Photo taken on Monday morning

As the government imposes “Circuit Breaker” (CB) measures in Singapore in a bid to stop the spread of the corona virus, it would appear that there might be a weak link in the CB measures.

This weak link may lie in our public transportation services.

Part of the CB measures include social distancing. In a packed MRT train though, it might not really be possible to adhere to social distancing rules. It seems counterproductive for the public to report people in open spaces for not allegedly adhering to social distancing rules when everyone on public transportation may not be adhering to social distancing rules either.

Land Transport Authority (LTA) earlier announced on 14 April that it will be making alterations to its operating hours and frequency of public buses and trains in a bid “to mitigate the significant financial impact caused by the reduced riderships and help keep public transport operations financially sustainable”.

The whole point of social distancing rules is to ensure that people do not stand or sit too closely together. To that end, reduced passenger numbers on public transportation is a good thing as it could help ensure that people can commute and socially distance at the same time.

How then does LTA’s planned reduction in services help with CB measures? If Singaporeans are all told to observe CB rules, surely government bodies such as LTA should help us obey those rules?
Even though Minister of Transport, Khaw Boon Wan has acknowledged in his Facebook post on Friday about the issue on crowding of the trains. The issue of having to squeeze into the train carriages due to the reduced train frequency is still present, according to commuters.
Public buses and trains are essential services. At these perilous times, most people who are using them are not using them for fun. They are using them for essential errands or work. Many essential workers rely on such public transport. How will their safety be affected as a result of such service amendments?

Is it fair to ask them to go out and work if their means of getting to work may not enable them to effectively social distance?

Besides, to whom does the LTA owe its duty of care to? Given that the LTA is a statutory board  (paid for by the public) tasked with looking after the transportation systems, it should really be prioritising the interests of the public over the interests of transportation companies. On its website, it states that  they “are driven by the vision of a people-centric land transport network that connects communities and places”. By cutting services thereby creating more crowded trains and buses while CB rules are in place, are they being “people centric”?

As the regulator of transportation services in Singapore, the LTA is tasked with awarding contracts to various companies to manage and provide public transportation services in Singapore. Should it really be the LTA’s concern if the companies providing transportation services for the public make less money in this period?

While making sure that those providing our public transportation services remain financially sustainable is important, there is a difference between being “financially sustainable” and profit making.

Let’s take SMRT as an example. SMRT was a publicly listed transport operator in Singapore. 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 having gone to Temasek. Today, we don’t know because SMRT has been 100 per cent bought up by Temasek and it no longer publishes its annual finances since 2017.

Are these measures to reduce service a bid to ensure that SMRT still makes money? Should those dividends have been given out all those years? In effect, are current commuters being put at risk so that dividends can be paid or are past dividend payments the reason why current commuters are now put at risk?

This goes back to the very ethos of public transportation services. Are essential services meant to be profit making in the first place? Is it really LTA’s concern if companies like SMRT run at a loss temporarily?

At the end of the day, ensuring that commuters receive a safe and reliable service should be of paramount concern. Compaines like SMRT has already made a lot of money over the years. They can afford to take the hit for this period and if not, it is up to them to revise their dividend payment structures. The health of our commuters should not be sacrificed for the sake of a company’s profit margin.

As the regulator, the LTA who awards these transportation companies their multi million dollar contracts should ensure that these companies who have made money out of the nation in good times earn their keep in times of trouble!

Subscribe
Notify of
3 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

无相关法令难取缔 网上兜售野生动物部位渐增

稀有动物部位走私案屡见不鲜,但是近年来网上非法兜售行动逐渐增加,去年就发现了有将近600单有关蛇鞭、虎牙、象牙、穿山甲鳞片等买卖。 我国本月3日破获全球最大穿山甲鳞片走私案,总值可达5230万元,不到一周内,在8日又起获另一批重达12.7吨, 价值约5160万元的穿山甲鳞片。合起来,这批穿山甲鳞片共重达25.6吨。 这两起案件,也再次引起动物保护组织关注非法走私野生动物部位的议题。 世界自然基金会指出,一般走私活动主要售到中产阶级国家,有些业者也透过网络和社交媒体的方便,进行野生动物部位的非法兜售。 8视界新闻报导,关爱动物研究协会的副执行长布波指出,网上非法销售活动很难进行取缔,因为需要网购平台的合作,并且也没有制止有关行动的法令等。 国家公园局指出,海龟蛋、象牙产品和干海马一直是过去三年来,最受“欢迎”的走私野生动物。 穿山甲成捕猎量最高动物 至于最近取缔最多的走私野生动物部位,则非穿山甲鳞片莫属,因为在中医方面,穿山甲鳞片可谓用途非常广。 中医中药联合会指穿山甲鳞片可用于消炎、消肿,也可用于治疗铁打损伤、生疮和妇女乳汁不通等疾病。所以采用中药的国家,如越南、中国,对穿山甲需求量就非常大。 世界自然基金会指出,现在全世界平均每五分钟就有一只穿山甲被捕,是世界非法捕猎数量最高的野生动物,而且捕猎活动在亚洲和非洲都有越来越猖狂的趋势。 我国是濒危物种国际贸易公约的签署国之一,进出口和买卖受保护野生动物及其相关产品的活动都将会被对付。一旦罪名成立,罪犯可被罚款最高不超过50万元,或者最久不超过两年的监禁,或者两者兼施。

新国知名网红 为剽窃照片道歉

知名网红摄影师Daryl Aiden Yow,承认盗窃网络图库照片假冒个人作品,并在其个人IG账号发贴文为其行为道歉。 “针对我的不满是合理的,我承担所有责任,”这名来自新加坡的26岁网红说,“我不应剽窃他人作品,也不应误导我的粉丝和欣赏我作品的人。我以摄影师行销自己,但是却让对我有期待、愿意相信我的人失望。” https://www.instagram.com/p/BkRzpS_HV-1/?taken-by=darylaiden Daryl的IG拥有超过10万的粉丝群,也与索尼、欧派和优衣库等知名品牌合作。目前,Daryl已删除其个人专页的摄影作品,只留下道歉声明。 网络媒体“慈母舰”早前揭发,Daryl的摄影作品与源自Shutterstock、CanStockPhoto和Unsplash网站的图库照片相似,一些照片在颜色和构图经过修改,怀疑后者有剽窃嫌疑。 基于Daryl是具有影响力的网红,粉丝皆是仰慕其精美摄影作品而来,而且Daryl透过代言和摄影工作盈利,在事件爆发后,令一众粉丝无法接受,感到受欺骗。 图为其中一幅被网民抓包造假的图片,来自图库CanStock。 去年7月,Daryl还曾接受《精明在地人》专访,文中描述Daryl:善于拍摄引人入胜照片,是富有经验的旅行者,从严寒的冰岛到酷热的印度,都有他的足迹。 索尼公司在得知此事后,对外表示“感到震惊和失望”,指该公司鼓励文艺原创,但是不会容许剽窃行为,并严正看待此事。 索尼公司把知名网红的作品上载到公司官方专页,作为行销旗下相机的手段。Daryl在一些帖文中,也自居“索尼的创意伙伴”。…

Artsolute founder Terence Tan explains struggles faced by the creative scene in S’pore

Since the report of the survey regarding essential workers was published on…

PM not acknowledging SG is exchanging one form of fairness for another form on HDB issue

by Chris Kuan National Day Rally navel gazing on housing policy. Yours…