“Commuters have a choice. They can have more trains or less breakdowns.”

In Infrastructure on 16/12/2011 at 6:18 am

Juz wondering whether the recent breakdowns be due to the strain of running more trains during peak hours to appease commuters’ anger abt crowded trains? If so, Ms Saw should come out and say, “Commuters have a choice. They can have more trains or less breakdowns. They can’t have both.”

Could the breakdowns be due to skimping on maintenance to maintain profits in the face of higher oil prices? I mean if SMRT was skimmimg on security, why assume it was not skimping on routine maintence of the system?

If the government will be using NSmen to provide additional security to protect SMRT’s revenue, why not use SAF technicans to help maintain trains and network?

Wonder if the CEO’s and other senior executives’ bonuses are subject to clawbacks? What about the bonuses of senior LTA executives? And whether the bonuses that Raymond Lim received as transport minister will be clawed back too?

Finally wonder what if these breakdowns had occured juz before May GE or presidential election. Potong Pasir would be still in SPP hands? And a GRC or two would have fallen? And would the PAP even get 55% of the popular vote? And Tan Cheng Bock would be president?

The “FTs are betterest” policy is coming to roost.

  1. Ironically, given the compliant nature of the PAP with regards to its fellow octopus arms, the politicians will take most of the flak since they will probably just hit the public transport operators with what the public will see as a token fine – i.e. they wll continue to overdraft their long bottomed out political capital.

    Poor LHL, with allies+followers like this, you don’t need opposition to fix you.

    To the C-level executives and directors of these companies, this set up must be the best of both worlds. They reap all the benefits of privatisation while others will absorb the blame. Just like the bankers on Wall Street, but on a smaller scale.

    Three cheers for misaligned incentives….

  2. You’re right about misaligned incentives. I bet the first thing on Saw Phaik Hwa’s mind is the advertising opportunity with the captive audience…

  3. You know how the Gaman will explain this?
    (i) its a once in 50 years occurrence
    (ii) its brought about by increased precipitation and climate change
    (iii) the contractors’ workers fail to clear the fallen leafs properly
    (iv) rubbish accumulated on the tracks causing it to short-circuit.

    And those smartarses who broke the windows, better prepare to have your ka-cherng WHIPPED till you bleed. The Lor in this Cuntery is: Sinkaporeans hoot Gaman popperty Gaman hoot your Behind!
    Pia! Pia! Pia ! (sound of skin being flayed and flying off)

    Unless of coz you are foreign talent, then you’d be let off with a tap on your talented wrists.

  4. SMRT stock price still stable leh. Looks like investors and elites don’t give much of a shit. Saleswoman CEO will probably be retired to another GLC or NUS or IPS. But SMRT and SBS will still continue happily. And MRT and bus fares will still keep going up. And Sinkies will still squeeze into them, like this morning.
    Sinkies are the best workers. They can take all kinds of shit and keep on ticking. Will need to repent for another 30 years before something lights up in the empty space between their ears.


    But hey, look at this…

    In a speech in March 1999, DPM Lee Hsien Loong said, under the heading “Singapore 21”:

    “The key idea in Singapore 21 is “Active Citizenship”, i.e. getting Singaporeans to actively contribute their ideas, time and energy to build a better Singapore. … Singaporeans can participate at many levels – national, community and the neighbourhood. … Their contributions can help to improve policy making. … To realize the ideal of Active Citizenship, we need to involve and consult more people in formulating government policy. Our environment in the 21st century will be very different. Our society will be more educated and sophisticated. Our problems will be more complex. We need to understand the concerns of those affected by our actions, and tap the widest range of experience and knowledge available. In a rapidly changing environment, much of the valuable and up-to-date information is held by people at the frontline. Policy makers must draw on this knowledge to understand realities on the ground, and reach better solutions.

    In a speech in November 1999, Mr Eddie Teo, Permanent Secretary (Prime Minister’s Office) said, under the heading “What must change”:

    “the first change is that government should involve the general public more when it formulates policy. [W]e need to switch from a mindset of telling the public only what it needs to know to one of seeing it in our interest to explain our policies and rules as clearly as possible so that the public can understand and appreciate why government is doing what it does and how that is in the best interest of the country… [G]overnment must expect a more demanding citizenry, one which questions more, expects more information and is not satisfied with merely receiving instructions and complying with rules. Government must be more open both in giving information to the public and in accepting advice and suggestions”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: