SMRT: Dump

Brokers had forecast cost increases in staff, repair and maintenance costs, but not the 29.1% in maintenance & repair; and the 18.2% in staffing costs (all those new recruits from SAF?*) reported this quarter.

Brokers are putting a target price of around 1.34, a big drop.

But maybe there is the usually Biz School approved front-loading of costs, expenses whenever there is a new CEO. For yield buyers like me, the next Q’s numbers are awaited.

——

*http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/smrt-noticed/

 

 

 

More FTs on way, a lot MORE!: DBS

OK, OK, I exaggerate: only 8% more of population if S’poreans don’t start breeding like rabbits.

DBS Vickers expects an upcoming white paper on Singapore’s population to raise its population target to 7 million from 6.5 million, which will benefit construction, land transport, property and healthcare companies. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/18/markets-singapore-stocksnews-population-idUSL4N0AN3GR20130118

SMRT is not on the “buy” list. It too has concerns about SMRT, like me and many others.

SMRT: Noticed?

I had planned to blog on the new appointments http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?138562-8-New-hires-to-get-SMRT-on-track-4-from-military but forgot until today. Old age.

Noticed that SMRT has created seven new posts? Looks like Kuekie wants to spend, spend, spend on expanding management.He must think SMRT like SAF, money not an issue.

Taz two reasons to avoid the stock. The only reason to buy is to capture the gains from increased fares. But I’m not sure if fares would be allowed to rise this year, let alone this side of next GE: unless there is a marked improvement in service.

And speaking about service, on Boxing Day, for the first time ever, I couldn’t board a train because it was full: I didn’t have the right to board a crowded train, it was too crowded. It was at noon at Bishan. Note, I avoid using MRT and buses during rush hrs. And on Boxing Day and 31st Dec, there were problems when I used the NE Line.

SMRT: Buying target price

OSK DMG has a target price of $1.60 (6% above current price) and a Neutral call. I’ll monitor price to see if it falls to below or near that level. And then evaluate it to see if worth buying for dividend yield. The CEO’s talk of getting rid of FT drivers’ supervisors, could if carried out herald a change of culture.

BTW broker has a  Nneutral” call on the sector, with preference for ComfortDelGro (S$1.72 BUY TP S$1.85) for its cheaper valuations and overseas growth potential.

WP changes mind on nationalising SMRT & SBS

This blog at regular intervals reminds readers that the Wankers’ Workers’ Party had been silent on public transport nationalisation, despite it being in the Wayangs’ party’s 2011 manifesto and despite Gerald Giam advocating it in ST in July 2011 (here, here); and despite the seeming failure of the govt’s public tpt policy (I mean does the pumping in of S$1.1bn show that the “for-profit” policy working?)

Finally WP and GG have broken their silence: ”If PTOs are unable to do so because of their obligations to shareholders, public transport should be taken out of private hands and run by a not-for-profit corporation which focuses on providing efficient and quality public transport, instead of generating shareholder returns.”

Err this was what is written in Manifesto: “Instead of public transport being provided by profit-oriented companies, all public transport including the MRT & public buses servicing major routes should be brought under a National Transport Corporation, a public body, to ensure a smooth integration of the overall national transport network and to avoid unnecessary duplication of services and overheads incurred by multiple operators.”

Spot the difference? The Manifesto call was unconditional. Now the operative word is “IF”.

Second time WP changing its mind on a Manifesto call. The first was on the benchmarking of ministers’ salaries. Like this change, one GG was behind that one too. Maybe Eric Tan (remember him?*) was right to rubbisg GG.

If the Manifesto is juz toilet paper, pls tell us WP. And tell us which first-world opposition party treats its manifesto with such contempt?

Related post

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/why-wp-mps-are-not-first-world-parlimentarians/

—

*GG called him his Si-Fu. Si-Fu lost NCMP seat to GG. Si-Fu had been promised NCMP seat before GE 2011, if East Coast team was entitled to one.

SMRT is in the biz of transporting people

TRE republished this and improved on it by adding part of  the newspaper report that annoyed me.

