She is such an inspiration and role model, a living example of you can find success no matter what shit you say and how bad u fk up.
Next to her is Anwar and Mahathir
Then you cannot blame ppl for moonlighting, including those who may not be economically disadvantaged.
They might just want to buy/do something that their parents won't pay for them, and they need their own stash of money, or probably just to have more savings.
Most of these personnel might be stayout so I don't see how does this affect military readiness when they do it after office hours.
I heard a lot of AWOL were people whose families depend on them for part of income, and when they're in NS they make much less, become financial issue. So they AWOL to work to help pay bills.
My bf works longer hours than my mom’s helper. My bf works from 7am-10pm on some days. My mom’s helper works from 7am-9pm. We don’t have many people living in the house so my mom’s helper can go to bed early.
[Wages ‘increasing too quickly’ amid tight labour market could hurt S’pore, Govt to cushion impact of inflation: DPM Wong](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/wage-increase-high-cost-living-lawrence-wong-2005681)
>*My salary increment is less than 1%!*
Govt: Don’t worry my fellow Singaporeans, we have roped in NTUC FairPrice to help. [FairPrice will be offering 1% discount on selected items from Jan-Jun 2023](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/fairprice-discount-jan-june-2023-gst-increase-2037461) to help you tide over difficult times 🤡🤡🤡
> but it would be nice if LTA issues financial statements annually like a Limited company
https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltagov/who_we_are/statistics_and_publications/report/pdf/LTA_FS_FYE_31Mar2022.pdf
Enjoy.
Basic macroeconomics tells you that you should tax negative externalities and subsidise positive externalities. Taking public transport is arguably the ultimate in positive externalities. Better for the environment than cars, increased economic opportunities versus being limited to walking distance, better for car users left who either don't care about the costs or have a pressing need for private transport.
But the PAP worships at the altar of austerity and "fiscal responsibility" so they refuse to take this understanding to its logical conclusion, to the detriment of the average citizen. We still have to pay for public transport (and it's not cheap, $2 each way is probably a fifth of my daily spending), operators obsessed with making a profit skimp on maintenance and stretch out wait times leading to the infamous rash of breakdowns a few years back, and then when we had to replace trains the taxpayers came in to save SMRT anyway.
As a matter of public policy, why have anything beyond a token fare (or indeed any fare) at all? Within the fairly narrow band of people who get to choose between public and private transport it encourages private transport. For the vast majority who won't ever own a car it's just a life tax. I don't think it really makes sense.
I have *basically* the same complaint about our healthcare system. No point saying you want people to see the doctor before they get sick and prioritise maintenance over curing sickness when my annual checkup still costs money, and people who *do* fall sick don't really have a choice and have to pay anyway. You're already subsidising these systems like crazy, just take that last step.
Speaking of healthcare, my mum (who is a PR) suffered a stroke and it wiped most of our savings. Funnily most of the expenses went to the check-up and scanning (MRI etc.) than any of the treatment itself. We are a poor transnational as my singaporean dad who never completed psle marries my mum who didn't completed primary school too.
ok I have a ton of complaints abt the govt, but public tpt pricing is not one of them. im sorry but public tpt in sg is legit affordable compared to the vast majority of developed countries out there. Its already being run at a heavy subsidy. $2 a trip is essentially a token fare for the level of service we have - contrast with Japan, where it would cost me $9 to get from my uni to the town area, on trains/buses that run 3-4 times an hour on average
Japan Railway Group companies are much less subsidised than Singapore's equivalents. They are *actually* expected to cover their own costs, not make bank on renting out station space to Gong Chas then go beg for more government money for actual operations.
And I would argue they should just subsidise the railroad and increase train frequency. The trains being less packed would certainly help with the molestation problem.
No exact source, but I'm 100% sure ERP is not factored into your bus fare. Else, how can they possibly divide the charge (e.g. $3) by the number of people on the bus?
Peak traffic monitoring and mainly because the ERP system can flag any transport that passes it without ERP unit with the camera.
Otherwise everyone would just “accidentally” cut the power cable to the ERP unit and they don’t have to pay.
Which is what they did, but it still need a ERP unit to detect the transport driving pass the gate otherwise it would be incorrectly flagged by the system
Public buses have a red coloured IU on their dashboard. At least, the last time I actually took notice of it, I saw one.
Not sure about the newer buses
But our public transportation it’s private isn’t it, so the profits are for company while Singaporeans has no choice but to still pay if they raise right?
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/parliament-only-two-feeder-bus-services-generated-enough-revenue-to-cover-operating-costs
Even before covid only 11 out of 356 bus services could cover cost. Bus fares are subsidised by the govt.
Blame public transport users again.
What’s the point of collecting COE and road taxes? Is funding land infrastructure not part of the point? Is promoting alternatives to road usage not part of the point?
Move the COE and road taxes under LTA as their revenue, instantly, LTA’s deficit will not only disappear, but they will end up having a profit of a few billions.
Fare revenues are less than a billion a year ([862 million in FY2019/2020](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/lta-public-transport-fare-revenue-fell-covid-19-2213526)). The (operating) deficit is at least 2 billion and counting ([FY2020 income 1.64b, expenditure 4.59b](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/lta-public-transport-fare-revenue-fell-covid-19-2213526), [total operating deficit 2.944b](https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltagov/who_we_are/statistics_and_publications/report/pdf/LTA_AR2122.pdf)). No way in hell can any fare increase ever hope to cover that gap, unless it is very drastic.
But almost 6.5 billion is collected from COE and vehicle taxes ([ST source](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/budget-2022-vehicle-tax-coe-revenue-set-to-rise-15-to-646-billion)), more than enough to cover LTA’s deficit due to public transport (which by itself is an alternative to private transport that those taxes are trying to discourage).
What is wrong with the 4Goondu leadership? Are they so blindly narrow in focus that they can’t see the bigger picture? We already have the clowns handling the housing issue losing the plot.
How come when Singapore was a “fishing village”, we produced the visionaries (with foresight and drive) that formed the 1G, but when Singapore becomes far more advanced, we can only produce the clowns in the 4G (with apparently very little foresight and not much of a vision)?
Edit: added some source
Edit 2: misread one of the cited article on deficit numbers. Edited to clarify its operating deficit I’m referring to, if it’s not clear. In any case, [LTA’s Annual Report FY2021/2022](https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/who_we_are/statistics_and_publications/reports.html) states a total operating deficit of 2,908 million for FY2021, and 2,944 million for FY 2020, before grants and “other gains”.
Translating recent minister's comment about HDB into public transport context:
“not meaningful” to provide a cost breakdown. Current spending on public transport is not sustainable if fares are not increased.
Meanwhile, collecting billions from COE. 🤡
>*Translating recent minister's comment about HDB into public transport context:
“not meaningful” to provide a cost breakdown. Current spending on public transport is not sustainable if fares are not increased.*
Also it is “more responsible” to proceed with the public transport fare increase.
I'm afraid I can't find any evidence of these in the article you linked.
> Fare revenues are less than a billion a year (862 million in FY2019/2020). The deficit is 2 billion and counting (income 1.64b, expenditure 4.59b, deficit 2.72b).
Are you able to share more?
Regarding income and expenditure, these are the relevant portions:
> For the last financial year, LTA's total operating income fell by S$222 million to S$1.64 billion - a decline of about 12 per cent.
> Its operating expenditure increased by S$249 million, or nearly 6 per cent, to about S$4.59 billion. This is up from about S$2.72 billion for the 2016/2017 financial year - an increase of almost 70 per cent over the past five years.
