Tag: Fare increments

Short Takes (Dec 10th ~ Dec 15th, 2012)

Leave a comment

It has been a rather exciting week, and in fact, an exciting December when it is usually a quiet month because most people are away on vacation and pretty much nothing happens. So here’s a (not so) short take on what’s transpired in the last few days.

Let me be clear. The purpose of fare increases is not to boost the short term profits of PTOs. It is also not just to improve salaries of bus drivers but to improve service to commuters while keeping public transport operations commercially viable. This is why we must work with the PTOs to ensure that when granted any fare increase, they would re-invest part of this revenue to improve the PT system to benefit commuters. This can be in “hardware”, like more buses and trains and upgrading the signalling systems. It can be in “software”, like better terms and salaries for staff. That includes bus drivers and train operators, as well as the maintenance and service personnel who work tirelessly day and night to deliver a safe and reliable public transport service.

– Lui Tuck Yew on Facebook, 13 Dec 2012

~ * ~

“The costs of improving the reliability of the train network will not be passed on to commuters, Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew promised yesterday, as he addressed MPs’ concerns over this issue.”

– Lui Tuck Yewk, 11 Jul 2012

Transport Fares – Revisited

Lui Tuck Yew should simply just shut up and sit down. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to insist that commuters should face endless fare increments when the Public Transport Operators [PTO] have already received S$1.1 billion (that’s S$1,100,000,000 for those who loved to see the zeros) in handouts, have been making healthy profits all these years with not only no visible improvements so far but having suffered several moderate to major breakdowns over the past few years. All the more so, when he insists on that in the wake of the SMRT’s own failure to handle its own human resource problems.

There is no such thing as the costs being is paid for by the commuters, taxpayers in the form of government subsidies or PTOs. The government likes to make everything look like a 3-party relationship to portray the image of perfection when none of that really ever exists. Be it commuters or taxpayers, they are still the people. In other words it’s either paid by the PTO or the people. When the people has paid so much and has always been paying either in the form of the Bus Services Enhancement Program [BSEP] and never ending fare increments, it is high time for the operators to take up some of that slack!

Can the minister really tell us that the operators have not been commercially viable in view of their ever increasing profits? Don’t tell me that the cost to operate or fuel prices whatever have gone up 30% while fares did not catch up as much. It is clear in spite of that PTOs are clearly not only capable in managing those costs, but even turn a profit. Can the minister really say service have improved after the previous fare increments? If service has really improved at all, why had it turned into a hot issue during the 2011 General Elections and as a result the BSEP has to be introduced? As for reinvesting part of their profits, the question would be why haven’t they done so after the previous fare increments? Why did the PRC drivers go on strike if the terms and salaries for staff have been constantly improving? It would appear to me that this matter didn’t just boil over in a short period, but that the grievances of those drivers haven’t been addressed for a long time.

What exactly happened to all those profits accumulated in the past? Since Lui actually mentioned signalling systems, the fact of the matter is, SMRT has mentioned that this was why train frequencies cannot be increased even before the major breakdown in December 2011. What the hell took the SMRT so long to decide to upgrade it? By the way, isn’t upgrading the signalling systems part of improving the reliability of the train network? If so, did the minister forget that he said a few months ago that it will not be passed to commuters? Or did we again misunderstand the minister as we all too often misunderstood his other colleagues as well?

Seriously, the Prime Minister should consider sending some of these ministers to communication skills classes. Alternatively, try to explain and talk about things in a way that even a Primary 5 student can understand. That way it leaves no room for misunderstanding.

~ * ~

Equal remuneration for all in the same jobs?

Can you imagine that this Lim Swee Say person is actually ministerial material and considered to the some of the most capable people in this country? The way he put it is wrong in at least two levels. First of all, going by his logic any employer can now “justifiably” pay a single, unmarried Singaporean whose parents have passed away less than his peers because he has no family to support. Next, since there is currently no minimum wage implemented in Singapore, it further allows employers to discriminate against a person from Bangladesh (for example) by paying him even less for a road sweeping or dish collector job compared to the most down and out of luck Singaporean who is already paid dirt for that job. (Note: I am not trying to advocate for minimum wages here.)