Here are some great comments posted on TRE about the “unprecedented offer”

TheFortyPercent:

The SMRT’s attitude is typical of the legacy left behind by LKY. If SMRT makes a generous compensation, people will throw themselves on to the MRT rails. If we have too generous welfare benefits, people will laze around and not work. If we have good health benefits, people will fall sick, get cancer and not take care of their health. If we don’t pay our civil servants and ministers the highest salaries, they become corrupt. If we don’t have the ISA, people will become militant. If we don’t have a meritocratic law of the jungle system, every Singaporean will become lazy and indolent. If we don’t bring the thousands and thousands of foreigners, Singapore will collapse and your mothers, wives and sisters will become maids. And the list goes on….. It just shows how much confidence LKY and the PAP has in its citizens! No other country in the world in all history has its leaders, as Singapore has, condemned, spoken derisively and rubbished its own citizens. This is the wonderful legacy that LKY has bequeathed to all Singaporeans! His money of course goes to his family and the ten generations of descendants after him.

One Eye Dragon In Your Pants:

Wow, so that’s what SMRT thinks of us. Money grubbing opportunists who would do anything (even getting our limbs amputated!) to get some compensation. Yeah, in their eyes, we are all lesser mortals who deserve nothing. Have they looked at themselves in the mirror lately? If only public transportation isn’t monopolized by SMRT & SBS, I would outright boycott their services.

Truth:

It is shameful that SMRT has such bad social grace to say such words of the public , implying the young Thai girl has a motive to lose her legs to get some money. Are we in some foreign lands where people sell their body organs to get some money ? Then why the need to say such unkind words of your commuters, to the effect that they would intrude on the SMRT tracks and implying try some antics to get some donation.

Lousy public relation, presenting a inhumane image of SMRT. These words are really mean and uncalled for.

Thought those infamous word ” opportunity to make money ” sent to the taxis after the breakdown of the trains last December was bad enough, and now these words. The SMRT never learn, or with a new PR people, has still not got its acts together again.

By the way, why is the PaaPa government making the common folks pay for upgrading and repairs bill $1.1 billion for the SMRT ? The Board of directors( past since 2002 )each receiving $200,000 annually and the chairman $500,000 should contribute their fees to the repair bills if they have some conscience. They failed in their duties as directors, and yet keep this money for private enjoyment . Shame on them, especially on Mr Chew Choon Seng, now chairman of SGX, who was the chairman of the board in 2002 that appointed a wrong unsuitable person to be CEO. They got away scot free, enjoying their director fees privately, but now the taxpayers have to bear with the cost of the repair , through no fault of theirs.

Today had reported that the ang moh FT I tot had joined SMRT had still not joined, and is unlikely to do so: Smart “Talent”. When you have a PR person, unapologetically, saying that $15,000 was an “unprecedented” offer to a girl who lost her legs; and that non-payment policy is to deter people from deliberately losing their limbs or lives  to get money from SMRT, it shows the kind of culture ( “choose not to board crowded trains” and “trains can be packed more” and “opportunity to make money” and “never ever damage SMRT property even if you are suffocating in a train that has stopped, and there is no electricity and you are left in the dark”) he would have to defend about if he signed on. Maybe the previous PR boss, an ex-army colonel, should reapply for his job?

He fits the culture to a “T”, blaming the bad English of the staff for them not communicating with the public. He was the person who also said that SMRT should never ever be damaged. Wonder why did he “move on” if he fitted the culture to a “T”. Goh Chee Kong approved comments like this.

Finally, we get to the title of this post:  SMRT is repositioning itself as an engineering company. I’ve commented on why this may be a bad idea: engineering companies tend to gold plate operations.

SMRT should think of itself as a “Mass Rapid Transit” biz: moving crowds of people quickly, in reasonable comfort and efficiently at low cost. Be like AirAsia, EasyJet or Ryanair, the best low cost airlines: decent customer service at lowish prices. And handicapped and elderly people: take a taxi if you are not happy with the service. Don’t bitch too much. Ryanair tells them in no uncertain terms, not to use it. It tells them there are alternatives.

 

SMRT: $15,000 not enough

Talk of bad PR.

When I read that the Thai gal sued SMRT, I didn’t think much of her case. I tot that she should have accepted reasonable compensation and moved on.

But when I read that SMRT says that its $15,000 offer was “unprecedented”, I tot what a dumb, mean company.

I don’t know waz a fair amount would be taking into account her injuries and that it isn’t SMRT’s fault. But $15,000 is not it. Its legal costs would easily exceed $100,000.