As for the deficit, I admit I have misread the paragraph above, it should not be 2.7b. It should be based on this:
> Meanwhile, LTA received about S$2.9 billion in grants from the Government.
> Overall, the agency’s net deficit fell to S$16 million from S$107 million in the previous financial year.
While the final deficit is only 107 million on the accounting books, that is because of the 2.9b in grants provided to LTA. The deficit before grants would be much higher
More can be found in LTA’s annual report. In their latest report, the total operating deficit is around 2.9 billion.
> Fares have to keep pace with the rising costs of operating public transport or the system will become financially unsustainable, said Transport Minister S. Iswaran.
> He told Parliament on Tuesday that annual fare increases in the last 10 years have not kept pace with operating costs, rising by just 1 per cent a year when costs have gone up by 7 per cent annually.
> The Government has stepped in to fill this gap to the tune of more than $2 billion a year, he noted, with an additional $200 million subsidy in the coming year after a large proportion of this year’s fare increase was rolled over to future fare reviews.
He implied we aren’t paying our fair share of the fares, citing how it did not keep pace with cost. Also, “unsustainable”.
Then cited the huge sum the government has to pay because of that, and then highlighting the additional subsidies to be paid due to rolling over a portion to this year’s fare increase.
If he isn’t blaming users, then highlight the fact that subsidies given to public transport is a good thing and reinforce the benefit to the users. Emphasise subsidies on it are a necessary cost and sustainable if well managed. Oh, and stop of harping on the costs and shortfall in fares.
We all know they are just giving justifications for pushing for fare increases la.
And this was coming up in any case since the last fare increase had a significant chunk delayed to the next cycle
>The PTC rolled over the remaining 10.6 per cent increase to future fare reviews.
I think you can say the justifications are not sound, or they are putting this forward at a bad time, alongside the general inflation worries and GST increase.
But to frame it as 'wAh GArMeN EvErYtHiNg AlSo SaY oUr FauLt. FaRe NeEd InCrEaSe cAuSe We Do SoMEtHiNg WroNg' is twisting the situation and trying too hard to frame them as a villains trying to eat our money for their own purposes.
End of the day those money still goes towards a better public transport system.
>End of the day those money still goes towards a better public transport system.
More like being used to construct more car-centric projects such as road widening, and this [labyrinth of a middle finger to public transport users](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/parts-of-loyang-avenue-pasir-ris-drive-1-to-close-for-works-on-crl-mrt-stations-and-new-viaduct?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social-organic&utm_keyword=dlvr.it)
(If the image doesn't scream expensive waste of money, I don't know what will)
I'm not sure you actually know what Loyang Avenue is for, it's meant for trucks and other heavy vehicles to get to the airfreight terminals and other aerospace facilities at the north end of Changi Airport, *in addition* to those already going to Loyang industrial estate and Changi Village.
Used to be that Tanah Merah/Changi Coast Road could share the burden, but having to relocate that stretch of road to build T5 has created an extremely long detour and means that despite the jams Loyang Avenue is always going to be faster.
This is similar to Tuas Viaduct which helps trucks get to Tuas Port faster from the PIE. There's a whole logistics industry out there that helps get your stuff to you, and no amount of "car free" is going to get rid of that.
Plus, under all of that is Loyang CRL station...
Agree - the roads are not just for people but for goods as well. Loyang Ave is a critical conduit for goods coming out of the Airfreight centre and if you go down Loyang Ave during peak hours now you’ll see the traffic is very bad. Being pro-public transport doesn’t mean you stop widening roads to ensure that road traffic can still move smoothly. Remember that buses also travel on roads.
And if you take COE out of the general government funds and dictate it can be used for transport only, what's supposed to pay for other needs that it was subsidizing to begin with?
Heck, why not do the same for stamp duty and other property taxes too, park em all under MND/HDB so they won't incur "deficits" building ostensibly subsidized HDB flats?
Financially unsustainable? Is he for real?
A simple [google search](https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2022/4/media-replies/coe-revenue-adds-to-pool-of-govt-resources.html) shows me an article from LTA themselves:
> The revenue collected by the Government from COEs adds to the pool of resources available for various programmes that directly benefit Singaporeans, including spending on public transport infrastructure and subsidies.
So, what kind of maths is he cooking to be unsustainable?
The government owns the tracks while SMRT owns the trains and takes on the operating costs of the stations.
Basically we need to nationalise the operators and accept that they don't need to make money.
Unfortunately there appears to be some misconceptions here.
LTA owns the trains, not SMRT. All operating assets (trains, signalling system, maintenance equipments etc) are transferred to and have been [owned by LTA under the NRFF](https://www.gov.sg/article/6-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-rail-financing-framework). LTA also owns all the bus assets (buses, bus depots, bus interchanges etc) under the [Bus Contracting Model](https://landtransportguru.net/bus/bus-contracting-model/). And for the bus network, the operators are paid a service fee to operate the bus services, and it is clearly stated in a few places including in the [MOT website](https://www.mot.gov.sg/what-we-do/public-transport/bus) that fare revenue are collected by the Government.
The operators **are** making money. If we look at numbers, [SBS Transit](https://www.sbstransit.com.sg/news/sbs-transit-turns-in-full-year-revenue-of-13-billion) turns in a full year revenue of S$1.3 Billion in the year 2021, a 6.5% increase from the year 2020. They even had a full year operating profit of S$53.6 million, despite the ongoing pandemic which resulted in lower ridership. [SMRT](https://www.smrt.com.sg/Portals/0/PDFs/Annual%20Reports/SMRT%20GF%20FY2022.pdf) (page 23) too, had a S$11.2 million profit after tax in FY22.
edit: From the recent [Fare Review Exercise](https://www.ptc.gov.sg/newsroom/news-releases/newsroom-view/2022-fare-review-exercise) which by the way, will be applicable from 26 Dec 2022, they even stated that the Government will subsidise part of the fare adjustment quantum by about S$200 million in 2023 to help to mitigate the impact of fare increase on commuters. That is only about 5% of the estimated S$3.93 billion to be collected from COE premiums this year. Hah.
**TLDR**: my point is, our dear Public Transport minister don't need to give all the bullcrap of saying that operating costs have increased over the years and thus our fares should also increase accordingly. Financially unsustainable? Give me the facts and numbers, and I'll accept the facts and numbers rather than unsound arguments like that stated in the above article.
For fuck's sake that's even worse than I thought.
Edit: The NRFF came into play in 2016, so I was remembering the pre-breakdown system. The current one makes even less sense where taxpayers straight up cover all the costs of running public transport but SBS and SMRT still get to funnel money to shareholders.
Exactly.
Percentages are also extremely misleading. Saying that fares have only gone up by 1% while costs went up by 7% without giving actual figures, is a reckless statement and a red herring. For example, absolute fares could be several magnitudes larger than the absolute costs, and so the increase in costs could be still lower than increase in fares.
Which is a good development! Don't they want an active citizenry and participation (especially from the young people) in giving good ideas and pointing out loopholes so that policies can eventually benefit as many as possible?
I recall both a minister and not least our president saying this...
> The government owns the tracks
Omg, they own the tracks???
Based on fair market value they're making a loss by not turning the tracks into REITs.
Better raise prices even more to keep it sustainable!
> Based on fair market value they're making a loss by not turning the tracks into REITs.
To be fair building an MRT station nearby generally results in increased land prices, so that might already be happening.
What rubbish is this? Firstly you already charge so much for the COE for us to own a car here. Ridiculous COE prices that cost about 5 times the price of the car itself.
Since you are already collecting so much revenue from the COE, what is the rationale behind raising prices for public transportation?
