Say “NO” To Singapore Transport Fare Increase - Page 30

kuasimi · #**436** 26-11-2015, 12:08 AM

https://www.facebook.com/allsgstuff/...type=3&theater

Good morning Singaporeans. The whole northern part of the island is jam until kannasai because MRT breakdown *again*. Did u vote for this?

#desmondkuek #khawboonwan #lta

https://www.facebook.com/allsgstuff/...type=3&theater

<Breaking>

North-South Line Train Breakdown! There is no train service between Yishun and Bishan due to a power fault at Ang Mo Kio substation.

All Singapore Stuff readers, are you affected by the breakdown? Share your experience with us!

#AfterGEtrainbreakdown #dontcomplain #69percentvotedforit

kuasimi · #**437** 26-11-2015, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadfa

Hahaha. I laugh at the 70% who voted for these idiots.
Keep on criticising Wp n this is the shit they get.

I can grudgingly accept if they can't 100% stop all breakdowns.

But after so many breakdowns, why still so much chaos???? When will the feeder buses come? Why no Announcements?? Fucked up. Never learn.

And still want to activate saf during breakdowns. Fucking passing the buck

Singapore is the only democratic country in the world that parachutes top military men and top civil servants into top positions at industries that are alien to them.

Look at NOL run by ex Chief of Defence Force, now it is deep in debts and Temasek Holdings need to sell it away on the cheap.

Look at S League, run by ex Colonel and S League is dying fast with crowds of less than 100 fans per match.

It is time to take away this sense of entitlements and untouchables from all these PAP connected, Military connected, NTUC connected, Civil Service connected, GLCs connected top people and get them to properly find their own jobs and go for proper interviews. If they are really that good, they should be able to land a job on their own.

kuasimi · #**438** 26-11-2015, 12:18 AM

https://www.facebook.com/allsgstuff/...type=3&theater

A sad but #HardTruth no true blue Singaporean can deny.

sadfa · #**439** 26-11-2015, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuasimi

Singapore is the only democratic country in the world that parachutes top military men and top civil servants into top positions at industries that are alien to them.

Look at NOL run by ex Chief of Defence Force, now it is bankrupt and Temasek Holdings need to sell it away on the cheap.

Look at S League, run by ex Colonel and S League is dying fast with crowds of less than 100 fans per match.

It is time to take away this sense of entitlements and untouchables from all these PAP connected, Military connected, NTUC connected, Civil Service connected, GLCs connected top people and get them to properly find their own jobs and go for proper interviews. If they are really that good, they should be able to land a job on their own.

Kuasimi.

Your post no standard la.

My point is troubleshootjng the entire mrt to have zero fault is difficult. But a dispersal plan is easy.

If smrt n sbs have to standby 30 buses to shift thousands of stranded commuters, then BOPIAN.
Becos it's SMRTs fault.

So how come breakdown multiple times one year, still chaos??? When will they learn?

And I asked you before about Lui.

What info lui got bt never revealed which led to his resigning?? Or do u think after he left, coincidence Mrt keep breaking down???? Or he knew it'll keep on breaking Down?

AND MOST IMPORTANT IS what kind of character is lui?
Former chief of navy right? Run away when problem can't b solved. Wartime how? He save his life first? Run road first? This kind of cb minister also have??? N we must respect him?

AND WHAT ABOUT DESMOND KUEK?
IF youur big boss know no hope liao, kuek thinks he's better than Lui or he's staying cos of his 2 million paycheck?

Have some standards laaa

kuasimi · #**440** 26-11-2015, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadfa

Kuasimi.

Your post no standard la.

My point is troubleshootjng the entire mrt to have zero fault is difficult. But a dispersal plan is easy.

If smrt n sbs have to standby 30 buses to shift thousands of stranded commuters, then BOPIAN.
Becos it's SMRTs fault.

So how come breakdown multiple times one year, still chaos??? When will they learn?

And I asked you before about Lui.

What info lui got bt never revealed which led to his resigning?? Or do u think after he left, coincidence Mrt keep breaking down???? Or he knew it'll keep on breaking Down?

