Should we try to organise a boycott of DELGRO COMFORT?
-
oh c'mon...ur not even answering to my question. since u r playing hide and seek, well, both can play this "game."Originally posted by ShutterBug:You being eloquent and all, tell me; since WHEN did our gov EVER allowed ANYONE to try and improve on anything that was implemented by them????
WHEN?????
I'm of the older generation, and less likely want to waste my time correcting or even trying to provide any solutions for them since they are paid TOP SALARIES to come up with solutions themselves!!!!
The new and younger generations with tertiary educations, WILL and ARE begining to voice the opinion with regards the Dictatorship style governance!
your time has not pass and since u are still living (if in singapore), you can TRY to make a DIFFERENCE, IF you EVEN TRY at all.
let's put it this way, if you are of the older generation and have seen the past more than the younger ones, and yet still "disillusional" abt singapore's future and whimpering and whinning of what's so n so, then i wonder how much more can a younger generation who has not seen much of singapore's past to really want to work things out in singapore...much more to live here.
put it this way, what are the younger generation in singapore realising as of now? ask them to help out being a volunteer is so difficult and so on...GIVE SOLUTIONS not ADD ON to the PROBLEMS. -
You haven't answered mine either.Originally posted by tiggersgd:oh c'mon...ur not even answering to my question. since u r playing hide and seek, well, both can play this "game."
your time has not pass and since u are still living (if in singapore), you can TRY to make a DIFFERENCE, IF you EVEN TRY at all.
let's put it this way, if you are of the older generation and have seen the past more than the younger ones, and yet still "disillusional" abt singapore's future and whimpering and whinning of what's so n so, then i wonder how much more can a younger generation who has not seen much of singapore's past to really want to work things out in singapore...much more to live here.
put it this way, what are the younger generation in singapore realising as of now? ask them to help out being a volunteer is so difficult and so on...GIVE SOLUTIONS not ADD ON to the PROBLEMS.
WHEN??? -
well, can urs ahem still function? perhaps u need to understand English of the younger generation as well...Originally posted by ShutterBug:You probably can't read and understand English very well.
BTW, For you information, I don't have children. And I don't intend to bring a another soul into this World Machine of PAP and watch them become moulded into zombies like you!
dun let pple call u old fart b4 u even know it.
-
y should i BOTHER abt ur kind of question when all u can do is to whine non-stop?Originally posted by ShutterBug:You haven't answered mine either.
WHEN???
grow up old man. -
Answer it: WHEN????Originally posted by tiggersgd:well, can urs ahem still function? perhaps u need to understand English of the younger generation as well...
dun let pple call u old fart b4 u even know it. -
I ignore all your insults.Originally posted by tiggersgd:y should i BOTHER abt ur kind of question when all u can do is to whine non-stop?
grow up old man.
Just answer it!!!
WHEN???
Smart a-holles like you should be able to answer it. -
Friggin motherless child.
Act like a squid squirting black ink all over forum when I pulled one his tentacles! -
thanks for ur reply old fart.Originally posted by ShutterBug:I ignore all your insults.
Just answer it!!!
WHEN???
Smart a-holles like you should be able to answer it.
anyway, seems like ur not using ur @ss hole in the right manner...what should come out from below, came out from the top instead....how gross...just like ur personality...
one note: rewrite ur signature if u can...its "hilarious!"
edit: typo error
-
it shows how much a person u are to even talk about mothers. go ahead...ur destroying and have destroyed ur own image.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Friggin motherless child.
Act like a squid squirting black ink all over forum when I pulled one his tentacles!
thanks for ur comments -
Should we try to organise a boycott of DELGRO COMFORT?
how to do it?? -
Hopefully the spat between tiggersgd and shutterbug has quieten down, perhaps we could revisit this thread again : "should we try to organise a boycott of DELGRO COMFORT ? "
Is DELGRO COMFORT the only taxi company to be boycotted, as all other taxi companies have also decided to increase fares as well ?
To understand this fare increases, perhaps we should understand the nature of the Singapore Public Transport system from The Kway Teow Man's blog :
The KwayTeowMan - On the issue of Public Transportation - 2005
I read Molly's latest blog about the Singapore tranportation system and was inspired to pen my own ideas on this matter. I've had some of these thoughts for quite a while, but never found time to put them in words, till now.
