Letter from a reader who wishes to remain anonymous.

I refer to the article “Bus operators fined”  Straits Times 6th April 2009. SBS Transit was fined $4500 for not meeting service standards. The standards violated were overcrowding and long waiting time. SMRT was also fined $100 dollars for one instance of overcrowding. The period reviewed was from 1st June to 30th November 2008. According to the article, this was the 3rd time both operations were fined by the Public Transport Council (PTC).

The amount that the operators were fined is insignificant compared to the profits they generate per year.

Just in the 1st quarter of 2009 alone, SMRT achieved a $215.8 million revenue. The estimated profits is about $42million in that quarter when we deduct the $173.3 operating expenses (read the quarterly report here: SMRT)

$100 is only 0.00024%% of SMRT’s quarterly profit. How can this amount encourage SMRT to improve their services? This amount is simply too little and meaningless. Take this example, would the littering fine serve any purpose if the fine amount is just 0.00024% of your quarterly salary?

Similarly, SBS achieved a $40.5 million profit in the year 2008. The fine amount of $4500 is just 0.011% of their annual profits.

Moreover, I do not think that overcrowding occurred only in one instance on SMRT. I have two suggestions: one, the fine amount be adjusted to a meaningful level; two, allow the public to report overcrowding to the PTC themselves. In this way, the true situation will be exposed.

As of now, I feel that the $4500 and $100 is just meaningless.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Central Bangkok rocked by bomb blast near popular shrine

At least 27 people have been killed and many more injured in a…

Boyfriend of “faked talent” jailed for abetting him to defraud government

In a media report yesterday (13 Nov), a Singaporean male doctor, Ler…

PE: Walkabouts 22nd & 23rd August 2011

Photos by Shawn Danker/

为养三孙儿身兼两职 七旬妇日均工作15小时

养儿一百岁,长忧九十九,一场车祸导致儿子脑部受影响,媳妇一走了之,年过70的老妈妈唯有扛起养家糊口的责任,照顾三个年幼孙儿,还每天身兼两职,日均工作15小时。 73岁的谢姓老妇的际遇令人倍感心疼,但是她的坚毅精神更令人佩服。 谢老妇的儿子原是一间小型快递公司的老板,但他在40岁时,即2008年3月1日时出车祸导致脑部重创。他随后耗费了近万元动手术,但是智力依然不见好,以致行动不便,只能长期卧病在床,目前靠着津贴补助在疗养院过活。 媳妇一走了之 谢老妇表示,最没想到的是,在车祸后一年多后,媳妇一走了之,抛下三个10不到的儿子不顾。她指出,媳妇和儿子结婚后,曾表示和家婆住在一起,家中太挤,因此谢老妇自己搬到租赁组屋去。 《联合晚报》前日报导谢老妇的事迹。报导指,即便搬出去后了,谢老妇还是每周都会到儿子的住处帮忙打理,甚至买一些蔬菜肉类煮给他们吃。但是孙子们都表示,媳妇在家中都不工作、不煮饭,孩子饿了就叫他们吃饼干,还每天喝酒。 媳妇离家后,谢老妇的三个孙子便获得当局社工安排到儿童院居住,一直到他们年满16岁,于三年前陆续搬回到老妇的租赁组屋中。 为了照顾好这三名孙子,让他们能够升学、有零用钱,老妇在过去11年来除了获得当局的补贴之外,自己每天还需要打两份工。她身兼两份清洁工的工作,一份是在五星级酒店担任晚班清洁工,从晚上11时开始至清晨6时,随后再到另一间酒店,从早上8时开始工作到下午4时。 借贷2000元还不清 两份工作带来了1000多元的薪水,但是要抚养三名正值青少年期的孙子,绝对不够。谢老妇指出,虽然她还有另一名儿子,但是她只希望孩子能够照顾好自己的家庭就好了,并不希望给对方带来烦恼。所以,谢老妇最后选择项借贷商。 “我后来听人讲,可以向放贷商借钱,没办法也去借了三组2000多块。” 惟,借贷容易还债难,老妇的债务一直还不清,令她一度感到很绝望。“我没有钱,要怪谁?如果不是为了三个孙、不想债务没还清,给家人造成负担,我根本活不下去。”…