AND MOST IMPORTANT IS what kind of character is lui?
Former chief of navy right? Run away when problem can't b solved. Wartime how? He save his life first? Run road first? This kind of cb minister also have??? N we must respect him?

AND WHAT ABOUT DESMOND KUEK?
IF youur big boss know no hope liao, kuek thinks he's better than Lui or he's staying cos of his 2 million paycheck?

Have some standards laaa

The breakdowns started since Yeo Cheow Tong and Raymond Lim were both Minister of Transport.

But the regular breakdowns started when retailer Saw Phaik Hwa became SMRT CEO and neglect maintenance by retrenching permanent Singapore engineers for contract cheaper foreign engineers. She was focused on turning SMRT into a real estate company and making profits for her own bonuses and salary.

The breakdowns became so regular that SMRT need to get taxpayers to pay $900 million for the repair bill and SMRT was a private company. It showed how deep the neglect of SMRT maintenance was past 20 years.

3 years had past, $900 million taxpayers spent on maintenance but it only got worse. Maybe LTY resigned because he wasted $900 million and the $1.1 billion of taxpayers money spent on buses for private companies like SMRT and SBS?

SMRT to spend S$900 million to fix train problems

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/smrt-to-sp...-problems.html

Transport operator SMRT Corp said on Tuesday it will spend S$900 million on the renewal and preventive maintenance of Singapore’s metro system after a series of train breakdowns in recent months.

The major projects, which will take place over eight years, include a re-signalling of the North-South and East-West Lines and a change-out of wooden sleepers along the ballasted tracks on both lines.

Interim SMRT CEO Tan Ek Kia said train disruptions to allow for the upgrading will be timed as much as possible during off-peak hours and days to minimize inconvenience to commuters.

“As the system ages, our maintenance regime needs to adapt from one that focuses on repair and overhaul, to one which also includes replacement and renewal,” he explained.

To prevent last December’s disruptions from repeating, SMRT also announced in its statement that “all the claws securing the third rail – the power rail – to the latest generation will be replaced with a new positive-locking mechanism”.

The claws in areas believed to be more susceptible to being dislodged will be changed first and nightly checks on the tracks and the interim measures announced earlier will continue, SMRT said.

New systems will be implemented to “better identify vibration issues, and minimize them if found”, it added.

The transport operator will also increase the frequency of track and third rail geometry inspections to once in every two to three months, as compared to the previous six months.

Even though “faults will arise from time to time”, Tan said he wanted to “assure everyone that we have a robust management system to identify faults; and that we thoroughly investigate each and every fault, learn what happened, and ensure that all learnings are incorporated into our maintenance cycle.”

The recent Circle Line disruption on 18 April was caused by power loss to “a computer that controls the critical signaling system”, he explained.

“SMRT has completed inspections to ensure the factors that caused this power failure will not again arise without sufficient warning.”

Tan also acknowledged that “SMRT needs to further improve its incident response procedures, particularly in informing the public about disruptions and helping commuters affected in the system”.

SMRT added that it is discussing cost-sharing arrangements with the Land Transport Authority, which owns much of Singapore's subway network.

kuasimi · #**441** 26-11-2015, 12:44 AM

The S$1.1 billion question — let me say it again

https://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2...-say-it-again/

My earlier article on the proposed S$1.1 billion give-away to SMRT and SBS Transit, our two public bus companies, was, truth be told, rather rambling. I was trying to cover too much ground. A comment by Yuen has motivated me to try to re-state my case, this time in a more succinct way. Further down, I will provide a more direct response to his comment.

In six points, my thoughts on this matter are:

1. By awarding sectional monopolies to SMRT and SBS Transit, the government has pulled a veil over the question of whether these companies have operated as leanly as they could. How do we know they have not over-rewarded their directors and senior staff? How do we know they have been as efficient as possible? Or that they have not been over-generous with dividends?