My view is that the problems with service standards and waiting times are somewhat superficial. I believe that the main problem with the current transportation system is a structural one.
The transportation system is a natural monopoly. There is little question about that. I was quite shocked when the Government announced that it was going to let SBS manage the Northeast Line to introduce competition. I was not impressed.
Anyhow, there are classes on the regulation of natural monopolies that people can take in school and I did take one many years ago while I was in college. I can recall precious little other than (i) natural monopolies need to be regulated and (ii) they are notoriously hard to regulate correctly.
I believe that the current model of regulation in Singapore is the wrong one. My proposal is for all transportation services (MRT, buses and taxis) to be nationalized and once again return to centralized Government control. I know that this sounds crazy in view that other developing countries are currently trying to privatize their transportation services, but I shall attempt to justify my proposal below.
To begin, let us examine the pros and cons of the current system. Currently LTA is the overall regulator of transportation services and the actual services are provided by publicly listed companies, i.e. SBS, SMRT, NTUC Comfort, etc.
I must admit that I don't have a very good understanding of exactly how LTA relates to the transportation companies, so I will speak in relatively general terms.
The regulation of the subway system and the taxis is relatively straightforward. For the former, there's a fixed route, so all that LTA can probably do is to impose service standard requirements and fine the subway operators if standards are not met; similarly, it controls the number of taxi licences that are issued to the taxi companies and imposes some service standards like maximum accident rates per unit time, etc.
The regulation of bus routes is a significantly more complicated process 'cos left to their own devices and allowed to choose their own routes, bus companies will cherry-pick and only ply profitable ones.
Since universal connectivity is key, LTA must somehow force bus companies to also take on unprofitable, but essential routes so that people living in less populated areas are still served by buses. If indeed there is competition among several bus companies, what LTA can do it is to auction out the bus routes. Profitable routes get positive bids, while non-profitable routes get negative bids (i.e. the bus regulator will actually pay a bus company to service these routes). The economics of this regulation model is well understood. Since SBS is the only main player in Singapore, I'm really not sure exactly how it works in Singapore.
One of the key innovations in Singapore is the Public Transport Council (PTC). One would imagine that as regulator, the LTA would be the authority in charge of figuring out who much the transportation companies should be allowed to charge, but no, in Singapore, we do it differently.
In my opinion, the PTC is great because it allows the Government to distance itself from the unpopular decision of allowing the transportation companies to raise fares. The rationale is that the PTC is not Government-controlled and so is therefore fair in representing the people's interests. I believe that the PTC has been somewhat successful in its role, though I'm not sure for how long more. [Footnote: the counterpart to the PTC that deals with year-end bonuses and wage increases is called the National Wage Council (NWC).]
So, what's wrong with the current system. Honestly, nothing really wrong. The problem is not with the system, but with the underlying economic model.
The Government seems to be of the opinion that it does not wish to subsize transportation (operational) costs and that the users should pay for it. To be fair, it does provide the capital investments, i.e. for building the MRT line, and it does not seek to recoup that (since it's not feasible anyhow).
This principle by itself is not particularly problematic, but the fact that the underlying transport companies are publicly-listed is in my opinion, A BIG problem. As publicly-listed companies, they are obliged to generate profits for their shareholders. This means that the current fares paid by the commuters will include a mark-up.
Economically, this is a fair arrangement, but my contention is that from the national perspective, it is perhaps not the optimal arrangement.
The issue is that transportation system cannot be considered separately from the rest of the economy, without taking into account social implications.
The problem with transportation is that it is a necessity. People don't really have a choice whether to take the bus or the MRT. If they need to get to work, they need to get to work; if they need to get to school, they need to take the bus. Yeah, Singapore is small, but walking is seriously not in general an option. -
continuation
By allowing transportation costs to be higher than the bare minimum required for sustainence (because of the need to generate at least some profits), we are raising the basic cost of living, which thereby generates inflation.
