by: Leong Sze Hian/

The Transport Minister said that the opposition National Solidarity Party’s (NSP) proposal to introduce more competition among public bus operators, is not feasible because it would only lead to “cherry-picking” of the profitable routes among transport operators and might not benefit commuters.

I fail to understand the Minister’s logic as introducing more transport operators does not mean that the existing two operators will be released from their current obligations under the USO – universal service obligations – to run buses on non-profitable routes, so that there is a certain amount of cross subsidy that is taking place from the profitable routes to the non-profitable routes.

Like the Scheme B private bus operators scheme in the 1970s, more operators may mean more competitive fares, less congestion, more choices, routes, etc, for commuters.

2.5 per cent reduction? Really?

In this connection, with regard to the Public Transport Council’s (PTC) response to queries in the media about the fare adjustment formula, which is on its web site, that the PTC implemented the full fare reduction of –2.5 per cent allowed under the fare formula last year, I would like to point out that the –2.5 per cent reduction was based on an estimate of the transport operators’ data, following the change to Distance-based fares, which estimated that about two-thirds of commuters would pay less, with one-third paying more.

Actually, had the fare adjustment formula been applied last year, the result would have been a historical first based on the formula, as fares would have gone down across the board for everyone.

Fare formula skewed?

The fare formula has practically guaranteed fare increases in about seven out of every 10 years, because average wages and inflation have always risen every year, in excess of the productivity extraction component, except for 2009.

This is why I would again like to support Mr Cedric Foo, Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee’s (GPC) recent call for the fare formula to be reviewed now, instead of the PTC’s statement that it will only be reviewed after 2012 when the validity of the current formula ends.

Debate boxed-in by formula?

As to the PTC’s remarks that it is fairer to use nominal wage data instead of real wage data in any comparison of the transport fare hike and inflation rates against wage growth, I feel that the debate and analysis on fares, should not be confined to the way the formula has been formulated, because from the perspective of ordinary Singaporeans, should fares go up when their real wages are down?

When real wages are down, you already have less money for expenses – why increase basic necessities like public transport as well, when the combined net profits of the two operators are at record highs?

Increase fares = Lower wages?

With regard to former labour chief and minister Lim Boon Heng’s remarks that fare
increases also went towards funding pay rises for workers, and that whilst raising bus fares is unpopular – if we cannot raise bus fares, how will that impact workers as it is not fair if they cannot get wage increases, I understand that bus drivers who were typically paid a basic salary of about $1,400 in the past, now get only about $1,000.

The bottom line is that the total wage of bus drivers has generally declined over the years, despite fare increases.


Support TOC! Buy Leong Sze Hian’s book here!

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

Ho Ching’s brother was Non-Executive Chairman of New Silkroutes Group whose ex-CEO, Goh’s son, assisting in CAD investigation

It was earlier reported that the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) has already…

Singapore civil society responds to Universal Periodic Review

Note: The writer is a member of We Believe in Second Chances,…

Committee of inquiry into the cyber attack on SingHealth invites written public submissions for recommendation on better cybersecurity measures

The Committee of Inquiry (COI) invites members of the public to submit written…

人力部动用“泼马”发出更正指示 民主党驳资料参考《海峡时报》

政府第三度援引《防止网络假信息和防止网络操纵法案》(POFMA),这次是向新加坡民主党发出指示,要求更正两则脸书贴文和一则文章。不过尽管民主党已遵循指示,惟仍表示会上诉,以移除有关更正指示。 相关脸书贴文分别发布于11月30日以及12月2日,贴文分享该党官网誌期6月8日的文章,其中的图表提及本地PMET(专业人士、经理、执行人员以及技师)的失业率上升,以及外籍PMET逐步增长。 对此,人力部昨日(14日)透过《防假消息法》办事处,向该党发出要求更正指示,指内容含有不实信息。 在人力部发出的文告,则反驳本地PMET的就业率自2015年实则逐步增长;且并没有出现本地PMET裁员增加的趋势。 该部澄清,2018年本地PMET的裁员率,是自2014年以来的新低。该部也驳斥民主党试图误导国人,激发本地PMET的恐惧。“尽管经济遇到阻力,但本地PMET人数一直都增长,不论是PMET还是其他职业,裁员都未有增加趋势。” 据了解,民主党有遵循指示,在相关贴文附上更正指示,附上政府的更正事实链接: 官方管控报纸   “理应不会发假新闻” 不过,该党副主席陈两裕,则在今日发布声明,指民主党上述发表于今年6月8日的文章,也是参考自《海峡时报》3月15日的报导。 报导提及在去年(2018)被裁员新加坡人和永久居民中,PMET占了四分之三,即76巴仙,是十年来最高,比起2017年的72巴仙有所增长,远远高于PMET在常驻劳动力中的比例(57巴仙)。 民主党在声明中反驳,该党相信作为官方管控的报纸,《海峡时报》没有理由会制造有关政府的假新闻。故此,民主党也呼吁人力部理应针对此事向《海峡时报》追究。 另一方面,…