I had been looking to buy shares in SMRT, but I’ll give it a miss for the time being. Want to see if mgt changes are working.

Anyway, hopefully the FT brought in to replace an ex-SAF officer will do something to change SMRT’s bad record in public communications. The SAF officer said once “Better you die, than damage SMRT property”.  Ya I exaggerate, but that was the message he gave when a commuter smashed a glass panel to let air into a train stuck in a tunnel.

How SMRT can spend more on maintenance while cont’d paying gd dividends

Find sponsors for MRT stations Dubai style.

The station at Changi Int’l Airport can be renamed after Changi Airport, or SIA or any airline wanting publicity. Raffles City can be renamed after Robinsons or Westin. Raffles Place can be named after a bank sponsor while Temasek can sponsor Dhoby Gaut.

While new CEO as an ex-SAF chief and senior civil servant (also a scholar) should ensure that the trains run on time (in the early 20th century in the US, retired generals were in demand to run railwa s because the army like the railways were complex organisations), he might not be gd for profits. As I explained here, SMRT is now seeing itself as an engineering co, not a transport co, but problem is that engineers tend to gold-plate their operations.

Reason WP quietly ditched its public tpt nationalisation call?

(“Trying to serve residents better, WP ditches manifesto call nationalise public tpt?”)

My WP “Morocco Mole”* (the sidekick of  ”Secret Squirrel” in the carton series: bit like Yaw to Low) tells me that at July’s parly seating, GG will again keep quiet on the above issue in the debate after the ministerial statement on the major disruption in the MRT system. Tells me no other WP MP will raise the issue of public tpt nationalisation, as this is GG’s responsibility.

He asked, “Why so cock, when the Commission of Inquiry’s findings  that SMRT was skimping on maintenance can be used to support WP’s election manifesto call to nationalise public transport? Also shows WP can think better than PAP.”

I referred him to this ST report, where it was reported that MPs are lobbying LTA  for better bus services in their wards: all because the $1.1 bn subsidy.

I told him since WP has appointed Ah Huat (remember him?) to co-ordinate its efforts for more buses to serve Hougang and Aljunied, it would be most awkward for him (and WP) to beg LTA, and SMRT and SBS to improve services in WP areas if the WP is publicly proposing to destroy their staffs’ rice bowls. It would have no leg to stand on.

His response, “Tan kuku. Even if Sylvia, Glenda and Angela (remember her?) perform [expletive deleted] on the LTA, SBS and SMRT male managers, and Show Mao [expletive deleted] the female managers, think that they will improve services in WP areas? Why WP so cock?” 

He has a point. SIGH (Victor Hugo: “A traitor always pays for his betrayal in the end.”)

Related post: http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/hougang-only-up-to-a-point-lucky/

—-

*Moley is a WP cadre but not on the Central Executive Council,. He is ex-Barisan. He early last week told me that the WP had tabled only one question abt public transport (abt the release of the COI report). He is right. Which makes WP’s silence on this issue more deafening. Look at the topics raised: what the public wants raised for the most.

Demonising cabbies again?

(Or “How to get more taxis on the road, increasing rentals, and still screw the consumer”)

Last Saturday, MediaCorp’s freesheet carried an article that screamed

Taxis could become harder to flag down

More may obtain a taxi licence to rent cabs for personal use instead of plying the roads

It went on: more people could possibly be getting taxi licences for the wrong reasons – as suggested by Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew in a press interview … Noting how, with the exception of those owned by ComfortDelGro, taxis are hired out mostly to cabbies who drive a single shift per day, Mr Lui said the authorities “need to be even more vigilant about this … because now driving a taxi can, with high COE prices, become a substitute for owning a car”.

Right, it’s the fault of cabbies gaming the system that we can’t get a cab. Not the fault of ComfortDelgro, the govt, or SMRT.

In mid April, there was a ST report that taxi drivers’ take-home income have gone up by as much as 30% since the increase in taxi fares at the end of last year. “ComfortDelGro, the biggest operator here with about 15,600 taxis, said average net income per cab per day has risen by 12 per cent to $210.93 … up from $188.69 in November, excludes costs drivers have to bear, such as rental and diesel.”