In the wake of the illegal strike last month by some SMRT bus drivers from China, calls have emerged for equal remuneration for all in the same jobs, but National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) chief Lim Swee Say said that this is “not the way to go”, calling the issue a “complicated” and “sensitive” one.

Equal remuneration will “disadvantage” local workers and their families as they have to bear the cost of living here, while the bulk of the money foreign workers earned here is sent back to their home countries, said Mr Lim at a media conference to address migrant workers issues yesterday.

So what is the context and basis behind the call for “equal remuneration for all in the same jobs” [Chinese: 同工同酬]?

It arose because of the recent PRC drivers’ strike, but it is obvious no one is actually asking for a pay increment for every single foreign worker to bring their pay on par with Singaporeans unless he is utterly insane. All the more improbable that many Singaporeans would give a damn about foreign workers since they were recently often accused of xenophobia. Anyway, it has always been clear to any sane and logical person that it is stupid and unfair to insist on absolute “equal pay” for every job, in particular jobs such as research, programming, performers etc. It is also illogical to insist on paying the same for jobs where efficiency is concerned, not to mention that there is a difference in each person’s capabilities and experience. I believe nobody would require any further elaboration here.

Back to the matter of the mainland China [PRC] drivers. When one look beyond their personal resentment against the so-called ‘Ah Tiongs’ (a less than flattering local term for the PRC Chinese), we would understand that part of their grievances was that they were discriminated against in terms of remuneration simply because of nationality. The question here is, since everyone is driving the same bus along the same routes with the same basic skills, why then are PRC drivers paid the least?

So let us consider whether there are any merits of the PRC drivers’ perception of pay discrimination. In my opinion, it is not entirely true because we understood that Singaporean and Malaysian drivers often come with their own value add by default. That comes either in the form of familiarity with the local traffic rules and regulations, or having a language advantage in certain cases. Above which, we also understand that the PRC drivers were given lodging benefits whereby Singaporean or Malaysian drivers would have to fend for themselves in that aspect. But no one can deny that the living conditions of the lodgings provided for the PRC drivers have much room for improvements, as even Singapore’s lapdog media and SMRT’s top management admitted as much. However, it is hard to argue that the recent pay increment was not unfair, if not discriminative when it was given out to increase the pay of drivers overall to attract more new blood to take up the job, and also to discourage existing drivers from quitting. Individual performance or merits was never part of the consideration here.

Thus, the call for “equal pay” for PRC drivers is a more of call for pay equality in essence. In any case, the entry level pay should be the same though an individual may be paid more based on his value add and experience at the employer’s discretion. Increments should then be based on an individual’s capabilities and performance, regardless whether the drivers are contracted or otherwise employed, and not their nationality. Simply put, those who are reckless and drive dangerously, will get less increments or even terminated while those who are commended or praised by commuters will get more.

It seems the NTUC deliberately translated the Chinese words “同工同酬” literally into “equal remuneration for same jobs” and created a straw man argument, because Lim Swee Say said the same thing about pay equality (picture on right) which I just explained above. As far as I am concerned the NTUC’s response serves only one purpose: To turn public opinion against this call for pay equality in spite of its original good intentions! Then again it’s not unexpected considering my long standing opinion of our so-called trade unions.

~ * ~

Michael Palmer’s indiscretion & “Identifying” Laura Ong

Why am I not surprised that it is Lim Swee Say again in this dastardly deed? I can hardly agree with the reasons given in this case. It is like someone saying, “Since you will get shot sooner or later, let me give you a hand by pushing you out into the line of fire.”. That’s exactly how I felt about this so-called explanation. Thus, The word that should be used here is not ‘identify’, but expose.

The People’s Association (PA) deputy chairman Lim Swee Say said on Friday that the organisation deliberated at length on whether to identify Ms Laura Ong as the woman involved in the Michael Palmer affair but ultimately felt they could not keep it under wraps.

