SMRT Train C151 / Photo: Wikipedia

Yesterday, a member of the public, Mr Adam Reutens-Tan, wrote to ST Forum pointing out that train operators like SMRT and SBS Transit should not be focusing on profits as public service providers (‘Train operators, as public service providers, should not be focusing on profits‘, 12 Jul).
“SMRT and SBS Transit are supposed to be providing public transportation, one of several basic public services which should always remain affordable for the masses to ensure an acceptable quality of life,” Adam wrote. “Such service providers should be seen almost as public servants because they are providing a public service.”
Adam reminded that as public service providers, the train operators should not be focusing on generating increasingly higher overall profits for themselves.
In response, Ms Geraldine Low, the Director of Land Transport Division at the Ministry of Transport, wrote in to refute Adam saying that the train operators cannot keep on sustaining losses (‘Rail operators cannot sustain large losses for long‘, 13 Jul).
She pointed out that for the financial year ending on March 31, 2018, SMRT Trains reported a loss of $86 million while SBS Transit’s Downtown Line has similarly registered losses of $125 million over the past three years. “Its (SBS Trainsit’s) train division as a whole also lost tens of millions of dollars,” she added.
“No rail operator can sustain such large losses for long, without performance degradation.”
She then brought in arguments concerning the workers’ livelihoods, “As responsible employers, they also need to ensure that their workers’ livelihoods are not affected.”
“Our common objective is to deliver a reliable and affordable MRT service for all Singaporeans,” she concluded.
What happened to the profits made in earlier years?
However, what Ms Low did not disclose was that in earlier years, SMRT was making obscene profits with the bulk passed on to Temasek Holdings as dividends especially during the years when Saw Phaik Hwa was in-charge.

For example, in every financial year from 2000 to 2015, SMRT earned an operating profit in the range of $84.2 million to $197.2 million. There was never a year in which SMRT made a loss. And from FY2001 to FY2015, SMRT paid out a total dividend sum of $1.6 billion with the bulk went to Temasek.
A report from DBS in 2012 also noted that SMRT had a dividend payout policy of at least 60% of net profit, and in some years, had paid out even more than 70% of their net profit as dividends.
In fact, Saw was so busy trying to make money for SMRT and paying out dividends to Temasek that she did not want to re-invest too much money back into rail maintenance. This was disclosed at a Committee of Inquiry (COI) convened in 2012 over lapses in SMRT while under her watch.
At the COI, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, represented by Second Solicitor-General Lionel Yee, presented data showing how SMRT’s repair maintenance budget did not change much from the financial years 2002 to 2011, amid ageing assets, increased ridership and increased train frequencies. She also let go of staff to save cost, resulting in the reduction of company’s manpower cost while boosting the bottom line.
At one point in the inquiry, a member of the COI, Prof Lim of NTU, got so frustrated with the defensiveness of Saw with regard to the ‘third rail’ sagging issue that he retorted, “You knew the risks, and you didn’t do enough. You implemented cable ties.”
In any case, Saw’s livelihood was never compromised when she was working for SMRT. In an interview after she quit SMRT, she told the media then that she owns a Can-Am Spyder motorbike, a Ferrari and a Mercedes-Benz S500. In fact, her landed property was so big that the porch of her house could house all 3 vehicles.
She justified the high salary of close to $2 million that she earned every year saying that this was decided by shareholders, which of course Temasek was the major shareholder. “Every year, the shareholders get to vote. They see my package. It’s in black and white in every annual report and they approve it. So what can I say?” she argued.
So, while it’s true that train operators can’t sustain losses for long as pointed out by the Transport Ministry, it certainly wasn’t complaining when the operators were making obscene profits from Singaporeans.
 

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

No voting NO: Burmese embassy staff contrive to disenfranchise voters

Selene Cheng Burmese national desperate to vote goes topless, but still no…

Opposition member’s wife arrested for suspected murder

She allegedly stabbed brother-in-law and slashed his wife.

鉴定登广告者身份、位置 脸书严控政治广告

为提高我国平台上的社会政治广告透明度,社交媒体巨头脸书(Facebook)今日起(26日)推出系列措施,包括任何想在脸书或Instagram上,投放与我国相关的社会、选举或政治课题的人士或组织,都需要使用护照或身份证等证件,来确认身份、所在位置,以证明他们身处国内。 脸书也要相关人士提供广告的负责人名字、组织名称、或类似广告“付费人”资料,并且附上联系方式,如电话号码、电邮地址或网站。 脸书全球选举公共政策主管凯迪·哈巴思(Katie Harbath)今天在博客中做出以上宣布。 鉴定过程需耗数周 她指出,想要刊登与某些社会问题有关联的广告,如公民和社会权利、移民、犯罪、政治价值观和政府治理方针等的人士,也需要通过有关程序。 哈巴思表示,这些课题将根据外部咨询,以及脸书内部研究发现来鉴定,通常类似课题都成为了国人在脸书上经常辩论的话题。 而广告的鉴定程序,需要花费两天到数周的时间。 设置“广告库” 脸书也会设置一个“广告库”,将具有社会政治意义的广告放置其中七年,民众也能从中了解到广告的花费,以及游览广告的人数。 同时,他们也能了解到游览者的人口统计信息,包括年龄范围、性别、位置等信息,而广告库的应用程序编程接口(API)也将供研究人员、学者、记者和公众进行有关政治性广告的学习。 哈巴思表示,当局也将在数周内推出广告库报告(Ad…

公共意识提高 国人更愿支持器官捐赠

虽然医学进步,但对某些器官衰竭病者而言,器官移植是他们生存的希望,故多年来医界一直倡议器官捐赠概念。根据国立大学附属医院大学外科部肝胆胰外科和肝移植部助理顾问顾伟杰表示,器官捐赠的公共意识逐渐提升,新加坡人比起以往更接受器官捐赠的概念。 根据《雅虎新闻》报导,平均有40-50名潜在器官捐赠者,会回应病患或家属寻求器官捐献的公开呼吁。 “然而,陌生人主动将肝脏捐出给需要的病人却仍不多见。”顾伟杰说。 国内有60巴仙的肝脏移植手术,都在国立大学附属医院大学外科部肝胆胰外科和肝移植部(NUCOT)进行。自2013年起,出现第一位“无私的肝脏移植捐赠者”。 “自此之后,我们便接获总共19个非亲属捐赠移植个案,(婚姻或血缘),他们将自己的肝脏捐赠帮助病人进行肝脏移植。”顾伟杰指出。 顾伟杰透露,他与他的团队在上月30日,为一名59岁肝脏患者Eddie Tan 进行肝脏移植手术,捐赠者来自一名36岁的同胞Lin Han Wei,两人之间是非亲属关系。 Eddie在换肝前患有严重的B性肝炎。 在肝臟移植手術前,Eddie的24岁儿子Leslie曾在脸书上,公开恳求合适的肝脏捐赠者。儿子解释,因为自己与姐姐的血型均不相容,故无法为父亲捐赠器官。消息曝光后,捐赠者Lin…