Leong Sze Hian and Joshua Chiang /

We refer to the report “PTC to review fare adjustment formula after 2012”  (Channel News Asia, Jul 14).

Fares formula valid until end 2012?

It states that “[t]he Public Transport Council (PTC) will review the fare adjustment formula for subsequent years after 2012 when the validity of the current formula ends”.

The current formula is : 0.5 CPI (Consumer Price Index)  + 0.5 WI (Average Wage Increase) -1.5%

On what basis does the statement say that the current formula’s validity ends in 2012? What is it that will make the formula invalid, and thus open for review, only after 2012?

The last fare increase was in 2008 at 1.7 percent. If the current application by transport operators for an increase of 2.8 percent is passed, it would mean a total fare increase of 4.5 percent for the period of 2008 till now. During the same period, real median wages have DECLINED by 3.9 percent.

Surely, a formula that may result in a total fare increase against a real median wage decrease over the same period needs to be reviewed now, and not until 2013!

In the same article, Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew reportedly said it is “usually the profit incentive of commercial enterprises that spurs efficiency and productivity improvements.”

In this connection, the distance fares were implemented last year when for the first time in the history of the current formula, the result would have been a decrease in fares for all commuters across the board!

While the PTC should be allowed to “deliberate on the fare adjustment proposals properly and to come to its decision”, surely it should not be allowed to do another fait accompli on commuters.

As to the Ministry of Transport (MOT) saying the deliberations will bear in mind the interests of commuters and “long-term viability of the public transport operators”, as the Workers’ Party’s statement on 14 July has pointed out, with a total profit of $215.4 million last year, surely the “long-term viability of the public transport operators” may not be at risk if the fares increase application is rejected.

Higher service standards: Really?

The Transport Minister also argued that nationalizing the public transport system has “serious downsides” as commuters and taxpayers – including those who do not take public transport – are likely to end up paying more and that they may also see lower service standards over time.

He added that there will be “little incentive to keep costs down, if a nationalised public transport operator works on a cost-recovery basis and depends on the government for its funding”.

Has the Minister forgotten that the operators’ reason for applying now for a fare increase is due to “costs pressures”?

Also, going by the Minister’s reasoning, shouldn’t we be privatising more Government agencies and monopolistic providers of public goods and services, instead of maintaining or creating new ones?

Does he not wonder how most other countries do it with public transport operators that are truly “public”?

Whilst on the subject of “lower service standards over time”, we must say that we have to agree that transport service standards have been deteriorating over the last few years in Singapore.

We have noticed a trend, when taking the MRT or buses during peak hours, that more commuters may be travelling in the reverse direction to their destination so that they do not end up seeing so many trains and buses go by filled to the brim, had they waited at their normal stops. This may actually result in more commuters being unable to get on board even as trains and buses just depart from their terminals, because more people are travelling backwards towards the terminals.

In spite of this trend which is clearly a deterioration in service standards, we still have one of the most expensive fares in the world, primarily because we do not have unlimited travel monthly passes like almost all other developed countries like Hong Kong, Malaysia, the United States and the United Kingdom.

Record profits again?

Since it was said in conjunction with the implementation of distance based fares last year that the operators’ would lose out in revenue, because two-thirds of commuters would pay less, why is it that the combined profits of the two operators have once again hit a record high for last year?

This, like practically every reason (or as some may say- every conceivable excuse), given for increasing fares in the past, has failed the ultimate test of eventual statistical outcomes.

P.S. Leong Sze Hian has written more than 50 articles about public transport over the last decade or so.