He said that although they did not want to “add to her pain” by identifying her, they recognised that the case had attracted much public attention.

I have often asked to see some gender equality in cases like these – for the woman to be named and shamed because all too often the men take the fall. But in this case I actually felt sorry for Laura Ong even though I might have called her a slut, a hussy or any horrible words I can think of a woman like her. Sadly, she alone took the fall this time, while the press sang the praises of “Saint Michael von Palmer”.

As far as I am concerned, exposing Laura Ong was a calculated move. It was clearly done to divert public attention onto the poor woman and her life while the PAP does damage control, or hope that the people will forget after reading the juicy details of her life. The press should have some decency and end their intrusion into her private life. She may have been in the wrong but enough is enough. Why the difference in handling the matter when the “limelight” is often in the past shone on the men to make them look like cads, if not monsters?

Frankly, I had originally considered it commendable for Palmer to come clean and resign even when a friend pointed out that he only did so after his “love emails and SMSes” were leaked to the press. This friend has a point since it is not unreasonable to believe that this affair might have continued had that not happened. Had the matter gone to public first, Palmer’s handling of the matter and the PAP’s reaction may not have been so well organised. We only need to compare the press’ handling of this case with that of Yaw Shin Leong to see the drastic difference, and remember how they dogged the Workers’ Party back then.

Laura Ong has been shamed enough already. We do not need to know all those other juicy details about her family, her life and her other indiscretions which I will not repeat here. There are bigger issues such as the relationship between the PAP and the People’s Association [PA] mentioned in this article. Michael Palmer is no more “honorable” than Yaw Shin Leong, or Ng Boon Gay. Both have betrayed the trust of their wives. It is utterly shameful for the press to singing praises to the PAP for its handling of this matter in light of what has been done to Laura Ong.

Random Discourse – Fare Increment Confirmed

Leave a comment

As I expected, the Public Transport Council [PTC] has rubber-stamped / approved the fare increment request again. From 8 October this year (in conjunction with the opening of the final 12 Circle Line train stations), adult commuters using the ezlink card will see an increase of 2 cents for each ride. Senior citizen fares with concessionary cards will see an increase by 1 cent for each ride. The fare hike is expected to affect nearly nine out of ten commuters.

Was anyone really expecting the PTC to completely reject the fare increments? Just remember that 60.1% of Singaporeans voted to maintain the status quo and stop dreaming! For those who voted along with that 60.1%, they shouldn’t even complain. You make your bed, you sleep in it!

Even though I am definitely unhappy that the fare will increase, I am glad senior citizen concessionary hours will be extended to a full-day throughout the week. On top of which (according to the main stream media [MSM]), “their fares on the North East Line and Circle Line will also be adjusted downwards”.

I personally would like to congratulate the Workers’ Party [WP] on this, since it is written in pg 44, pt 14 of the WP Manifesto – Concession passes on public transport for the elderly should be extended to all operating hours. It is clear that the support the WP received from the people is well deserved. Keep up the good work done. I can’t speak for everyone but I personally think it is clear which party has the well being of the people at heart.

Anyway, now that full day concession has been given to senior citizens, the remaining goals (at least for me) would be to raise the the height for children getting concession from 0.9m to 1.2m. It is clear that as children today have better nutrition and thus they will reach 0.9m earlier. In short, the height limit should be reviewed just as the HDB income cap for Build-To-Order [BTO] flats should be reviewed. MSM can even spin a story about the transport operators doing a part in raising the Total Fertility Rate [TFR] in Singapore. A positive public relations spin about the transport operator’s hitherto almost non-existent ‘corporate conscience’ might actually even make them look a little better. That’s not forgetting the government can also consider it an addition to the baby bonus given to new parents without the need to raise taxes.