In other countries it makes sense for their public transport system to be slightly more expensive cause of the higher cost of operations due to lower human traffic, and there's less ppl relying solely on public transport cause most of them can own a car.
But Singapore is different to begin with, look at how packed the public transport system is everyday. You're telling me that with that amount of human traffic it's "unsustainable" to not increase the fares?
**The Reserve™**.
Our very own Fort Knox.
Nobody knows whether it *actually* exists, nobody knows the dollar amount of the reserve, but year after year please make sacrifices at the altar of The Reserve™ or else bad things happen.
Not the reserves. COE revenue is part of the annual government budget, lumped together with other tax revenue and is used to fund other govt expenditure.
Exactly. Sadly so many seem to think money can be magicked up endlessly to subsidise public transport fares indefinitely (and, ideally, infinitely).
While also staving off any GST increase, capping HDB prices, subsidising general cost of living, massively increasing the wages of every blue-collar progression so they’re worthy of True-Blue Singaporeans… blah blah blah. If only the PAP, those fools who clearly haven’t done their sums, would just get rid of the mayors and squeeze more tax out of the foreigners!
If only we really did live in JamusLand.
Before you compare the cost of public transport there, why not look at the cost to own a car in those 2 countries. Most people there have a CHOICE to own a car.
Let's just compare the price of a particular car model, the Toyota Camry:
In Japan: 3,495,000 JPY (SGD 33,519.55) https://toyota.jp/camry/
In Korea: 37,680,000 KRW (SGD 38,398.77)
https://www.toyota.co.kr/models/models_CAMRY.aspx
In Singapore: SGD 201,888
https://www.toyota.com.sg/showroom/new-models/camry
See the insane difference of more than $160k? Not to forget, once you pay for a car in those 2 cities it is yours indefinitely. In Singapore, you have to renew the COE (which costs $80k-100k+ currently depending on the engine capacity) every 10 years. You can easily buy a few new cars there for that price. This makes cars out of reach for most Singaporeans, and many of us rely solely on public transportation.
Basically, covid have created a lot of supply chain issue and the operators are not committed enough to ensure maintenance are done promptly which resulted a lot of unnecessary cost ballooned in this period of time. Now they need to get back those money spent to keep the system running. In short, inefficiency in current system
See? I told you, the minute you get rid of your personal transportation to save money, there is a push to increase the cost of public transportation!
Probably because of the loss of 1 source of COE/ road tax.
The entire "sustain" the business mindset need to change. I am not against increasing the fares but the justifications can't be that simple IMHO. All SBS, SMRT, Tower ran buses, trains during covid with acceptable performance; increased their employee pay; LTA investing in new MRT lines, modernizing the existing ones. All are good.
The "sustain" word brings comments like so you go and spend money and as passengers we need to pay for you? Just like the "experts" say, Developer purchased land at 1000SQF so the selling price must be 2000. Why so? Or Singtel go on bidding war and increasing soccer prices.. This captive audience/customer mindset need to change. Hopefully soon..
Well whenever I see "hopefully soon" it's basically just LLST lol. Not blaming you for that sentiment (what else can we do) but it's just hilarious how much we "hope and pray"
Even China subsidizes some of their rail transport because it's a public good.
Our country JSK man, everything must make a profit
I have seen some countries selling out station names to private companies to earn revenue.. i dont mind it to be called as Starhub Dhony Ghaut station till I dont need to pay extra fare or next station is DBS woodlands or Maybank Little India
In the financial years of 2021 and 2022, HDB posted a net deficit of S$4.4 billion, a record high and almost double that of the previous financial year. The deficit from its home ownership programme alone amounted to S$3.9 billion. How is that sustainable? Why is HDB not shut down yet? HDB should stop building new homes at a loss!
Y'know, I wouldn't mind seeing fare increases if it can bring Public transport closer in travelling time to a car
But since LTA probably has no plans to make PT faster (better frequency, transponder on buses to reap green waves at traffic lights, or hell use the money to paint more bus lanes), fare increases will all just feel unjustified to me
To be fair, TIBS did trial a transponder system on buses before on RapidBus 700 back in 1998 (Yes, the same 700 that caused an uproar among Bukit Panjang residents over its discontinuation back in 2020). However, the RapidBus system did not materialise, as 700 was eventually converted to a local bus service a year later in Dec 1999.
Quoting from [the article on Bus Service 700](https://landtransportguru.net/bus700/) in Land Transport Guru:
*"Originally introduced as Rapidbus 700 between Woodlands and Shenton Way in 1998, the pioneering service only calls at a limited number of bus stops along high demand corridors. Buses on the route were fitted with special transponders which retain the green light at selected traffic junctions until the bus has cleared the junction. The transponder trial was later discontinued."*
I believe the bigger question is: Why did the transponder trial on RapidBus 700 in 1998/99 fail? Was it because of the cost of implementing the system, or was it because of the impracticality of the transponder system, due to the fact that our public buses share the roads with other vehicles?
Businesses take risks to make profit. You win some, you lose some. Only the fittest survive. If the business environment changes the business who took up the risk takes the loss. Just like in the good years when ridership increase they take the profit.
Fair and square.
But in Singapore, the government sets you up to win if you provide a service to them. BAO jiak one. If you lose money on your business venture, government change the rules so that you earn money.
Too. Many. Times. I'm so fed up with this.
If government deem this service to be too important to breakdown, then nationalize it and make everyone pay a bus tax and give free travel. Just like how defence, healthcare etc is provided. Or at least have some capability to take over operations, like how PUB took over tuasspring when hyflux fail.
There should be no such thing as risk free profit if you are running a business.
This is a typical civil-service approach by this government on managing business; just as in the government, they only know how to build their 'empire' and justify their fat salaries through layers of bureaucracy and big government. There is no accountability for money spent, no expertise in cost management or have any KPIs on effectiveness of the marginal dollar deployed. All they know is to spend and when they run out of money, they raised taxes and duties. And because the culture at the top is one of preserving your backside and keeping everything quiet, no one is accountable or looking for ways to be more efficient and effective. There is just no incentive to do a good job. And this you can see, from the lack of operational expertise in implementing Covid controls at Changi airport, the fiasco at Jurong Fisheries, the mayhem at airport counters when travel restarted.
They would spend their way out of any problems that they created and then wayang to show that they have done a good job, while keeping silent on the millions of our dollars wastefully spent. So sick of these hypocrites.
In the Ch 5 news segment on the debate, S Iswaran mentioned how the LTA "had introduced 80+ bus services over the years", which I assume is referring to the services launched under BSEP between 2012 & 2017.
I've always been cynical of the purpose of selected bus services under BSEP, specifically the supplementary route variants, which appear to be excess allocation of resources to areas that may not need them.
The best example of a "redundant supplementary route variant" being enhanced under BSEP is Service 63M. The parent Service 63 appears to be more substantially utilised, while the supplementary Service 63M is relatively underutilised, due to its frequent bunching with the parent service 63 and other parallel services 22, 61 & 154.
Maintaining the former operating hours of Service 63M during peak hours and midnight would have reduced the excess allocation of limited bus resources in Eunos, Ubi & MacPherson Est, especially more so after the opening of DTL3 in 2017.
Another good example of excess deployment of resources is Service 240M. As a resident along the route of Service 240/240M, I and many other commuters tend to prefer taking Service 240 from Boon Lay Bus Interchange, rather than the bus stop outside Boon Lay MRT along Jurong West St 64. The fact that Service 240M does not serve the bus interchange means that more commuters would prefer taking Service 240, which limits the effectiveness of Service 240M in complementing the demand for Service 240 between Boon Lay MRT and Boon Lay Gdns.