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

八市民揭武汉疫情被指“造谣” 人民法院:若民众听信“谣言”戴口罩 可能更好防控

去年12月31日,中国湖北省武汉市卫生健康委员会,发布关于肺炎疫情的情况通报。 随后,有人举报网上传发“不实信息”。其中有八人,分别传发“X医院已有多例SARS确诊病例”、“确诊了七例SARS”、“Y医院接收了一家三口从某洲回来的,然后就疑似非典了”等未经核实的信息。 当时,当地公安分别对八名网民进行了教育、批评,均未给予警告、罚款、拘留的处罚。 然而,中国最高人民法院,在拥有1千760万粉丝的官方微博发表文章,似乎为上述八位传出“假消息”的市民“正名”,也非议执法机构,对一切不完全符合事实的信息,都进行法律打击并无法律上必要。 文章认为,之所以产生谣言,是因为认知局限,“不同个体基于认知水平的差异,对同一事物,完全可能产生不同程度的虚假信息,我们应该理解法律对个体的适度宽容态度。” 若民众听信“谣言”立即戴口罩,可能更好管控 文章指尽管当初谣传是SARS,属于编造不实信息,若造成社会秩序混乱,就符合法律规定传播假消息的信息,给予惩处是适当的。 “…事实证明,尽管新型肺炎并不是SARS,但是信息发布者发布的内容,并非完全捏造。如果社会公众当时听信了这个“谣言”,并且基于对SARS的恐慌而采取了佩戴口罩、严格消毒、避免再去野生动物市场等措施,这对我们今天更好地防控新型肺炎,可能是一件幸事。” 故此,该法院认为,执法机关面对虚假信息,应充分考虑信息发布者、传播者在主观上的恶性程度,及其对事物的认知能力。 “试图对一切不完全符合事实的信息都进行法律打击,既无法律上的必要,更无制度上的可能,甚至会让我们对谣言的打击走向法律正义价值的反面,成为削弱政府公信力的反面教材。” 该文章也重申,“谣言止于公开”,若信息及时、全面公开,群众的疑虑自然会削减。  …

我国人才辈出 何以执着外籍专才?

政府推出新计划以引进更多外籍专才,进入到我国各个领域中,而且未明言限制人数,不过网民不仅纳闷,我国明明拥有着闻名全球的教育体系,难道至今仍然无法栽培出自己的专才吗?而且一些领域外籍专才的最低薪金,也只比毕业生的中位数工资高出100元,不是让毕业生更难寻得好工作? 政府与上周二(7月30日)开始通过新加坡经济发展局(EDB)和企业发展局(ESG)宣布,希望成为我国科技企业的“核心团队成员”的专业人士、经理、执行人员和技师(PMETs),或许在申请工作准证(EP)时可以更具伸缩性。 上述单位也表示他们将帮助“推动”外国PMETs更容易进入我国,成为在我国运营的科技企业的“核心团队”。 而两天后,贸工部长陈振声于周四(8月1日)忽然告诉彭博社,除了技术驱动领域,吸引外籍人才我国的两年计划或会扩展到其他领域。换句话说,这个特殊计划将“促进”外籍PMETs,在我国各行业取得工作准证。 陈振声虽然没有实际指出相关的领域,但是他表示已经准备好将计划推广到其他领域。他表示,我国从未限制外籍顶尖人才的参与,且他们不是和本地普通国人竞争,而是为我国竞争。 这让许多网民不仅质疑我国堪称世界最顶尖的教育体系,究竟出现了什么问题,难道我国无法培养自己的专才,政府还需要不断引进外国人才? 我国教育获得国际认可 事实上,据BBC 2016年报告指出,在国际学生评估(PISA)排行榜中,我国学生取得最高成绩,在数学、阅读和科学考试中名列前茅。下一届的PISA结果将于今年12月公布。 由经济合作与发展组织(OECD)筹划的PISA排名非常具有影响力,排名结果是基于70多个国家的15岁学生测试成绩。每三年一次的PISA测试,对政治家的影响逐渐增加,因为他们的国家和政策都是根据全球学校排名来衡量的。 该组织教育主任安德里亚施莱西尔(Andreas Schleicher)称赞我国不仅表现良好,而且遥遥领先。我国在PISA的所有测试科目中取得第一,领先亚洲、欧洲、澳大利亚、北美洲和南美洲的学校体系。…

Lawrence Wong: Government is looking into new housing arrangements for migrant workers, and be ready in a year or two

The Minister for National Development, Lawrence Wong, had announced yesterday (27 April)…