2. Therefore, how can we take them (and the government) at their word that they are unable to expand their fleets to cope with demand without a bail-out? To say that if the public wants better public transport, taxpayers must cough up, is to oversimplify the issue. Maybe the companies could have put aside enough funds to buy their own buses, if they had put their minds to it before. As it is, at end 2010, SBS Transit had total capital and reserves of S$317 million, while SMRT had S$770 million. Putting aside enough money to expand their bus fleet aggressively is not that unrealistic.

3. In other words, I am not convinced that capital grants from the state amounting to S$1.1 billion are a proven need — though this is not to say I am sure we can do without.

4. Even if capital grants are needed because

(a) SMRT and SBS have been as efficient as possible and there is no way they can find more savings to fund needed purchases (an argument I remain skeptical of), or

(b) as a general rule, affordable, good quality public transport can never be profitable no matter how much one tweaks the numbers and therefore state subsidies have to play a part (a position I am sympathetic to) . . .

5. Why must capital grants be given on a silver platter to two nominated companies? If we wish to keep the companies as private (albeit publicly-listed), commercial entities, then the injection of capital must follow commercial logic. Either the existing shareholders must suffer dilution of their shareholdings (i.e. the government must get new shares commensurate with the amount of capital injected), or if the existing shareholders do not wish to suffer dilution, then the companies must accept loss of market share. The latter will happen when the capital grant is given to a third company which then gets to operate 550 new buses. This would naturally be a wholly-government-owned company.

(See also How to subsidise buses)

6. Indeed, as Yuen argues, it would be awkward for a wholly-government-owned company to operate in competition (if that is — surprise! — what it amounts to) with two quasi-private companies, which is exactly why I say, go for the clean solution: Nationalise them all.

* * * * *

I mentioned at the start of this article, Yuen’s comment. He wrote:

what do people want exactly? LTA ordering the two bus companies to take out bank loans or issue bonds to buy new buses to expand services, and pass on the interest bill to passengers in higher fares?

taking YB’s two suggestions

1. treat it i.e. $1.1B as an injection of equity capital, thereby diluting private shareholdings — that requires the approval of existing shareholders, who will meet, discuss, complain, write to ST forum/TemasekReview… that might be very transparent, but is transparency the Government’s favorite objective? it obviously would not be quick

2. set up a third bus company, wholly owned by the government, — then we would have the government directly competing with two “private” companies; further, by losing their duopoly, the companies may well need to be compensated; while I am not clear about the terms of their existing franchise, I remember that when Singtel lost its telecom monopoly to allow M1 and Starhub to get licenses, the government paid a compensation of $1B or thereabouts

the $1.1B subsidy is of course contrary to the government’s past policy and is ideologically untidy, but it gets the buses on the road quickly and is not affected by all those objections swirling around; Singapore Inc plows forwards in its usual way

He has raised some cogent points, particularly his recognition that we’re not starting with a clean slate.

Taking his first point, indeed, the bus companies can issue bonds to raise the needed capital, but as he said, they will have to pay interest on those bonds. Yuen makes the mistake of assuming that fares must rise to cover the cost of interest payments. But why should they rise? Fares after all are set by the regulator. If the regulator, bowing to public pressure, refuses to let fares rise by much, then either:

(a) the companies have to find internal savings in order to pay interest — perhaps they could reduce directors’ salaries, top management bonuses and dividend pay-outs? Or

(b) the companies go broke and the creditors seize and auction off the assets to new bus companies.

From commuters’ point of view, neither of the above outcomes are scary.

Given this government’s penchant for protecting business interests (especially crony business interests) over the working stiff’s interests, more likely than not, the regulator will allow fares to rise as much as needed to keep SMRT and SBS Transit in profit. Then the scenario that Yuen paints may well come about.

But that is not an argument to say, “Oh dear, we can’t let that happen, so we better not ask the companies to go to the bond market. Instead, let’s give them a busload of cash with no strings attached.” If the regulator behaves that way, it is a political question, and the answer doesn’t lie in our bending backwards to be nice to the bus companies. It lies in keeping a political watch over the regulator (and by extension, the government).