In the run-up to the fare increase late last year, our nation-building, constructive media were full of stories of the plight of cabbies. And when fares were increased, there were stories of drops in income as people stopped taking cabs. Poor cabbies. The media also reported extensively that the fleet owners were NOT increasing their taxi rentals. The benefits of the  increase were all going to the cabbies.

So I was surprised (in February or early March) to read in the same said media that S’pore had plenty of  taxis (about 27,000 of them) but that taxis were under-utilised because some work on one shift with one operator per taxi who “once they earn enough would call it a day”.

In April, we were told that they are doing well: to to 30% increase in take-home pay. So will there be shortages again as more of those taxis with one operator are AWOL because the operators call it a day after they earn enough? Now we are again reminded that many cabs are only operated by one person a day, and worse: that increasingly cabbies are gaming the system by using the taxi as a car, not as a cab. Juz earn enough to pay rental, then use taxi as car, for what we are not told. Transport gds? Visit clients? Or rent to senior members of Home Team or other scholars to have sex in in return for favours?

A shortage that will be solved when the fleet owners increase their charges so that the cabbies have to work longer hours again?

In other words, are we “being conditioned” for operating costs (not fares) for cabbies to go up to increase the supply of available taxis.

Then we will read stories in the media that taxi drivers are suffering, and that fares have to rise. And we shouldn’t complain if we are compassionate.

The cycle of spin goes on. Bit like the cycle of life.

Instead of inceasing rentals to increase supply, why not insist that each taxi must have mutiple operators working in shifts? Incentives, disincentives could be introduced to force cabbies into sharing? Afraid of too many cabs on the road, forcing down rentals because cabbies are leaving the industry?

.

SMRT: “Cowboys” were right

Since the trains started breaking down towards the end of last yr, bloggers and posters (not I) have been attacking SMRT for putting profits before safety, and disregarding the engineers’ advice (though without having a clue abt the said advice). Yacoob’s exemplar for the new media, the constructive, nation-building media were deafening in their silence on this national issue. I was silent because I was trying to figure out if I shld go buy some SMRT shares.

Well, based on the comments by the chairman, Koh Yong Gua, reported by ST and ST’s headline on an inside page, the inhabitants of cowboy towns were correct. (Explain that Yacoob and DPM Teo.)

“SMRT to refocus on its engineers” read the headline. This implied that SMRT had lost its focus on engineers somewhere along the line, assuming it once had such a focus.

Mr Koh said that “SMRT will be repositioned an engineering company”, begging the question “What was its earlier positioning?”. Retailer, property developer, financial engineer, or cash cow for Temasek? Since SMRT was listed in 2000, Temasek has received $694.3m in dividends (I’ve including the dividend declared recently).

The promotion of Mr Khoo Hean Siang in March 2011 to COO was meant to show the importance of engineers, he said. The previous COO who was “removed” was not a technical person. Wonder what was he? Ex-SAF officer or financial man? With the CEO a retailer, it surprises me that until 2011, the COO was not a technical man. And that board meetings did not include a very senior engineer in attendance.

Actually, I think Mr Koh still hasn’t got it. SMRT is not an engineering company. It is a company whose main business is moving large numbers of people around S’pore safely, and in reasonable comfort (most of the time). By focusing on engineers and positioning SMRT as an engineering company, he could be laying the seeds for a serious problem somewhere along the track. Investors in the West have found that companies dominated by engineers tend to goldplate processes and systems. Siemens, Rolls-Royce, Westinghouse, Boeing, Airbus and even GE, had to be run by non-engineers before shareholders benefitted.  

Commuters may say so what? So long as it is safer and doesn’t breakdown, power to the engineers. The problem is that goldplating is expensive, and eventually someone has to pay. This is likely to be the commuter (via fare increases) or his avatar or alter ego the taxpayer.

I was planning to buy into a rights issue when one is annced, as I expect. But given the positioning as an “engineering company” and its “refocus on its engineers”, I think I’ll give the stock a miss for the time being. But never ever bet against Temasek when it comes to a local company.

Related post:

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/smrt-quiet-re-nationalisation/

SMRT mgt failures: What does it say abt SAF?

“The experts questioned having the bus bridging services ply a route mirroring the entire train line as this may not be the most effective way to move people. They suggested that the bus bridging services should ferry commuters to one to three stations, or to the next working station.”

