Public Transport Council
Public Transport Council
By Andrew Loh
While its approval of the public transport operators’ (PTO) application to hike fares may draw criticisms, it is the Public Transport Council’s (PTC) inability to convince the public of the reason for the hike that is erasing the credibility of the 16-member council.
The operators had submitted their applications on 19 December 2013.
They were approved on 16 January 2014, less than a month later.
The PTC’s thumbs up for the 3.2 per cent hike in public transport fares, and coupled with a slew of concessions for various groups of people, was praised by the Transport Minister for having “struck a good balance” in its decision.
The PTC had also apparently sought to assuage the expected public backlash by not approving the full 6.6 per cent rise in fares which the PTOs had applied for.
However, the public backlash was more pronounced than perhaps the PTC had expected, with many members of the public flooding the Transport Minister’s Facebook page with more than 860 comments since the announcement was made on 16 January. [See here.] The majority of the comments, like those elsewhere on theInternet, expressed how commuters were aghast that despite the frequent breakdowns and lapses in service, and the healthy profits that the PTOs continue to make along with generous billion-dollar government handouts, the PTC had still allowed the fare hike.
cd2012
In response to the widespread unhappiness which, incidentally, mostly went unreported and ignored by the local mainstream media, the PTC tried to explain its decision and to address the criticisms.
On 21 January, 5 days after the hike was announced, the PTC said that the “fare hike and breakdowns are separate issues”.
fare hike
Chairman of the PTC, Gerard Ee, was reported to have said that while the operators are still profitable, “their finances would need to be healthy to maintain service reliability.”
Yet, at the same time, Mr Ee insists that the “fare hike and breakdowns are separate issues.” Some commentators have found this puzzling, given that the fare hike apparently is to sustain the profitability of the PTOs, which then would enable them to improve or “maintain service reliability” – as Mr Ee himself said: “… their finances would need to be healthy to maintain service reliability.”
Indeed, entrepreneur Nanz Chong-Komo, the founder of the ONE.99shop chain in 1997, took a dig at Mr Ee’s gaffe.
In a Facebook post, Ms Chong-Komo said:

“Someone has difficulty understanding the close relationship between consumer satisfaction, quality execution & price strategy in business. I am not “For or against” fare hike in this context but to say “separate issues” is not align with my understanding of practical business principle.”
Nanz Chong

It is quite clear that ComfortDelgro, the parent company of SBS Transit, and SMRT are both profitable and have, generally, always been so.
cdprofit
What is not profitable is a component of their overall business – the bus operations.
Indeed, in a report on TODAY on 17 January, it said that the bulk of the profits from the fare hike – which will total some S$53m – will go to fund the “financially ailing” bus operations.
“Bus operations will receive a S$48 million boost from the hike, while S$5.5 million will be allocated to MRT operations, under a new weightage in revenue allocation applied by the PTC,” the newspaper revealed.
today hike
In a report on 11 January 2013, the Straits Times reported that all of the various business aspects of the PTOs – except the bus operations – are profitable. [See here.] “As a group, there is no doubt the companies are profitable,” the paper said. But their bus operations “are certainly loss-making.”

“SBS Transit, which runs about 70 per cent of the bus routes, ended its last financial year at $6 million in the red for its Singapore core bus operations. This excludes revenue from advertising.
“SMRT fared worse.
“It had an operating loss of $11.6 million for its local bus operations at the end of its last financial year.”

The argument from the PTOs is that the public should not confuse the companies with the individual component parts, and that the public should see each one separately.
However, as the Straits Times reported:

“National University of Singapore’s transport economist Anthony Chin points out that it is not possible to separate bus operations from the group’s overall operations.
“Bus operations are meant to feed into the train system which forms the backbone of Singapore’s transport network. They are not intended to be profitable on their own, he said.”

The PTC (and the government, for that matter) seems to see it differently from Mr Chin. The Council’s view seems to be that each part of the business must be profitable, or self-sustaining, in and of itself.
This is quite clear from its approval of the fare hike and decreeing to the PTOs that the bulk of the profits from it must go to the bus operations. It is also for the same reason, apparently, that the government last year gave the PTOs a S$1.1 billion handout to help them purchase hundreds more buses as part of the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP) – and also to help fund their operations for the next 10 years.
CNA BSEP
What all these say is that whenever any part of the PTOs’ business is not profitable, the commuting public will be asked to prop it up, through fare hikes.
This is, perhaps, what riles the public most as it is seen to be an issue of greed more than anything else. The public becomes the easy target.
What the PTC should be looking at is why the bus operations themselves are bleeding red – and what really the problem is. Is it a simple case of higher fuel or manpower costs? Or is it bad or incompetent management?
To always turn to commuters to bail out, as it were, the PTOs is not the solution.
For then there will be no incentive for the PTOs to do better, and resolve the problem at the root.
In the meantime, the PTC should, if it doesn’t want to lose credibility, stand firmly on the side of commuters and – more importantly – be able to explain convincingly its reasons for any hikes.
Fare hikes and breakdowns are, in fact, not separate issues.
Why should commuters continue to pay higher fares for bad service?

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

【选举】乔立盟准备就绪 “选民的声音不应被当权者淹没”

人民党主席乔立盟(Jose Raymond)表示自己已准备好面对此次大选。 乔立盟也表示,自己与团队持续在波东巴西(Potong Pasir)深耕三年,因此带着无比期待的心情,在波东巴西竞选。 “就我们在波东巴西的服务而言,服务工作始于三年前,我们带着无比期待的心,在这与我们心连心的地方竞选。” 总统哈莉玛在上周二(23日)也正式宣布解散国会,并订下月10日将进行投票。而乔立盟紧随其后,连续发文表示对选举摒息期待,会在此次的竞选之战全力以赴。 他也指出此次选举的重要性,可以摆脱陈腐政策和思想的时候,呼吁人民思考未来的生活方式,并确保自己的声音能够被听见,不被权力所淹没。 “选举是为了确保你的声音能够被听到,并永远不会被掌权者的权力而淹没”。他也指,“选举就是关乎你的生活大事,你想生活在什么样的环境,想要在什么样的社会长大,想要为下一代留下什么样的新加坡。” 人民党日前宣布将由乔立盟出战波东巴西与碧山-大巴窑集选区的准候选人。另外,该党秘书长谢镜丰领导的四人团队,将出征碧山-大巴窑集选区。其他三名成员包括邱永豪、欧斯曼(Osman Sulaiman)和41岁的副主席Williamson Lee。

Saddest statistic ever: 200,000 families helped?

Leong Sze Hian / I have analysed hundreds of statistics over the…

Rise, ERP! Collapse, the Singapore dream!

Choo Zheng Xi says the govt is pricing S’poreans off the road.

ESM Goh will run in elections, warns against falling back from First to Third World

Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong confirmed on Friday that he will…