With the serious structural employment that the national is presently facing, the lower-income groups are getting squeezed by the increases in the costs of living. Of course, the Government maintains that it helps these people out by giving transport vouchers, but I'm not moved. I believe that it is more sound to attempt to contain basic costs like transportation, and even GST.
Perhaps I digress, but I have not intrinsic objections to a consumption-based tax like GST. I do however feel that daily necessities like food should be exempt from GST so as not to push up the overall costs of living. I believe that by not containing the costs of living, it will hurt our competitiveness and squeeze the lower-income folks even more in the long run.
Finally, to put the nail in the coffin, the existing companies are pretty inept. The people are complaining about lousy services all the time and TransitLink still cannot iron out the bugs in the EzLink system after God knows how long. I'm not certain that we are really seeing the benefits of privatisation anyhow.
So what's my proposal? I say we nationalize the bus and subway and make SBS and SMRT Stat Boards again. Get rid of the current taxi companies and issue taxi licenses to the individual taxi drivers again. The PTC can stay if Mr Gerald Ee would like to take the heat on behalf of the Government, but it's not altogether too important.
The advantage of this arrangement is that the Government does have $200 million in net profits as a buffer at this point and can afford to hold out with no urgent need to increase fares for perhaps another election, after the coming one.
Who's going to pay to nationalize these companies? Taxpayers of course, but it's probably not going to cost too much since Temasek already has majority stakes in them if I'm not wrong.
Without the transport companies crying out for profits, it's going to take some political pressure off having to raise fares. Eventually, inflation will catch up; but my view is that the right thing is probably to increase subsidies to keep transportation costs low, cutting frills like air-conditioned bus interchanges if necessary.
The taxi situation is actually very interesting. A long time ago, the individual taxi drivers are allowed to hold their own licences and own their own taxis.
LTA decided stopped issuing licences to individual drivers and only to taxi companies for good reasons: (i) it doesn't cost them a cent; and more importantly (ii) it allows them to do less work. It is really a form of outsourcing, though it's not immediately obvious to the casual user.
What's LTA outsourcing? It's really outsourcing it's regulatory function. In the past, when there are complaints against taxi-drivers, LTA would have to do work, investigate and perhaps revoke licences. Now, if there are any problems, LTA just slaps the taxi company. It's all so convenient, saves LTA a lot of work and doesn't cost an extra cent.
Chua Mui Hoong once wrote a commentary on the social costs of outsourcing which the reader may wish to check out (it was published in early-November 2005, but I can't seem to find it online anymore). The point is this: outsourcing is not free, someone is paying for it, and it's not LTA.
Economically what's going on is that the taxi company has inserted itself as a layer between LTA and the taxi-drivers and they are extracting rent from the system. It is definitely a profitable position since there are so many new taxi companies in recent times.
It's actually quite clear if we do some simple calculations. Taxi drivers currently pay $90 a day to rent a taxi. Suppose you have a lazy driver who only works 20 days a month, how much does he pay in rental a year? $90 x 20 x 12 = $21,600.
Under existing regulations, a taxi can not be more than 10 years old, which means that if a taxi driver owns his taxi, he has to buy a new one every 10 years. Okay, how much does a taxi driver pay to the taxi company in rental fees in 10 years? $21,600 x 10 = $216,000. Remember that we're talking about a lazy taxi driver and not one who does two shifts a day and works every day. I will not say more and let these figures speak for themselves.
Am I suggesting that we ban the taxi companies? No. The taxi companies do provide some services like phone-in booking (though if you read some recent Forum letters, you will find that some might argue that it's more a disservice than a service).
What I'm suggesting is that the taxi-companies should not be allowed operate an oligopoly and extract rent from the system in such a way that the persons paying the rent have no choice or recourse.
You can just leave the existing companies alone, but allow individual taxi drivers to bid for their own licences. If the existing companies add value and charge fairly for the value, some drivers will stick with the companies. If the taxi companies don't add value, they are not going to find any drivers and will go out of business by themselves.
This, I tell you, is real competition and really putting the market to the test. *sigh* I sometimes wonder where the bureaucrats learn their economics from.
Of course, to revert to the old system will incur costs for LTA and make LTA do more work. Maybe, but if by doing more work, the Government can make lives better for some of the poor taxi drivers who are not getting enough sleep every day, I think it's fair. Of course, these are my values and I have no wish to impose it on anyone else.