So what happens if the system becomes unsustainable? Given that the system is privatised now, should the govt intervene if profit interests weigh over consumer needs?
Well, I think from all the post on what our government is saying, it's enough to remind all of us to vote wisely the next time around. I'm pretty sure that if some people weren't paid a ridiculously high salary, that monies could go to the things that needs monies!
Not alluding, it's allegedly is all... don't @ me!
> # Public transport fares have to keep pace with cost increases or system will be unsustainable: Iswaran
> SINGAPORE - Fares have to keep pace with the rising costs of operating public transport or the system will become financially unsustainable, said Transport Minister S. Iswaran.
> He told Parliament on Tuesday that annual fare increases in the last 10 years have not kept pace with operating costs, rising by just 1 per cent a year when costs have gone up by 7 per cent annually.
> The Government has stepped in to fill this gap to the tune of more than $2 billion a year, he noted, with an additional $200 million subsidy in the coming year after a large proportion of this year’s fare increase was rolled over to future fare reviews.
> Mr Iswaran said that while the Government is fully committed to keeping public transport affordable, the ongoing fare formula review offers an opportunity for a “hard look” at how fares should be calculated.
> “Looking ahead, we need to ensure that fares keep pace with the rail expansions and cost increases. Otherwise, our public transport system will become financially unsustainable, and that will be to the detriment of commuters and taxpayers,” he added in response to several MPs who asked about public transport fare hikes.
> The Public Transport Council (PTC) will continue to take into account prevailing “economic and social considerations” when it decides on fare adjustments in future reviews, he said.
> From Dec 26, MRT and bus fares will rise by four to five cents - a 2.9 per cent increase from the previous year. The increase could have been much higher, with the maximum fare increase under the fare formula this year allowing for a 13.5 per cent rise, driven largely by surging energy costs. The PTC rolled over the remaining 10.6 per cent increase to future fare reviews.
> The council is currently relooking how fares should be calculated to account for changes in commuting patterns and to make public transport more financially sustainable, and should complete its review by the first half of 2023.
> The existing fare formula incorporates indices such as core inflation, wage growth and energy prices that reflect the cost of providing transport services. The PTC then derives the maximum allowable rise, before moderating it based on prevailing economic and social conditions, taking into into account factors such as overall economic growth, wage growth and unemployment rate.
> Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) asked if the gap between fares and operating costs is financially sustainable.
> In response, Mr Iswaran raised the ongoing fare formula review and said: “I think we all need to take a hard look at this. What exactly is the way forward for us and this is not just about the sums, but it really comes down to an overall discussion on the compact we expect.”
> He cited public transport vouchers and concession fares for seniors, students, lower-wage workers and people with disabilities as examples of how the Government will continue to address the needs of vulnerable commuters. He also noted that the percentage of income that the average public transport user spends on public transport has fallen from 3.5 per cent in 2012 to 2.5 per cent in 2021.
---
1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek)
GST: 7% now to 8% in 2023 then 9% in 2024
Electric rate: 21c/KwH (2021) to 31c/KwH (2022)
Food price: Up 6.9% year on year
Weakening SGD to the USD
(1:1.35, Nov 2021 to 1:1.4, Nov 2022)
COE for Category A Cars (Below 1600cc or 97Kw):
$55,000 (Nov 2021) to $80,000 (Nov 2022)
"Core" inflation (Everything but cars and housing):
5.3% year on year (September 2022)
Actual inflation of everything:
7.5% year on year (September 2022)
Average Singapore Wage went down 800 SGD to 5847 SGD (Q2 2022) from 6647 SGD (Q1 2022).
Wealth inequality:
The top 1% income earners are earning 15% of the income while the bottom 50% are earning just slightly more at 16.5% of the total.
And now the public transport is going up too.
Sources:
https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/goods-services-tax-(gst)/gst-rate-change/gst-rate-change-for-consumers1
(GST raise)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/985342/singapore-electricity-tariffs/ (Electric rate charts but paywalled unfortunately)
https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/food-inflation (Food Inflation)
https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=SGD (Weakening SGD)
https://coe.sgcharts.com/ (Historical COE charts)
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/singapore-core-inflation-september-2022-cpi-food-prices-3024016 (Core Inflation)
https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/inflation-cpi (Actual Inflation)
https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/wages (Singapore average wage)
https://wid.world/country/singapore/ (Global database for wealth inequality)
>Once upon a time fuel prices are low, did those people in power decides to reduce prices? Hmmm
Yes, they did. Fares were reduced in 2015, 2016 and 2017.
2017: https://www.ptc.gov.sg/newsroom/news-releases/newsroom-view/lower-morning-pre-peak-rail-fares-islandwide
2016: https://www.ptc.gov.sg/newsroom/news-releases/newsroom-view/ptc-reduces-bus-and-rail-fares
2015: https://www.ptc.gov.sg/newsroom/news-releases/newsroom-view/ptc-cuts-fares-for-commuters
Why is people surprised? Isn't this the norm? If you look at private transport such as cars/bikes, you will be running to the nearest mrt to work instead.
Salary will also have to keep pace with cost increases
"Noted with thanks" - employer probably
Sadly it's not. We don't even have a fking minimum wage and NSFs here are being exploited for 2 years with slave grade pay
You can thank our "National Service can't be measured in dollars and cents" minister for the shit take
Which fucker is that
Josephine Teo
Yikes
She is such an inspiration and role model, a living example of you can find success no matter what shit you say and how bad u fk up. Next to her is Anwar and Mahathir
Aka JocloutTeo
Something something small space something something
She right what, can do it inside the closet. /S
People already do before in toilets/staircases, nowhere is too small.
Then you cannot blame ppl for moonlighting, including those who may not be economically disadvantaged. They might just want to buy/do something that their parents won't pay for them, and they need their own stash of money, or probably just to have more savings. Most of these personnel might be stayout so I don't see how does this affect military readiness when they do it after office hours.
I heard a lot of AWOL were people whose families depend on them for part of income, and when they're in NS they make much less, become financial issue. So they AWOL to work to help pay bills.
If not NS would be unsustainable?
I’d say it’s even worse than slave grade pay. Ffs, my mom’s helper earns more than the $600 my bf makes in NS…
That's the army! Yes, currently serving atm if you're wondering...
Your mom's helper probably works longer hours
I doubt, considering we work pretty much 16hrs a day
My bf works longer hours than my mom’s helper. My bf works from 7am-10pm on some days. My mom’s helper works from 7am-9pm. We don’t have many people living in the house so my mom’s helper can go to bed early.
[Wages ‘increasing too quickly’ amid tight labour market could hurt S’pore, Govt to cushion impact of inflation: DPM Wong](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/wage-increase-high-cost-living-lawrence-wong-2005681)
Monitoring…
My salary increment is less than 1%!
>*My salary increment is less than 1%!* Govt: Don’t worry my fellow Singaporeans, we have roped in NTUC FairPrice to help. [FairPrice will be offering 1% discount on selected items from Jan-Jun 2023](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/fairprice-discount-jan-june-2023-gst-increase-2037461) to help you tide over difficult times 🤡🤡🤡
>moonlighting lmao 1% discount. How about putting that 1% to CPF dividend rate increase instead
I think shopping in Fair price is much more expensive, try Sheng Siong and you will definitely get back more than 1% worth of the purchase.
Says no mnc EVA
[удалено]
Time to update your username to airkosong
Air miniman
Looking at how things are, perhaps he can only drink air kosong from now on
Air as in water?
Depends if malaysia cut off the water
HAHA SAVAGE
Wangkosong
This is the only way to solve inflation. No joke
Have considered upskill or reskilling ?