Next, concession for polytechnic students should also be reviewed. Right now, polytechnics are considered tertiary institutions just like universities. Thus polytechnic students pay more than their peers in the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) and Junior Colleges (JCs). I have no idea how that classification is arrived at in the past but it is my considered opinion that it is not only inappropriate and outdated, but no longer relevant today. Does the PTC not consider it absurd that parents of polytechnic students are “penalised” for their children’s choice of post-secondary school education? I won’t go into arguing that a polytechnic diploma is hardly the equivalent of a university degree since that will definitely open another can of worms. However, I am certain how this change would ease the burden of and lower the cost of living for some parents. Last I checked the hybrid polytechnic concession pass (i.e. for both bus and train concessions) cost $97 a month, while that of a JC / ITE Student is $52.50. By giving polytechnic students the same concession as JC / ITE Students, there would be an annual savings of $534! That is even better than the 20% rebate on income tax this year! If the transport operators want to tell us that this means everyone else will have to pay more then they should tell us exactly what is the impact of that to their current multi-million annual profits.

Being a realist, I will not expect the PTC to deny any of the transport operators’ requests to raise fares especially when most of the people in the council consists of people who probably don’t use public transport exclusively. If I remember correctly, the operators are also represented in that council and thus I cannot help but consider all that deliberation on how much increments to approve is just for show.

Simply put, even though I still don’t like the fare increments a single bit, I’ll drudgingly accept it as an inevitable evil. But instead of making noise to demand no fare increments, I would prefer to channel my energies into getting some of the concessions which the public has always been asking for (like the examples above). At the very least, even if the improvements to service standards failed to materialise just like before, at least some people will be getting some benefits. Or to put it in a very negative way, at least we can still deceive ourselves into believing we have make some gains even though we know for a fact the fares will always increase to line the pockets of the major shareholders of SMRT and SBS Transit (namely Temasek Holdings and the Singapore Labour Foundation respectively).

And talking about improving service standards… a friend told me that someone said commuters should first allow the transport operators to increase fares first and then work on improving service standards. He joked that this is about as absurd as a young man telling an old man to allow him to sleep with the daughter first and then he’ll work out how to marry her later.

I am really amused by this jokes he thought of. Some where at the back of my mind, I seem to recall reading that humour is a human response to a dilemma without going crazy. Considering that this friend drives, perhaps his dilemma here is that neither getting a car or accepting the annual fare increments is acceptable to him. So, he made the best of his situation by simply cracking a joke about it.

Random Discourse – Fare Increment = Wage Increment for Transport Workers

Leave a comment

“But if we cannot raise bus fares, how will that impact your fellow workers? I am sure you will understand that it is not fair if they cannot get wage increases.”

– Lim Boon heng

Will the People’s Action Party [PAP] please end this wayang now? It doesn’t take much brains to guess that the fare review was deliberately delayed before the General Election to keep it from being an election topic. Above which, I know for a fact the Public Transport Council [PTC] will approve all fare increments. The PTC might not approve the full amount the transport operators asked for to show they have been “judicious” about it, but who knows that the amount asked for wasn’t already inflated in the first place? Just think about it, the transport operators are still making record profits almost every year! I shudder to imagine how much more profits would there be if the PTC wasn’t*erhem* “judicious”.

When I first read what Lim Boon Heng said, the very first thing that came to mind was, “Just how low will they go to justify the fare increments?” Some where at the back of my head I seem to recall the National Trade Union Congress [NTUC] (if not Lim Boon Heng himself) has always told workers not to expect wage increments as if it is an entitlement. So I am really sorry to say this stinks of hypocrisy.

Is Lim Boon Heng not aware just how absurd and idiotic this is? How is it fair that we must allow for fare increments to ensure that these two semi-monopoly have profits so that their workers get wage increments or to cover their cost when no one else is guaranteed the same? How is it fair to some of us who haven’t had a wage increase for years to be told that we need to fork out more from our pockets so transport workers get theirs? Stop telling me about fairness when our gripes about the horrible service standards remained the same all these years.