Wow, I'm actually surprised that I have so much to say about something that has been beaten to death already. Even if you're not tired from reading this blog, I am tired writing it and I think I will stop here. :-)
Perhaps if I have more to say, I will write an addendum later. I think it's enough for now. As usual, my kway teow is calling.
After reading this blog, it will seem that Taxi Companies are not the problem.
It is a problem created by the Profit Oriented objectives of Big Government motivated by Revenue, and More Revenue - rather than service to the Public.
Is it any surprise that prior to the arrival of two new taxi companies in 2005, all taxi companies were owned and operated by GLCs ?
It is a lucrative business, as taxi drivers are not salaried by the companies, no CPF is payable by the companies, and yet each taxi driver will generate a rate of return better than any other form of investments over a ten year period.
Will taxi drivers benefit from this round of fare increases, or will it be used to pay for the future fuel price increases - which will ultimately benefit Comfort-Delgro being the largest fuel supplier to all taxi vehicles ? -
The increase in fares is extremely unacceptable.. too much to swallow.
BOYCOTT! -
Boycott? Go buy a bicycle instead then
Your can continue to write long strories why it's always the ruling govt's fault... When no one bothers to boycott the oil cartels for their massive profit record...
If your are that smart, your go and run SBS, even dun say make profit, I see how are your going to make it break even at least... Unless your follow HK, take 1 bus stop or 10 bus stop or 20 bus stop all flat fare -
if we could keep to topic proper, it will die down...
anyway, Atobe pls post the blog link to your cut and paste so that people can verify the truthfulness to the above mentioned.
thanks. -
It was given in my post (first half) and you can click on the following - which is copied again for your benefit :Originally posted by tiggersgd:if we could keep to topic proper, it will die down...
anyway, Atobe pls post the blog link to your cut and paste so that people can verify the truthfulness to the above mentioned.
thanks.
The Kway Teow Man's blog -
Originally posted by Atobe:
thank you...my bad.
It was given in my post (first hald) and you can click on the following - which is copied again for your benefit :
[b]The Kway Teow Man's blog :[/color]
[quote][color=blue]
The KwayTeowMan - On the issue of Public Transportation - 2005
[/b]
-
shutterbug, either you talk in a nice civil manner, or we boot you out in a nice civil manner.
-
only one taxi company not involved in the fare hike right?
-
How was I, "un-civil"?Originally posted by CenturionMBT:shutterbug, either you talk in a nice civil manner, or we boot you out in a nice civil manner. -
You mean, this is "nice" and "civil"??Originally posted by CenturionMBT:shutterbug, either you talk in a nice civil manner, or we boot you out in a nice civil manner.
=============================
tiggersgd
Senior Member
Joined: 02 Sep 2002
Posts: 2302
Send Message 09 July 2006 · 10:18 PM
anyway, i guess this speaker's corner with somebody in here will always be a punching pad (PAP or related).
no point arguing something that u dun work to improve but only to "whine n whimper" in here.
anyway, thanks to all who replied me. i'm only offering what i know and can disclose.
cheers! -
pls identify what is not nice and civil about my reply above?Originally posted by ShutterBug:You mean, this is "nice" and "civil"??
=============================
tiggersgd
Senior Member
Joined: 02 Sep 2002
Posts: 2302
Send Message 09 July 2006 · 10:18 PM
anyway, i guess this speaker's corner with somebody in here will always be a punching pad (PAP or related).
no point arguing something that u dun work to improve but only to "whine n whimper" in here.
anyway, thanks to all who replied me. i'm only offering what i know and can disclose.
cheers! -
so is this civil? is it even nice?Originally posted by ShutterBug:Dumb ass, where's the "next Big Tree"? -
cut it out. Or this topic will cease to exist.
-
Yes, only one SMART taxi company decided not to increase fares - and hope to takeover all the business from all the other taxis that will go empty with their fixed up meters.Originally posted by dragg:only one taxi company not involved in the fare hike right?
This is a Private Taxi Company owned by one smart Indonesian entrepreneur owner.