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

涉殴打保安洋汉面控

涉嫌在东海岸乐路乐斯广场(Roxy Square)停车场,殴打带路保安的洋汉,于今日(4月24日)正式被起诉。 47岁的英国国民米尔斯(Stuart Mill)被控蓄意伤人,和触犯个人保护法令,故意骚扰保安员林清福(60岁,Andrew Lim)。也是新加坡永久居民的米尔斯,被控殴打保安员的右脸,并且用脏话骂人。 有关打人事件发生在4月4日午夜的东海岸路50号,一段全长2分23秒,记录了打人过程的视频在社交媒体上流传开来。 视频中,在Regal Security任职保安员的林清福向迷路的米尔斯讲解出口大门的位子。米尔斯当时口出粗言并要求林清福闭嘴,惟林清福身为保安主管回复到,“我们可以好好说话吗”,并表示愿意向他展示出口路线。 两人交谈了后就开始朝出口出发,但是在转弯处,米尔斯伸出脚试图绊倒李清福。保安主管说到,“够了”。 然后看到米尔斯一拳朝林清福脸上打去,导致林清福摔倒、眼镜飞出。拍视频者是林清福的同事,他在事发后立即报警。 在代表律师Ramesh Tiwary的陪同下,米尔斯到法庭面控。若蓄意伤人罪成,他将面对最长两年的监禁,或者最高不超过5000元的罚款,或两者兼施。…

Gahmen sets up new office after NParks’ epic blunder at Hong Lim Park

By Phillip Ang Dear Citizens, The gahmen sincerely apologises for another preventable…

人权律师挑战黄循财 辩论公共住宅本质

撰文:人权律师M Ravi(北雁翻译) 我发现政府还在宣扬,公共组屋住户就是拥有者的说法,就像拥有99年租赁权的私有公寓屋主一样,可以出售他们的租约。想请问国家发展部长黄循财,能否说清楚建屋发展局公共组屋和99年私有租赁,两者的法律含义比较? 较受全球认可的法律立场认为,公共住宅住户即使无法偿还政府或私人银行贷款,也不能扣押或拉回其住所。但为何新加坡政府可以这么做呢? 根据新加坡扣押法(Distress Act),阐明若您是向政府租赁产业,例如租组屋,政府就不能申请扣押庭令(Writ of Distress)来充公您家中或您租户的财产,或者拿来拍卖、以销售收益填补租金。 事实上,我曾在高庭援引上述法规,挑战某官联公司充公我客户价值20万元印刷器材的做法,我客户最终也成功索回这些资产。这是在官联公司推出商业租赁的情境下。 那我为何提起此事?我i知道有新加坡人失去了他们的家园和组屋,但遗憾的是很多律师不愿提起,因为他们为相关提供贷款的银行工作。 既然黄循财强调公共组屋买家不是租户,认为这“不符事实和法理”,那黄部长是否愿意针对此事进行友善的辩论– 特别是假设某人无力偿还贷款,他们的公共组屋是否会被收回?…

Sengkang West celebrates 10th anniversary with carnival and promises of new facilities underway

Sengkang West marked its 10th anniversary this year with a carnival featuring rides,…