25 Apr, 06:08PM in sunny Singapore!

Fare increases needed to improve service to commuters: Lui

Subscribe to Fare increases needed to improve service to commuters: Lui 316 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • Clivebenss's Avatar
    20,592 posts since Feb '10
    • Posted: 13 December 2012 1648 hrs

      SINGAPORE: Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew has said fare increases are needed to improve service to commuters while keeping public transport operations commercially viable.

      In a Facebook post, Mr Lui said fare increases are not to boost the short-term profits of Public Transport Operators (PTOs) or improve the salaries of bus drivers.

      He said that's why the government must work with the PTOs to ensure that when granted any fare increase, they would re-invest part of this revenue to improve the public transport system to benefit commuters.

      This can be in hardware, like more buses and trains and upgrading the signalling systems.

      It can also be in software, like better terms and salaries for staff. This includes bus drivers and train operators, as well as the maintenance and service personnel.

      Mr Lui said as fares increase, the government will have to play a larger role to keep the public transport system affordable.

      He said there must be a concerted and sustained effort to upgrade the bus driving profession.

      Employment terms and conditions must also be improved further to recruit new drivers and retain existing ones in order to ramp up bus capacity over the next few years.

      On who pays for the increased costs, Mr Lui said there must be a proper balance among commuters in fares, or taxpayers in government subsidies, or the PTOs.

      He said the government is fully committed to an affordable public transport system for the middle-income groups, the lower-income groups, the disabled community, and other vulnerable groups.

      He said the bottom line is this. It is a matter of all the stakeholders - the PTOs, the government, and commuters - coming together to ensure everyone enjoys a reliable, high-quality and affordable public transport system.

      - CNA/de

  • ^Acid^ aka s|aO^eH~'s Avatar
    31,272 posts since Oct '02
    • Mr Lui...

      U are lui, We bo lui... why must we pay and pay when Auntie Saw gave away too much dividend and didn't plan for mantainance, repairs and renewal? Is she so rich from young that no one taught her how to save up and plan?

       

      Why must we bear the weight of auntie saw's mistake?

       

  • SBS9252G's Avatar
    399 posts since Dec '11
  • Tcsaaa's Avatar
    1,517 posts since Jan '11
    • rubbish, can come up with more "sincere" lies? 1st class minister u know, not 2nd or third class..but hard la.. i know.. almost all used up..

  • the Bear's Avatar
    149,694 posts since Feb '01
    • knn, the past fare increases didn't improve anything other than the profit margin..

      TUCK YEW UNDERSTAND!!

      improve the fucking service first!

  • Clivebenss's Avatar
    20,592 posts since Feb '10
  • Medicated Oil's Avatar
    4,878 posts since Dec '03
    • The reason for the last few fare increases was:

      - Long time never increase fare.

      - Improve service standard.

      - Gradual increase than a HUGE increase.

      I would like Mr Lui to check with the communters whether there was any improvement in the service after the last fare increase.

      Or else please do not re-cycle the same reason without any improvement for fare increase.

      It is just another lame excuse for more profit.

      If you fooled us once, you cannot fooled us another time especially when the breakdown is not resolved yet.

  • Mr Milo's Avatar
    19,234 posts since Oct '09
    •  

      Make them take the public transport everyday for 1 month

      let them understand our pain, our agony

      we do not see any valid reason to keep paying more

      Lastly, why must we bear the cost while the rich get to keep their dividend?

      This is similar to the financial crisis unfolding in Europe.

      Why are the rich getting to keep what they have earned while we the lower end have to pay the cost of the bailout?

      It is just fucking illogical

  • GHoST_18's Avatar
    24,209 posts since Jun '03
  • Mr Milo's Avatar
    19,234 posts since Oct '09
  • troublemaker2005's Avatar
    8,443 posts since Dec '05
    • comon how many times we have to listen to bulshit like improve service? i dont need loud TVs  and porshce desgins at MRT stations. why you never ask me go ahead to install them? they run on electricity, maintence costs and the initial procurement price is alrming already? is this the anyhow buy srvice we dont need you tokin about?

       

      we want the service pople and security to move those cheena and idiots our of the entrance / exit  gantry whenever a train arrive and let our commuters. i dont see this rule enforced and the people doing their jobs! those banglas and cheena and idiots keep stading right in front of the gantry and block my fukcing way. this is common sense service minimum we expect.

       

      i think i can do a better minister job. pleas esgreans these are the peopl you voted during GE2011. GE2016 dont make the same mistake again. those talk shows are gimicks. the snakehead has to go, GE2016 is the decisive battle ground!