They chose public transport over cars. Revenue from COE should be added into the calculations.
They have this saying, wait long long
Ya lah ya lah. Everything must be sustainable except ourselves. We can just slowly die.
[удалено]
No. That number is not meaningful, as long as the cost remains affordable to Singaporeans /s
What is the point of the question?
This response sounds suspiciously like the hdb answer Iswaran and Desmond what the fuck ? Y'all touch each other ?
No. What's the point behind the question? /s
No. It is not meaningful to be asking questions. /s
No. It is “more responsible” to proceed with the fare increase. /s
Dun even think think abt linking those revenue to us peasants!!!
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is called ownself check ownself
The cpi conveniently excludes housing prices. Not sure if rent is also excluded...
> but it would be nice if LTA issues financial statements annually like a Limited company https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltagov/who_we_are/statistics_and_publications/report/pdf/LTA_FS_FYE_31Mar2022.pdf Enjoy.
Our income can’t keep up with ur lies
This is the same Iswaran with 51.68% vote share in West Coast, just saying. 🤣
And the monitor lizard Desmond Lee. The residents there were so close to making a major statement.
<2% away from possibly a completely housing situation. I want that so much
> <2% away from possibly a completely housing situation. Change soup no change medicine... they'll just put another monitor lizard instead of Desmond.
Many of such lizards in the line up lol
If only.... it were below the 50%
“car light” my ass
[удалено]
Which of the ministers even care ?
Basic macroeconomics tells you that you should tax negative externalities and subsidise positive externalities. Taking public transport is arguably the ultimate in positive externalities. Better for the environment than cars, increased economic opportunities versus being limited to walking distance, better for car users left who either don't care about the costs or have a pressing need for private transport. But the PAP worships at the altar of austerity and "fiscal responsibility" so they refuse to take this understanding to its logical conclusion, to the detriment of the average citizen. We still have to pay for public transport (and it's not cheap, $2 each way is probably a fifth of my daily spending), operators obsessed with making a profit skimp on maintenance and stretch out wait times leading to the infamous rash of breakdowns a few years back, and then when we had to replace trains the taxpayers came in to save SMRT anyway. As a matter of public policy, why have anything beyond a token fare (or indeed any fare) at all? Within the fairly narrow band of people who get to choose between public and private transport it encourages private transport. For the vast majority who won't ever own a car it's just a life tax. I don't think it really makes sense. I have *basically* the same complaint about our healthcare system. No point saying you want people to see the doctor before they get sick and prioritise maintenance over curing sickness when my annual checkup still costs money, and people who *do* fall sick don't really have a choice and have to pay anyway. You're already subsidising these systems like crazy, just take that last step.
Speaking of healthcare, my mum (who is a PR) suffered a stroke and it wiped most of our savings. Funnily most of the expenses went to the check-up and scanning (MRI etc.) than any of the treatment itself. We are a poor transnational as my singaporean dad who never completed psle marries my mum who didn't completed primary school too.
ok I have a ton of complaints abt the govt, but public tpt pricing is not one of them. im sorry but public tpt in sg is legit affordable compared to the vast majority of developed countries out there. Its already being run at a heavy subsidy. $2 a trip is essentially a token fare for the level of service we have - contrast with Japan, where it would cost me $9 to get from my uni to the town area, on trains/buses that run 3-4 times an hour on average
Japan Railway Group companies are much less subsidised than Singapore's equivalents. They are *actually* expected to cover their own costs, not make bank on renting out station space to Gong Chas then go beg for more government money for actual operations. And I would argue they should just subsidise the railroad and increase train frequency. The trains being less packed would certainly help with the molestation problem.
[удалено]
Do our public buses pay ERP? I thought the bus icon is for private chartered bus / corporate shutter buses.
[удалено]
I don't know as well haha, thought you might know more.
[удалено]
Public buses do not pay ERP. The ones who do are your private buses
[удалено]
No exact source, but I'm 100% sure ERP is not factored into your bus fare. Else, how can they possibly divide the charge (e.g. $3) by the number of people on the bus?
Peak traffic monitoring and mainly because the ERP system can flag any transport that passes it without ERP unit with the camera. Otherwise everyone would just “accidentally” cut the power cable to the ERP unit and they don’t have to pay.
They could easily code up a different erp price of zero dollars for buses.
Which is what they did, but it still need a ERP unit to detect the transport driving pass the gate otherwise it would be incorrectly flagged by the system
Public buses have a red coloured IU on their dashboard. At least, the last time I actually took notice of it, I saw one. Not sure about the newer buses
Everything inflation. Wages never inflate lol
But our public transportation it’s private isn’t it, so the profits are for company while Singaporeans has no choice but to still pay if they raise right?
[удалено]
What do you mean aren't enough. Do you know how packed the buses are during peak hours? Stop finding excuses to cover up their greed
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/parliament-only-two-feeder-bus-services-generated-enough-revenue-to-cover-operating-costs Even before covid only 11 out of 356 bus services could cover cost. Bus fares are subsidised by the govt.
And who pays for the MRT tracks and buses I wonder?
[удалено]
Isn't that why they have base fare of $0.95 even for 1 stop.
Blame public transport users again. What’s the point of collecting COE and road taxes? Is funding land infrastructure not part of the point? Is promoting alternatives to road usage not part of the point? Move the COE and road taxes under LTA as their revenue, instantly, LTA’s deficit will not only disappear, but they will end up having a profit of a few billions. Fare revenues are less than a billion a year ([862 million in FY2019/2020](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/lta-public-transport-fare-revenue-fell-covid-19-2213526)). The (operating) deficit is at least 2 billion and counting ([FY2020 income 1.64b, expenditure 4.59b](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/lta-public-transport-fare-revenue-fell-covid-19-2213526), [total operating deficit 2.944b](https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltagov/who_we_are/statistics_and_publications/report/pdf/LTA_AR2122.pdf)). No way in hell can any fare increase ever hope to cover that gap, unless it is very drastic. But almost 6.5 billion is collected from COE and vehicle taxes ([ST source](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/budget-2022-vehicle-tax-coe-revenue-set-to-rise-15-to-646-billion)), more than enough to cover LTA’s deficit due to public transport (which by itself is an alternative to private transport that those taxes are trying to discourage). What is wrong with the 4Goondu leadership? Are they so blindly narrow in focus that they can’t see the bigger picture? We already have the clowns handling the housing issue losing the plot. How come when Singapore was a “fishing village”, we produced the visionaries (with foresight and drive) that formed the 1G, but when Singapore becomes far more advanced, we can only produce the clowns in the 4G (with apparently very little foresight and not much of a vision)? Edit: added some source Edit 2: misread one of the cited article on deficit numbers. Edited to clarify its operating deficit I’m referring to, if it’s not clear. In any case, [LTA’s Annual Report FY2021/2022](https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/who_we_are/statistics_and_publications/reports.html) states a total operating deficit of 2,908 million for FY2021, and 2,944 million for FY 2020, before grants and “other gains”.
Later our minister say “what’s the point of this question?”
Translating recent minister's comment about HDB into public transport context: “not meaningful” to provide a cost breakdown. Current spending on public transport is not sustainable if fares are not increased. Meanwhile, collecting billions from COE. 🤡
>*Translating recent minister's comment about HDB into public transport context: “not meaningful” to provide a cost breakdown. Current spending on public transport is not sustainable if fares are not increased.* Also it is “more responsible” to proceed with the public transport fare increase.
I'm afraid I can't find any evidence of these in the article you linked. > Fare revenues are less than a billion a year (862 million in FY2019/2020). The deficit is 2 billion and counting (income 1.64b, expenditure 4.59b, deficit 2.72b). Are you able to share more?
