chance is joesphine teo press secretary?
I d’ont mind to be Josephine’s secretary, and hang around her all day.
@debbie 27 July 2011
Dear All
D’ont bother to respond to that IvoteAhMeng. ‘It’ is an incorrigible and unemployable dropout who has too much time on its hands and takes random potshots at all and sundry. Being semi-demented, ‘it’ is also racist and capable of extreme vulgarity.
The model of intellectual discussions whether pro or anti- PAP is zero, doppleganger, Alvin Chua, fairplay, Robert Teh, Andrew Leung . I apologized if I have missed a few others. But these people, whether pro or anti-PAP virtually never resort to personal, racist & obscene diatribes to make their point.
Doppleganger is notable for his polished use of the language. I am awed by the vigor of his intellectual logic even when he disagrees and criticizes my view point – it is never personal nor vulgar.
When you can think and articulate like these guys, what need is there for rabid, racism and vulgarities, as practiced by that insane IvoteAhMeng . Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
Having said that, we respect that this is a democratic platform and that even the retarded and insane have the right to rant their madness here. So, folks, just ignore his drivel. Responding will only give him the rabid attention that he seeks.
Babu 27 July 2011
@iVOTEahMENG 27 July 2011
you did mentioned josephine is so beautiFOOL just like babu the bengali above
I d’ont mind to be Josephine’s secretary, and hang around her all day
………….
liked i said b4.. babu i liked you man you are the kind of HONEST(i really meant your charecter/respect it as well)
an honest tuco just liked yours truly..
……………..
Kissy
So, folks, just ignore his drivel. Responding will only give him the rabid attention that he seeks
…………..
as for kissy… can i just kiss you?
is yur hair real midas gold or ahlian modified?
do you know petdogs are HORNY?
yes no? all PET dogs in singapoor is rabid free..i hav neber ear of rabbi jewish dog b4… hav you?
Monopolist only listen to profits and fears competition.
We have in our hands various “natural monopolist” created via political monopoly.
Lets copy Malaysia transport system, is much cheaper than ours. The Malaysian are so much happier and no one is complaining.
only efficient political process can generate changes in blocking our strong business interest group e.g. the monoploy who does not operate competitively to the best interest of consumers. Unfortunately, our elite bureacracy, elite politicians and strong business group seem to be interlocking and not independent of each other. Any alternative or viable solutions will often be blocked by the party who lose wealth and power.
chou Ah Lian 28 July 2011
Lets copy Malaysia transport system, is much cheaper than ours. The Malaysian are so much happier and no one is complaining.
…………..
the malaysian government although also bein greedy..do not bled its people for blood..which is why their governmentministries make an efford to distinguish the various classes…
till today government hawkers rental are charged @ 200 ringgits/month..(unless its been review/revive)
SBS and SMRT should have to commence civil actions for breach of contract against fare cheats, just like any other private company.
Please ask the LTA to produce this piece of information.
What is the rate of return of assets for SMRT and SBS?
At the current fixed deposit rate of 0.5%. To compensate for the risk factor, add on 1.5%. Therefore, the rate of return of assets for SMRT and SBS should be at 3%. You may ask why set it so low at 3%? Well. This is a monopoly and the government has been ensuring there is absolutely no risk to these investments.
If this piece of data is not published, it simply means the return on assets is much, much higher than 3%. The only justification not to tell the public is because there a necessity to hide this piece of information.