Huh? Having been lucky enough not to kanna caught in one of these disruptions (my 87-yr old mum on her only second MRT outing was at a station when a disruption occured), I’m surprised to learn that this wasn’t done or that it isn’t now SOP?

Given that it is a well-known fact, I believe, that retired SAF officers are given senior jobs at SMRT (presumably because they have the experience of managing large and complex organisations), I’m surprised that foreign experts recommended the following “fairly common sense and not rocket science” command and control procedures:

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120510-0000079/Foreign-experts-give-tips-at-SMRT-inquiry

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1200227/1/.html

We need genuine Talents to help us run our public transport systems, not ex-SAF officers, M’sian PRs or PRC bus drivers that we have been getting. And no “ang moh tua kee” attitude when getting Talents please. Hongkies, Japs, Taiwanese and Koreans who speak Inglish should be considered. No PRCs because China’s MRT systems are very new.

As to our defence, are we spending money foolishly on hardware, when what we need are a few good men? The government should be worried. It’s not us “lesser” citizens are at risk. It’s the FTs and rich S’poreans who need protection. An Indonesian pirate chief after reading of SMRT’s failures despite employing retired SAF colonels, may be tempted to raid Sentosa Cove, plunder it and kidnap people.

DPM Teo & GG (or WP): gentle reminders for next week

DPM Teo has been busy in April, what with opening a temporary carpark in Hougang, praising Desmond Choo (assumed PAP candidate there), talking abt the dangers of the internet, and pushing onto us the task of integrating FTs onto us, despite many of us wanting first-world FTs, not the garbage we’ve been getting in ever increasing truck loads, I’d tot I’d remind him of shumething he said in March concerning violent, ang moh FTs.

In March,  in parliament to a question from “Kate Spade” (the real people’s princess, not that NSP, TJS groupie gal who was from RP and who is looking to move on from NSP, not her boy friend: I mean tin looks ordinary, Nicole has star quality), he told us very upset S’poreans that Home Team was conducting an internal investigation on why two violent ang moh FTS who beat up two S’poreans badly in 2010 were allowed to post “peanuts” in bail; and why the police investigation took so long? They took the opportunity to cock a snook at S’pore by moving on.

He said the investigation would be completed in April, and implied that we would told the conclusions.

As it’s now May and parly sits next week, he should be abt to tell us abt the conclusions. And if the investigation has yet to be concluded, why not?

Tot he might need reminding as he seems to be trying hard to join Tharman, Sailor Lui, $8 Khaw and PM, as a teller of jokes in bad taste.

And I hope Gerald Giam (the apprentice who overthrew his si-fu Eric Tan) remembers that the WP called for the nationalisation of the bus and MRT systems in its 2011 GE manifesto, and that he wrote this on nationalising the public tpt system in July 2011.

If neither he nor any other WP MP raises this issue in parly next week, or explains why the WP has changed its mind of nationalisation (despite the apparent failure of the government’s model and the voters’ disgust with the government on this issue), the WP should have the decency to take down the manifesto from the WP website. First, the WP changed its benchmark that the WP wanted ministerial salaries to be referenced to, and now this. Said manifesto isn’t worth the paper it is written on even before the WP comes into power.  In first-world democracies, manifesto promises are ditched after the party wins power, not before: another WP first? Other firsts https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=449379458422514&set=at.281804541846674.87911.280285461998582.555162557&type=1&theater

WP: No longer believes in public tpt nationalisation

This week, one of the topics to be debated in parliament will be the public transport system especially the government’s plans to inject $1.1bn into the bus system.

In its 2011 General Election Manifesto the WP wrote: Instead of public transport being provided by profit-oriented companies, all public transport including the MRT & public buses servicing major routes should be brought under a National Transport Corporation, a public body, to ensure a smooth integration of the overall national transport network and to avoid unnecessary duplication of services and overheads incurred by multiple operators.

In simple English, the WP manifesto called for the nationalisation of the MRT and bus systems.

But, I’ve been reliably told, that the WP will not be calling for the nationalisation of the public transport system in the debate on public transport this week. It will keep silent on its manifesto call.