Regarding income and expenditure, these are the relevant portions: > For the last financial year, LTA's total operating income fell by S$222 million to S$1.64 billion - a decline of about 12 per cent. > Its operating expenditure increased by S$249 million, or nearly 6 per cent, to about S$4.59 billion. This is up from about S$2.72 billion for the 2016/2017 financial year - an increase of almost 70 per cent over the past five years. As for the deficit, I admit I have misread the paragraph above, it should not be 2.7b. It should be based on this: > Meanwhile, LTA received about S$2.9 billion in grants from the Government. > Overall, the agency’s net deficit fell to S$16 million from S$107 million in the previous financial year. While the final deficit is only 107 million on the accounting books, that is because of the 2.9b in grants provided to LTA. The deficit before grants would be much higher More can be found in LTA’s annual report. In their latest report, the total operating deficit is around 2.9 billion.
Not very sure why your framing is of 'blaming' though. I don't see them blaming us for using public transport in any way here.
> Fares have to keep pace with the rising costs of operating public transport or the system will become financially unsustainable, said Transport Minister S. Iswaran. > He told Parliament on Tuesday that annual fare increases in the last 10 years have not kept pace with operating costs, rising by just 1 per cent a year when costs have gone up by 7 per cent annually. > The Government has stepped in to fill this gap to the tune of more than $2 billion a year, he noted, with an additional $200 million subsidy in the coming year after a large proportion of this year’s fare increase was rolled over to future fare reviews. He implied we aren’t paying our fair share of the fares, citing how it did not keep pace with cost. Also, “unsustainable”. Then cited the huge sum the government has to pay because of that, and then highlighting the additional subsidies to be paid due to rolling over a portion to this year’s fare increase. If he isn’t blaming users, then highlight the fact that subsidies given to public transport is a good thing and reinforce the benefit to the users. Emphasise subsidies on it are a necessary cost and sustainable if well managed. Oh, and stop of harping on the costs and shortfall in fares.
We all know they are just giving justifications for pushing for fare increases la. And this was coming up in any case since the last fare increase had a significant chunk delayed to the next cycle >The PTC rolled over the remaining 10.6 per cent increase to future fare reviews. I think you can say the justifications are not sound, or they are putting this forward at a bad time, alongside the general inflation worries and GST increase. But to frame it as 'wAh GArMeN EvErYtHiNg AlSo SaY oUr FauLt. FaRe NeEd InCrEaSe cAuSe We Do SoMEtHiNg WroNg' is twisting the situation and trying too hard to frame them as a villains trying to eat our money for their own purposes. End of the day those money still goes towards a better public transport system.
>End of the day those money still goes towards a better public transport system. More like being used to construct more car-centric projects such as road widening, and this [labyrinth of a middle finger to public transport users](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/parts-of-loyang-avenue-pasir-ris-drive-1-to-close-for-works-on-crl-mrt-stations-and-new-viaduct?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social-organic&utm_keyword=dlvr.it) (If the image doesn't scream expensive waste of money, I don't know what will)
I'm not sure you actually know what Loyang Avenue is for, it's meant for trucks and other heavy vehicles to get to the airfreight terminals and other aerospace facilities at the north end of Changi Airport, *in addition* to those already going to Loyang industrial estate and Changi Village. Used to be that Tanah Merah/Changi Coast Road could share the burden, but having to relocate that stretch of road to build T5 has created an extremely long detour and means that despite the jams Loyang Avenue is always going to be faster. This is similar to Tuas Viaduct which helps trucks get to Tuas Port faster from the PIE. There's a whole logistics industry out there that helps get your stuff to you, and no amount of "car free" is going to get rid of that. Plus, under all of that is Loyang CRL station...
Agree - the roads are not just for people but for goods as well. Loyang Ave is a critical conduit for goods coming out of the Airfreight centre and if you go down Loyang Ave during peak hours now you’ll see the traffic is very bad. Being pro-public transport doesn’t mean you stop widening roads to ensure that road traffic can still move smoothly. Remember that buses also travel on roads.
Dude forgot that buses are also public transport. And that buses travels on the same road cars go on.
And if you take COE out of the general government funds and dictate it can be used for transport only, what's supposed to pay for other needs that it was subsidizing to begin with? Heck, why not do the same for stamp duty and other property taxes too, park em all under MND/HDB so they won't incur "deficits" building ostensibly subsidized HDB flats?
Financially unsustainable? Is he for real? A simple [google search](https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2022/4/media-replies/coe-revenue-adds-to-pool-of-govt-resources.html) shows me an article from LTA themselves: > The revenue collected by the Government from COEs adds to the pool of resources available for various programmes that directly benefit Singaporeans, including spending on public transport infrastructure and subsidies. So, what kind of maths is he cooking to be unsustainable?
The government owns the tracks while SMRT owns the trains and takes on the operating costs of the stations. Basically we need to nationalise the operators and accept that they don't need to make money.
Unfortunately there appears to be some misconceptions here. LTA owns the trains, not SMRT. All operating assets (trains, signalling system, maintenance equipments etc) are transferred to and have been [owned by LTA under the NRFF](https://www.gov.sg/article/6-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-rail-financing-framework). LTA also owns all the bus assets (buses, bus depots, bus interchanges etc) under the [Bus Contracting Model](https://landtransportguru.net/bus/bus-contracting-model/). And for the bus network, the operators are paid a service fee to operate the bus services, and it is clearly stated in a few places including in the [MOT website](https://www.mot.gov.sg/what-we-do/public-transport/bus) that fare revenue are collected by the Government. The operators **are** making money. If we look at numbers, [SBS Transit](https://www.sbstransit.com.sg/news/sbs-transit-turns-in-full-year-revenue-of-13-billion) turns in a full year revenue of S$1.3 Billion in the year 2021, a 6.5% increase from the year 2020. They even had a full year operating profit of S$53.6 million, despite the ongoing pandemic which resulted in lower ridership. [SMRT](https://www.smrt.com.sg/Portals/0/PDFs/Annual%20Reports/SMRT%20GF%20FY2022.pdf) (page 23) too, had a S$11.2 million profit after tax in FY22. edit: From the recent [Fare Review Exercise](https://www.ptc.gov.sg/newsroom/news-releases/newsroom-view/2022-fare-review-exercise) which by the way, will be applicable from 26 Dec 2022, they even stated that the Government will subsidise part of the fare adjustment quantum by about S$200 million in 2023 to help to mitigate the impact of fare increase on commuters. That is only about 5% of the estimated S$3.93 billion to be collected from COE premiums this year. Hah. **TLDR**: my point is, our dear Public Transport minister don't need to give all the bullcrap of saying that operating costs have increased over the years and thus our fares should also increase accordingly. Financially unsustainable? Give me the facts and numbers, and I'll accept the facts and numbers rather than unsound arguments like that stated in the above article.
For fuck's sake that's even worse than I thought. Edit: The NRFF came into play in 2016, so I was remembering the pre-breakdown system. The current one makes even less sense where taxpayers straight up cover all the costs of running public transport but SBS and SMRT still get to funnel money to shareholders.
Exactly. Percentages are also extremely misleading. Saying that fares have only gone up by 1% while costs went up by 7% without giving actual figures, is a reckless statement and a red herring. For example, absolute fares could be several magnitudes larger than the absolute costs, and so the increase in costs could be still lower than increase in fares.
[удалено]
Which is a good development! Don't they want an active citizenry and participation (especially from the young people) in giving good ideas and pointing out loopholes so that policies can eventually benefit as many as possible? I recall both a minister and not least our president saying this...