But since Lim Boon Heng wants to talk about fairness, I would personally love to see some of that fare increment goes into the more concession for senior citizens and extended to polytechnic students. How is it fair that polytechnic students are made to pay the full fare when their A-Level or ITE peers are subsidised? How is it fair that senior are forced to take public transport only at selected hours only when they are expected not to retire? As I recalled, wasn’t it Lim Boon Heng who sounded the death knell for retirement and that means even senior citizens go to work during peak hours in the future? If I am not wrong, under the to be enacted re-employment legislation, the wages of senior citizens “could be adjusted down taking into account the employee’s productivity, performance, responsibilities, any earlier reduction made when an employee reached 60 years of age, etc.. So how is it fair they are now told to pay more for someone else’s wage increment?

Surprisingly, the transport operators (or was it the PTC) have always turned down request from the public for fairer subsidies for these two groups. The reason they gave was that the current concessions given is a form of cross subsidy – i.e. the cost of the concession is borne by full fare passengers. Thus, it is their opinion that giving more concession would “increase the cost for full fare paying passengers”.

I would have been moved to tears if not for the fact that the transport operators are making obscene profits year on year (SMRT – S$161.1 million, SBS Transit S$54.3 million). Frankly I wondered whether they were genuinely concerned that we might be paying more, or that more concessions for senior citizens and polytechnic students simply meant less profits. Perhaps if their respective CEOs are awarded with less director fees and remuneration, that would have been enough to finance those concessions. After all, SMRT CEO Saw Phiak Hwa was rewarded only S$1.8 million in 2010.

I repeat what I have always said in the past pertaining to more fare concession for senior citizens and polytechnic students – Show us the frakking bill. Just frakking show us how much more we really have to pay so the above concession should be given. Let us decide whether we want to foot that bill instead of acting like the PTC or the transport operators actually cared when they obviously don’t.

I wondered if Lim Boon Heng is aware he opened a can of worms with his silly and almost senile comment. And didn’t he retire from politics? I recalled there was quite a show when he announced his retirement, complete with tears and the likes. It was a spectacular act worthy of the Oscars.

So, Lim Boon Heng should stay retired. My advice is that he also do this for his own good – Shut up and sit down. And I ain’t even being rude because to any other people I would have simply said, “What the lanfang was that? Tuck yew seriously!”

Addendum: On the matter of concession, I would also like to see the height for young children raised from 0.9m to 1.2m since children these days have better nutrition and would grow faster. It would be unfair to expect children to be of the same size as those back when this stupid regulation was set.

Random Discourse – Fare Increments

Leave a comment

Government to ensure fare hikes are reasonable, justifiable

【Excerpts】

Speaking at a National Day celebration in his Teck Ghee Ward, PM Lee told residents that “from time to time, fare increases cannot be helped,” reported The Sunday Times (ST).

…

“The government’s interest is to make sure we have a good public transport system for Singaporeans: something you can afford, something which gives you good service,” he was quoted as saying.

“But we have to allow the transport companies to break even and to make reasonable profits,” he noted. This would then ensure they provide good service to commuters, he said.

The PTC, a government-appointed watchdog which has to approve fare hikes, will decide what is deemed “reasonable profit”, said PM Lee.

I read what the Prime Minister said with utter annoyance.

The fact is, this so-called time to time fare increase is an annual affair. The lapdog press under the Singapore Press Holdings will not fail to whitewash it by reminding us that the fares ‘has not gone up since 2009’. Unfortunately for me, fares went up a good 5.9% from S$1.52 to S$1.61 per trip when they changed the fare system last year. What infuriates me the most is that they have the cheek to say 2/3 of commuters will benefit from this change while among my friends the people who actually found it cheaper are in the minority. Benefit, my ass! (Incidentally, they also said 60% of people get a pay increment of 5.5% or something to that effect… I haven’t had a pay increment since 2009.)

If the public transport companies are truly privatised, why should the government speak up for them about “reasonable profits”? The fact is, the SLF [Singapore Labour Foundation] and Temasek Holdings are major shareholders of SBS Transit and SMRT respectively. So, if anyone is are wondering why the PM is speaking up for the business interest and not for the people who elected him, understand that the government is the business interest! It is my considered opinion that the government can either stop pretending that the public transport companies are private and have them completely nationalised like what the Workers’ Party [WP] proposed, or reduce its share holdings in these companies completely and throw them to the sharks. I am quite sure the libertarians would love the latter option.