If my source (a WP member in gd standing) is correct, and I hope he is wrong, one can only wonder if the WP has forgotten its manifesto call on the nationalisation of public transport (see somewhere here) or changed its mind on public transport nationalisation? And then one can wonder why the forgetfulness or change, when the facts and public mood seem to favour nationalisation.

Granted, at the time, there was very little mainstream (to be expected) or new media (more surprising this) attention, and very little public interest (not surprising, given the lack of awareness on this call) on this issue. But things are different now.

There have been several major failures of the MRT system, resulting in chaos, and public anger.

With $1.1bn of tax-payers’ money going into the bus system (two-thirds or 67% of it, $733m, going into ComfortDelgro where the state has a shareholding that is “peanuts”*), there are many voices wondering why private shareholders should benefit from a public good?

Example: Since housing and transport are both necessities of life, and public transport is the only choice of the lower-income group, it is not unjustifiable to commit resources to keep the cost of public transport low … government spending on public transport is a form of income redistribution …

The key concern in the S$1.1-billion package to purchase and operate buses is not that it subsidises public transport per se but whether public funds could benefit a small group of shareholders, to whom bus companies are ultimately accountable.

This is what the Government will need to account to taxpayers.

Even BT, part of the nation-building, constructive media had this to say, The public transport model has come under scrutiny ever since a $1.1 billion package was announced by the government to supplement the existing privately run bus fleet with 550 buses.

How has the government responded?

The minister responsible for throwing $1.1bn at the problem can only parrot repeat what his predecessors used to say, Our current model leaves the operations of trains and buses to commercial entities as we believe the long term public interest is best served this way. The profit incentive drives the operators towards higher efficiency and productivity, which keeps costs as low as possible . . . Otherwise, if the system is inefficiently run, the public will ultimately pay for the higher operating costs, either through higher fares, or greater government subsidies.

He should be asked in parliament this week why despite the “higher efficency and productivity” (“which keeps costs as low as possible”) of the private companies, commuters keep paying more and more while getting worse and worse service, so much so that the government has to subsidise the companies to improve bus service quality.  The minister’s The profit incentive drives the operators towards higher efficiency and productivity, which keeps costs as low as possible, can and should be challenged.

So the WP has plenty of ammunition to rubbish the government’s public transport policy And remind the government and the voters that it called for nationalisation last year. But it seems it will not call for nationalisation.

Parliament is the best place to debate the issue and the WP should not let this opportunity be missed especially as it called for nationalisation in its election manifesto. If it does not raise this issue, S’poreans must hope that PAP newbie FT MP, Puthucheary (“No NS for me”) will raise the issue. He had suggested in the last session of parliament that nationalisation might be a gd option.

There should be a more selfish, self-serving reason for the WP to use this opportunity to call for nationalisation.  If  the WP doesn’t believe in its own manifesto or keeps quiet when it changes its mind on a manifesto issue, why should, we, the voters believe in the WP?

The PAP pointed out earlier this year (rightly) that the WP’s benchmark for ministers’ salaries had changed from the poor (in said manifesto) to a civil service senior grade (Gerald Giam in parliament). The WP could not rebut the PAP charge.

The voters who voted for the WP believed its call for the need of a co-driver, to keep the PAP honest and competent. If voters cannot believe in the PAP and the WP, what should the voters do? Vote SDP?

The WP might want to be reminded that in countries with first-world parliaments, the election manifesto is a very important document, not something to be chucked away after a general election. If the WP does not call for nationalisation of the public transport system in parliament this week, it should remove the link on the front page of its website to its manifesto.

—

*Using back-of-the envelope calculations and figures in annual reports, since it was listed SMRT (over a decade ago) has paid $562.79m in dividends to Temasek (which owns 74%), and ComfortDelgro has paid the S’pore Labour Foundation (a statutory board affiliated to the NTUC which has 12%) dividends of roughly $150.46m since 2003 (Comfort and Delgro merged in 2003, and SLF had a stake in Comfort). The amount that ended up with the government was $713.25m, with SMRT contributing 79%. But ComfortDelgro is the main beneficiary of the $1.1bn bus plan, given that, at present, SBS Transit (a listed co 75% owned by ComfortDelgro) provides most of the buses. ComfortDelgro is getting $733m or 67% of the $1.1bn package.