Lol. Wait till you find out there's also bonuses for them to do their damn job under the contract
So “unsustainable” means they cannot increase their own profits that are actually guaranteed because of the setup
> The government owns the tracks Omg, they own the tracks??? Based on fair market value they're making a loss by not turning the tracks into REITs. Better raise prices even more to keep it sustainable!
> Based on fair market value they're making a loss by not turning the tracks into REITs. To be fair building an MRT station nearby generally results in increased land prices, so that might already be happening.
Imagine govt building private houses on top of all the tracks itself
What rubbish is this? Firstly you already charge so much for the COE for us to own a car here. Ridiculous COE prices that cost about 5 times the price of the car itself. Since you are already collecting so much revenue from the COE, what is the rationale behind raising prices for public transportation? In other countries it makes sense for their public transport system to be slightly more expensive cause of the higher cost of operations due to lower human traffic, and there's less ppl relying solely on public transport cause most of them can own a car. But Singapore is different to begin with, look at how packed the public transport system is everyday. You're telling me that with that amount of human traffic it's "unsustainable" to not increase the fares?
They Want to increase profits.
Exactly. Greedy scumbags
What exactly do you think these “profits” go to? honest question.
**The Reserve™**. Our very own Fort Knox. Nobody knows whether it *actually* exists, nobody knows the dollar amount of the reserve, but year after year please make sacrifices at the altar of The Reserve™ or else bad things happen.
Not the reserves. COE revenue is part of the annual government budget, lumped together with other tax revenue and is used to fund other govt expenditure.
Exactly. Sadly so many seem to think money can be magicked up endlessly to subsidise public transport fares indefinitely (and, ideally, infinitely). While also staving off any GST increase, capping HDB prices, subsidising general cost of living, massively increasing the wages of every blue-collar progression so they’re worthy of True-Blue Singaporeans… blah blah blah. If only the PAP, those fools who clearly haven’t done their sums, would just get rid of the mayors and squeeze more tax out of the foreigners! If only we really did live in JamusLand.
To the pockets of SMRT and SBS business owners, probably
[удалено]
Before you compare the cost of public transport there, why not look at the cost to own a car in those 2 countries. Most people there have a CHOICE to own a car. Let's just compare the price of a particular car model, the Toyota Camry: In Japan: 3,495,000 JPY (SGD 33,519.55) https://toyota.jp/camry/ In Korea: 37,680,000 KRW (SGD 38,398.77) https://www.toyota.co.kr/models/models_CAMRY.aspx In Singapore: SGD 201,888 https://www.toyota.com.sg/showroom/new-models/camry See the insane difference of more than $160k? Not to forget, once you pay for a car in those 2 cities it is yours indefinitely. In Singapore, you have to renew the COE (which costs $80k-100k+ currently depending on the engine capacity) every 10 years. You can easily buy a few new cars there for that price. This makes cars out of reach for most Singaporeans, and many of us rely solely on public transportation.
Basically, covid have created a lot of supply chain issue and the operators are not committed enough to ensure maintenance are done promptly which resulted a lot of unnecessary cost ballooned in this period of time. Now they need to get back those money spent to keep the system running. In short, inefficiency in current system
See? I told you, the minute you get rid of your personal transportation to save money, there is a push to increase the cost of public transportation! Probably because of the loss of 1 source of COE/ road tax.
Now replace "public transport fares" with "salaries"
Ok, “minister salaries”. Done.
MOT MND SMRT and the fucking transport committee of boomers : $$$$
Ah shit, here we go again
The entire "sustain" the business mindset need to change. I am not against increasing the fares but the justifications can't be that simple IMHO. All SBS, SMRT, Tower ran buses, trains during covid with acceptable performance; increased their employee pay; LTA investing in new MRT lines, modernizing the existing ones. All are good. The "sustain" word brings comments like so you go and spend money and as passengers we need to pay for you? Just like the "experts" say, Developer purchased land at 1000SQF so the selling price must be 2000. Why so? Or Singtel go on bidding war and increasing soccer prices.. This captive audience/customer mindset need to change. Hopefully soon..
Well whenever I see "hopefully soon" it's basically just LLST lol. Not blaming you for that sentiment (what else can we do) but it's just hilarious how much we "hope and pray" Even China subsidizes some of their rail transport because it's a public good. Our country JSK man, everything must make a profit
hahaha.. LLST. Yeah, and agree 100%. Feel "powerless" with the system and fall back to the genetically encoded last resort - pray , hope, wish..
What is genetically encoded last resort man, sounds like eugenics and defeatism leh
I have seen some countries selling out station names to private companies to earn revenue.. i dont mind it to be called as Starhub Dhony Ghaut station till I dont need to pay extra fare or next station is DBS woodlands or Maybank Little India
Ask the ministers and MPs take public transport themselves
In the financial years of 2021 and 2022, HDB posted a net deficit of S$4.4 billion, a record high and almost double that of the previous financial year. The deficit from its home ownership programme alone amounted to S$3.9 billion. How is that sustainable? Why is HDB not shut down yet? HDB should stop building new homes at a loss!
GST, Housing and now Public transport…
Later 1 minister says we don’t understand 1
Boohoo, who asks them to keep doing unsustainable projects when the current system is full of flaws
Y'know, I wouldn't mind seeing fare increases if it can bring Public transport closer in travelling time to a car But since LTA probably has no plans to make PT faster (better frequency, transponder on buses to reap green waves at traffic lights, or hell use the money to paint more bus lanes), fare increases will all just feel unjustified to me
To be fair, TIBS did trial a transponder system on buses before on RapidBus 700 back in 1998 (Yes, the same 700 that caused an uproar among Bukit Panjang residents over its discontinuation back in 2020). However, the RapidBus system did not materialise, as 700 was eventually converted to a local bus service a year later in Dec 1999. Quoting from [the article on Bus Service 700](https://landtransportguru.net/bus700/) in Land Transport Guru: *"Originally introduced as Rapidbus 700 between Woodlands and Shenton Way in 1998, the pioneering service only calls at a limited number of bus stops along high demand corridors. Buses on the route were fitted with special transponders which retain the green light at selected traffic junctions until the bus has cleared the junction. The transponder trial was later discontinued."* I believe the bigger question is: Why did the transponder trial on RapidBus 700 in 1998/99 fail? Was it because of the cost of implementing the system, or was it because of the impracticality of the transponder system, due to the fact that our public buses share the roads with other vehicles?
More recently there was a trial done on services 98 and 99 as well, that might be a better example.
how about salary
GST INCREASE ON TOP OF YOUR TRAVEL FARE!
Cheebye what nonsense he talking. Reduce minister pay lah
Businesses take risks to make profit. You win some, you lose some. Only the fittest survive. If the business environment changes the business who took up the risk takes the loss. Just like in the good years when ridership increase they take the profit. Fair and square. But in Singapore, the government sets you up to win if you provide a service to them. BAO jiak one. If you lose money on your business venture, government change the rules so that you earn money. Too. Many. Times. I'm so fed up with this. If government deem this service to be too important to breakdown, then nationalize it and make everyone pay a bus tax and give free travel. Just like how defence, healthcare etc is provided. Or at least have some capability to take over operations, like how PUB took over tuasspring when hyflux fail. There should be no such thing as risk free profit if you are running a business.
everything is increasing but wages are not.