Anyway, I read from SBS Transit’s latest quarterly financial report that its total operation expenses is S$155.62 million. Extrapolate a little and that means its operating cost would be roughly about S$620 million a year. Now, SBS made a record profit of S$54.28 million in 2010. Is it unhappy that its projected profits will fall below $50 million in 2011? (Comparatively, SMRT made S$162.89 million in 2010. How much does it want to be considered “reasonable”? S$160 million every year? S$160 million once every 3 years? or S$160 million once every 5 years?)

If anyone is wondering whether the ‘good service’ the transport companies have provided can justify the fare increments, let me just point out that our gripes never changed while fares increased all the same. I have written an open letter ‘complimenting’ the SMRT CEO for the ‘exemplary service’ SMRT provided. To add on to what is written, I must also ask how is it that SMRT and SBS Transit suddenly discovered an initiative to add more trains during the Youth Olympics (without all the mumbo jumbo about technical difficulties of the system or the length of the tracks etc), while it has no common sense to increase it over those weekends where there will be trade fairs (like IT shows, NATAS etc) at SunTec or the Singapore Expo? Is SMRT not aware just how much the traffic spike during those periods from the statistics? Or do they never bother to gather these statistics and look at how they can further improve their services? It certainly gives me the impression that our public transport is run for show to get praises from foreigners, and not to serve Singaporeans in their day to day commuting needs.

Let me move on to the buses. I am quite impressed that the new single deck buses SBS Transit bought are much more spacious these days as there are more leg room between the rows of seats now. However, SBS Transit have also decided to remove almost half the seats from these buses so that it can provide two nice spaces for wheel chair users. A space that I often found un-used, since I rarely see a wheel chair person on the bus. As the public transport operators have cited their fleet replacements as one of the justification for fare increment, I must ask how are these new buses more cost effective not only because they are more expensive than the ones they are replacing but that it has a lower seating capacity? Isn’t it more dangerous to have more people stand (in the empty space provided for the rare wheelchair user) on the bus? Frankly, I have no idea how the research done to justify the choice of these new buses is based on commuter feedback. No one in his sane mind would not have considered that the choice is made simply to maximise profit at the expense of commuter comfort.

On top of which, very often the buses come at even more obscene intervals than the trains even when the traffic conditions are ok. At times, one can wait for more than 15 minutes at the fourth or fifth stop from the terminal and the bus that shows up no longer has any more seats if not packed to the rim. Woe to the poor sod who boarded even further down the road. Yet, the bus companies seem to believe it isn’t worth running a double decker instead. What alternatives do commuters really have here when both the trains and buses provide almost the same commuter experience? In fact, this is something that I can never understand since if it takes 1 driver (1 portion of pay) + 1 portion of fuel to run the same bus service for the same trip, why not just run a double decker and make commuters happier? Are bus drivers for double decker paid more and double deckers less fuel efficient?

That’s not all. It is even worse when the bus driver sticks to the time limit (not the speed limit!). By that I mean the driver drags the bus at some unbearable slow speed so he wouldn’t be penalised for reaching the end point early. When one listens to whine of the bus engine, one can imagine a beast trying to break free while a group of people is dragging it from behind and preventing it from running away. Imagine having a car which you always drag at second gear. How is that going to be good for the gear box and in extension – the bus?

Simply put, if the Prime Minister wants us to relax and justify maintaining “reasonable profits” and ensuring “good service, he should be aware that he should first tell us how much is “reasonable” and why. On top of which he needs to be aware that the “good service” has been non existent and clearly the replacement buses the operators are getting will not achieve it either! The entire ‘paradigm’ in which the public transport system is based on needs to be given a serious rethink in view of Singapore’s city design. I am not surprised that once that is done, the bus operators may actually even make steady profits there after without any need to constantly ask for fare increments or fewer commuters will grumpy about fare increments when it happens.