Yuen’s next two points confuse difficulty with right and wrong. He comes very close to saying that if the right thing to do is difficult, let’s not bother with trying; let’s live with the wrong solution.

He may be more realistic than I am, but I find it hard to give up so easily.

As for his final point that the state may have to give huge compensation to the transport companies to get them to give up their duopoly, firstly I find it rather incredible that they would have been promised a duopoly, since, at least in theory, they were supposed to “compete” with each other, even if in practice nothing of the sort happened. And if indeed our government had given them contractual rights to operate a duopoly, rights which cannot be rescinded without a huge payment, then all the more I shall be furious at the crass stupidity of it all.

sadfa · #**442** 26-11-2015, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuasimi

The breakdowns started since Yeo Cheow Tong and Raymond Lim were both Minister of Transport.

But the regular breakdowns started when retailer Saw Phaik Hwa became SMRT CEO and neglect maintenance by retrenching permanent Singapore engineers for contract cheaper foreign engineers. She was focused on turning SMRT into a real estate company and making profits for her own bonuses and salary.

The breakdowns became so regular that SMRT need to get taxpayers to pay $900 million for the repair bill and SMRT was a private company. It showed how deep the neglect of SMRT maintenance was past 20 years.

3 years had past, $900 million taxpayers spent on maintenance but it only got worse. Maybe LTY resigned because he wasted $900 million and the $1.1 billion of taxpayers money spent on buses for private companies like SMRT and SBS?

[B][SIZE="4"]SMRT to

Transport operator SMRT Corp said on Tuesday it will spend S$900 million on the renewal and preventive maintenance of Singapore’s metro system after a series of train breakdowns in recent months.

The major projects, which will take place over eight years, include a re-signalling of the North-South and East-West Lines and a change-out of wooden sleepers along the ballasted tracks on both lines.

Interim SMRT CEO Tan Ek Kia said train disruptions to allow for the upgrading will be timed as much as possible during off-peak hours and days to minimize inconvenience to commuters.

“As the system ages, our maintenance regime needs to adapt from one that focuses on repair and overhaul, to one which also includes replacement and renewal,” he explained.

To prevent last December’s disruptions from repeating, SMRT also announced in its statement that “all the claws securing the third rail – the power rail – to the latest generation will be replaced with a new positive-locking mechanism”.

The claws in areas believed to be more susceptible to being dislodged will be changed first and nightly checks on the tracks and the interim measures announced earlier will continue, SMRT said.

New systems will be implemented to “better identify vibration issues, and minimize them if found”, it added.

The transport operator will also increase the frequency of track and third rail geometry inspections to once in every two to three months, as compared to the previous six months.

Even though “faults will arise from time to time”, Tan said he wanted to “assure everyone that we have a robust management system to identify faults; and that we thoroughly investigate each and every fault, learn what happened, and ensure that all learnings are incorporated into our maintenance cycle.”

The recent Circle Line disruption on 18 April was caused by power loss to “a computer that controls the critical signaling system”, he explained.

“SMRT has completed inspections to ensure the factors that caused this power failure will not again arise without sufficient warning.”

Tan also acknowledged that “SMRT needs to further improve its incident response procedures, particularly in informing the public about disruptions and helping commuters affected in the system”.

SMRT added that it is discussing cost-sharing arrangements with the Land Transport Authority, which owns much of Singapore's subway network.rl]

WTF!!! Why you defend lui?

There's nothing to say he feel bad about spending 0.9 billion n yet problem can't solve n he being a gentleman, he quit as punishment. Are you a pap spy in disguise?

jacky43 · #**443** 26-11-2015, 12:36 PM

Again my friends. This gen this type of discussion should be open to WL and FL too. Since this girls are anxious to receive long term stay in this red dot.

My contribution to that 2 UK bus co that will operate their services before CNY. I think so. I guess they will shut down biz after 5 yrs bec they cant hit targets in profits. Only one issue and it cause them heavy lossess.

They did not employed more born locals. Those that they hire the ang mo did not give them special benefits. FTs believe in the wrong people. FTs are expats, those on employment pass, PR and new citzens including those with 20 yrs in this country.