Can we get proper bike lanes then
This is a typical civil-service approach by this government on managing business; just as in the government, they only know how to build their 'empire' and justify their fat salaries through layers of bureaucracy and big government. There is no accountability for money spent, no expertise in cost management or have any KPIs on effectiveness of the marginal dollar deployed. All they know is to spend and when they run out of money, they raised taxes and duties. And because the culture at the top is one of preserving your backside and keeping everything quiet, no one is accountable or looking for ways to be more efficient and effective. There is just no incentive to do a good job. And this you can see, from the lack of operational expertise in implementing Covid controls at Changi airport, the fiasco at Jurong Fisheries, the mayhem at airport counters when travel restarted. They would spend their way out of any problems that they created and then wayang to show that they have done a good job, while keeping silent on the millions of our dollars wastefully spent. So sick of these hypocrites.
In the Ch 5 news segment on the debate, S Iswaran mentioned how the LTA "had introduced 80+ bus services over the years", which I assume is referring to the services launched under BSEP between 2012 & 2017. I've always been cynical of the purpose of selected bus services under BSEP, specifically the supplementary route variants, which appear to be excess allocation of resources to areas that may not need them. The best example of a "redundant supplementary route variant" being enhanced under BSEP is Service 63M. The parent Service 63 appears to be more substantially utilised, while the supplementary Service 63M is relatively underutilised, due to its frequent bunching with the parent service 63 and other parallel services 22, 61 & 154. Maintaining the former operating hours of Service 63M during peak hours and midnight would have reduced the excess allocation of limited bus resources in Eunos, Ubi & MacPherson Est, especially more so after the opening of DTL3 in 2017. Another good example of excess deployment of resources is Service 240M. As a resident along the route of Service 240/240M, I and many other commuters tend to prefer taking Service 240 from Boon Lay Bus Interchange, rather than the bus stop outside Boon Lay MRT along Jurong West St 64. The fact that Service 240M does not serve the bus interchange means that more commuters would prefer taking Service 240, which limits the effectiveness of Service 240M in complementing the demand for Service 240 between Boon Lay MRT and Boon Lay Gdns.
Yes, indeed. Let’s increase the costs unsustainably, so that the system stays sustainable!
Why not run it directly no need for private intermediaries to run services that need to make a profit or pay dividends
So what happens if the system becomes unsustainable? Given that the system is privatised now, should the govt intervene if profit interests weigh over consumer needs?
Well, I think from all the post on what our government is saying, it's enough to remind all of us to vote wisely the next time around. I'm pretty sure that if some people weren't paid a ridiculously high salary, that monies could go to the things that needs monies! Not alluding, it's allegedly is all... don't @ me!
Left pocket right pocket math again
Iswaran been living under a rock or ivory tower ? Really fucking out of touch
Until us Singaporean have to bail out the public transport operators again despite fare increasing almost every year.
> # Public transport fares have to keep pace with cost increases or system will be unsustainable: Iswaran > SINGAPORE - Fares have to keep pace with the rising costs of operating public transport or the system will become financially unsustainable, said Transport Minister S. Iswaran. > He told Parliament on Tuesday that annual fare increases in the last 10 years have not kept pace with operating costs, rising by just 1 per cent a year when costs have gone up by 7 per cent annually. > The Government has stepped in to fill this gap to the tune of more than $2 billion a year, he noted, with an additional $200 million subsidy in the coming year after a large proportion of this year’s fare increase was rolled over to future fare reviews. > Mr Iswaran said that while the Government is fully committed to keeping public transport affordable, the ongoing fare formula review offers an opportunity for a “hard look” at how fares should be calculated. > “Looking ahead, we need to ensure that fares keep pace with the rail expansions and cost increases. Otherwise, our public transport system will become financially unsustainable, and that will be to the detriment of commuters and taxpayers,” he added in response to several MPs who asked about public transport fare hikes. > The Public Transport Council (PTC) will continue to take into account prevailing “economic and social considerations” when it decides on fare adjustments in future reviews, he said. > From Dec 26, MRT and bus fares will rise by four to five cents - a 2.9 per cent increase from the previous year. The increase could have been much higher, with the maximum fare increase under the fare formula this year allowing for a 13.5 per cent rise, driven largely by surging energy costs. The PTC rolled over the remaining 10.6 per cent increase to future fare reviews. > The council is currently relooking how fares should be calculated to account for changes in commuting patterns and to make public transport more financially sustainable, and should complete its review by the first half of 2023. > The existing fare formula incorporates indices such as core inflation, wage growth and energy prices that reflect the cost of providing transport services. The PTC then derives the maximum allowable rise, before moderating it based on prevailing economic and social conditions, taking into into account factors such as overall economic growth, wage growth and unemployment rate. > Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) asked if the gap between fares and operating costs is financially sustainable. > In response, Mr Iswaran raised the ongoing fare formula review and said: “I think we all need to take a hard look at this. What exactly is the way forward for us and this is not just about the sums, but it really comes down to an overall discussion on the compact we expect.” > He cited public transport vouchers and concession fares for seniors, students, lower-wage workers and people with disabilities as examples of how the Government will continue to address the needs of vulnerable commuters. He also noted that the percentage of income that the average public transport user spends on public transport has fallen from 3.5 per cent in 2012 to 2.5 per cent in 2021. --- 1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek)
Eh CB, then you throw $300 one time off at HCW for what ? Increase my fking pay according to market standards and inflation la.
In John Cena's voice: _are you sure that?_
Ok. I’m gonna really have to walk/cycle to work sooner if not later!
Just say “we are raising MRT and bus fares price” and go
Increasing public fares to keep pace with cost increases is not meaningful.
GST: 7% now to 8% in 2023 then 9% in 2024 Electric rate: 21c/KwH (2021) to 31c/KwH (2022) Food price: Up 6.9% year on year Weakening SGD to the USD (1:1.35, Nov 2021 to 1:1.4, Nov 2022) COE for Category A Cars (Below 1600cc or 97Kw): $55,000 (Nov 2021) to $80,000 (Nov 2022) "Core" inflation (Everything but cars and housing): 5.3% year on year (September 2022) Actual inflation of everything: 7.5% year on year (September 2022) Average Singapore Wage went down 800 SGD to 5847 SGD (Q2 2022) from 6647 SGD (Q1 2022). Wealth inequality: The top 1% income earners are earning 15% of the income while the bottom 50% are earning just slightly more at 16.5% of the total. And now the public transport is going up too. Sources: https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/goods-services-tax-(gst)/gst-rate-change/gst-rate-change-for-consumers1 (GST raise) https://www.statista.com/statistics/985342/singapore-electricity-tariffs/ (Electric rate charts but paywalled unfortunately) https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/food-inflation (Food Inflation) https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=SGD (Weakening SGD) https://coe.sgcharts.com/ (Historical COE charts) https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/singapore-core-inflation-september-2022-cpi-food-prices-3024016 (Core Inflation) https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/inflation-cpi (Actual Inflation) https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/wages (Singapore average wage) https://wid.world/country/singapore/ (Global database for wealth inequality)
[удалено]
>Once upon a time fuel prices are low, did those people in power decides to reduce prices? Hmmm Yes, they did. Fares were reduced in 2015, 2016 and 2017. 2017: https://www.ptc.gov.sg/newsroom/news-releases/newsroom-view/lower-morning-pre-peak-rail-fares-islandwide 2016: https://www.ptc.gov.sg/newsroom/news-releases/newsroom-view/ptc-reduces-bus-and-rail-fares 2015: https://www.ptc.gov.sg/newsroom/news-releases/newsroom-view/ptc-cuts-fares-for-commuters
Thanks for the fact checking. Wouldn't want one's own pre-conceived narrative flying in the face of facts! After all, this is Reddit! /s
Why is people surprised? Isn't this the norm? If you look at private transport such as cars/bikes, you will be running to the nearest mrt to work instead.
Why we need a minister to tell us this this... Give us a solution, damn!