Related rant

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/wp-does-do-original-thinking-pap/

 

WP does do Original Thinking PAP

(Or “Trumpets pls for WP” or “WP way ahead of PAP and S’poreans”)

So the PAPpies are accusing WP MPs of plagarising. The implication is that WP don’t do original thinking. Well it is clear from the responses of the “victims” that the PAP are peeing on the wrong tree. Wicked, mean tot: are the two Nairs advising their fellow PAPpies to use this tactic? Seems the kind of thing lawyers love to do: go negative on obscure technicalities. It also seems similar in nature to the Nair’s recent antics; antics that backfired badly on the Nairs, and on the PM in one instance. So the PAPpies should take care.

Seriously, the WP had an original idea that was way ahead of public sentiment in its 2011 General Election Manifesto. Instead of public transport being provided by profit-oriented companies, all public transport including the MRT & public buses servicing major routes should be brought under a National Transport Corporation, a public body, to ensure a smooth integration of the overall national transport network and to avoid unnecessary duplication of services and overheads incurred by multiple operators.

In simple English, the WP Manifesto called for the nationalisation of the MRT and bus systems.

At the time, there was very little mainstream (to be expected) or new media (more surprising this) attention, and very little public interest on this issue. But things are different now.

With $1.1bn of tax-payers’ money going into the bus system (two-thirds or 67% of it, $733m, going into ComfortDelgro where the state has a shareholding that is “peanuts”*), there are many voices wondering why private shareholders should benefit from a public good? Example: Since housing and transport are both necessities of life, and public transport is the only choice of the lower-income group, it is not unjustifiable to commit resources to keep the cost of public transport low … government spending on public transport is a form of income redistribution …

The key concern in the S$1.1-billion package to purchase and operate buses is not that it subsidises public transport per se but whether public funds could benefit a small group of shareholders, to whom bus companies are ultimately accountable.

This is what the Government will need to account to taxpayers.

Even BT, part of the nation-building, constructive media had this to say yesterday, The public transport model has come under scrutiny ever since a $1.1 billion package was announced by the government to supplement the existing privately run bus fleet with 550 buses.

But the minister responsible for the splurge can only parrot his predecessors, Our current model leaves the operations of trains and buses to commercial entities as we believe the long term public interest is best served this way. The profit incentive drives the operators towards higher efficiency and productivity, which keeps costs as low as possible . . . Otherwise, if the system is inefficiently run, the public will ultimately pay for the higher operating costs, either through higher fares, or greater government subsidies.

The WP should now be asking why despite the “higher efficency and productivity” (“which keeps costs as low as possible”) of the private companies, bus commuters keep paying more and more while getting worse and worse service, so much so that the government has to subsidise the companies to improve bus service quality. It should also remind the government and the voters that it called for nationalisation last year.

I’m sure the WP will soon rebut the minister’s The profit incentive drives the operators towards higher efficiency and productivity, which keeps costs as low as possible. But why is the WP so modest about getting it “right”? 

Being modest and understated are to me, great traits, in people. I hate show-offs and boasters. But being modest is not for a political party that aspires to form the government some day. Worse, there is the danger that the PAPpies persuade voters that the WP doesn’t believe its own manifesto, so why should they (the voters) believe the WP? It pointed out earlier this year (rightly) that the WP’s benchmark for ministers’ salaries had changed from the poor (in said manifesto) to a civil service senior grade (Gerald Giam in parliament).

If this silence persists, one can only wonder if the WP has forgotten its manifesto call on the nationalisation of public transport (see somewhere here) or changed its mind on public transport nationalisation? And then one can wonder why the forgetfulness or change, when the facts and public mood seem to favour nationalisation?

—

*Using back-of-the envelope calculations and figures in annual reports, since it was listed SMRT (over a decade ago) has paid $562.79m in dividends to Temasek (which owns 74%), and ComfortDelgro has paid the S’pore Labour Foundation (a statutory board affiliated to the NTUC which has 12%) dividends of roughly $150.46m since 2003 (Comfort and Delgro merged in 2003, and SLF had a stake in Comfort). The amount that ended up with the government was $713.25m, with SMRT contributing 79%. But ComfortDelgro is the main beneficiary of the $1.1bn bus plan, given that, at present, SBS Transit (a listed co 75% owned by ComfortDelgro) provides most of the buses. ComfortDelgro is getting $733m or 67% of the $1.1bn package.