  • ^Acid^ aka s|aO^eH~'s Avatar
    31,272 posts since Oct '02
  • SevenEleven's Avatar
    7,462 posts since Aug '05
  • ^Acid^ aka s|aO^eH~'s Avatar
    31,272 posts since Oct '02
  • fudgester's Avatar
    25,382 posts since Jan '04
    • If the bus companies are incurring losses or are barely breaking even, I can still get it.... a little extra revenue will go a long way towards improving service quality.

      But in the face of large profits, this argument goes down the drain.

      Ah, never mind. Tuck Yew, understand?

  • 1888's Avatar
    111 posts since Mar '12
  • SBS2601D's Avatar
    8,468 posts since Apr '05
    • Originally posted by fudgester:

      If the bus companies are incurring losses or are barely breaking even, I can still get it.... a little extra revenue will go a long way towards improving service quality.

      But in the face of large profits, this argument goes down the drain.

      Ah, never mind. Tuck Yew, understand?

      Actually fact:

      1. SMRTB has never been earning money. The bus division has been losing money every year since I dunno when. But SMRT as the umbrella organisation makes a huge profit from other sources that the Saw established. Eg. The commercial train spaces.

      2. But that's no excuse for increasing bus fares. Because SBST has shown that the bus division need not lose money. For the record, SBST as the umbrella organisation made 30+M last year. Still a fair bit, but no where as huge amount as SMRT, which was 9 digit!

      3. The MOT is talking about "commercial viability" in the face of subsidising. That leaves a huge grey area as to what should be needed to be done. I would rather that we screw the notion of "competition" and go for a single operator that can take advantage of scale economics.

  • ^Acid^ aka s|aO^eH~'s Avatar
    31,272 posts since Oct '02
    • Originally posted by SBS2601D:

      Actually fact:

      1. SMRTB has never been earning money. The bus division has been losing money every year since I dunno when. But SMRT as the umbrella organisation makes a huge profit from other sources that the Saw established. Eg. The commercial train spaces.

      2. But that's no excuse for increasing bus fares. Because SBST has shown that the bus division need not lose money. For the record, SBST as the umbrella organisation made 30+M last year. Still a fair bit, but no where as huge amount as SMRT, which was 9 digit!

      3. The MOT is talking about "commercial viability" in the face of subsidising. That leaves a huge grey area as to what should be needed to be done. I would rather that we screw the notion of "competition" and go for a single operator that can take advantage of scale economics.


      there is no competition when it is clear cut that SMRT does train and SBST does buses... they could have train and bus services but there is no competition...

       

      Besides, the reason why their profit isn't high is becoz of the insane dividend they are giving out... they dun even save up for things like mantainance, renewal and repairs... When problem comes then they say no money... wtf?

  • SBS2601D's Avatar
    8,468 posts since Apr '05
    • Actually the dividend came from the profits...

      The real root of the problem comes from running a public service with private means...it just doesn't cut it.

  • ^Acid^ aka s|aO^eH~'s Avatar
    31,272 posts since Oct '02
    • Originally posted by SBS2601D:

      Actually the dividend came from the profits...

      The real root of the problem comes from running a public service with private means...it just doesn't cut it.


      Yes, dividend came from the profit, but they set a rather high % of the profit for dividend...

       

  • the Bear's Avatar
    149,694 posts since Feb '01
    • the profits came from the rental of commercial space..

      the commercial space was built on the train stations

      taxpayer money built the train stations right?

      isn't it right then that the taxpayer should have a huge cut of the profits?

  • SevenEleven's Avatar
    7,462 posts since Aug '05
    • Originally posted by the Bear:

      the profits came from the rental of commercial space..

      the commercial space was built on the train stations

      taxpayer money built the train stations right?

      isn't it right then that the taxpayer should have a huge cut of the profits?


      And the dividend payout was 60% annually. Tuck Yew!!!

  • Kuali Baba's Avatar
    24,118 posts since Nov '03
    • How screwed up must a company be to pay its lowest employees pathetic wages and house them in cramped quarters, have infrastructure and vehicles paid for using Ah Gong's money and still need to be rationalised by other operations?

  • SBS2601D's Avatar
    8,468 posts since Apr '05
    • Originally posted by the Bear:

      the profits came from the rental of commercial space..

      the commercial space was built on the train stations

      taxpayer money built the train stations right?

      isn't it right then that the taxpayer should have a huge cut of the profits?

      wouldn't it make more sense then if commuters were shareholders by default, rather than standard business practice?

  • Kuali Baba's Avatar
    24,118 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by SBS2601D:

      wouldn't it make more sense then if commuters were shareholders by default, rather than standard business practice?

      I wouldn't mind if the dividend was credited back into our fare cards.

Please Login or Signup to reply.