Next time, when our ministers use the word "self-examination exercise" or "soul-searching", most likely, "The Unconvenient Truth" is - they are under "Political Pressure".
Please read the Chinese article that I've wrote which Zaobao did not receive, and compare what being reported in our media.
You decide whether it's a coincidence.
从交通问题瞭望政治动向
伍新
很高兴总理李显龙在大选过后表示他所领导的政府将会诚心诚意的帮助贫困人土，以减轻生活开支。对此，笔者铭记在心，并呼吁执政党在根本上解决问题。
长期以来，很多读者都曾在在言论版反应有关在交通方面两个老掉牙的问题：不同于初院生，理工生需付成人车资，与及买不起通联卡的乘客需付多两角的车资。
將心比心，初院生的家境大致上比理工生好，这是众所周知的。既然如此，为何交通业者还要搬一大堆理由坚持理工生需付成人车资？不管理工还是初院生，不就是学生么？如果没穿学校制服就被归类为成年人，笔者建议所有理工院的校长要求他们的学生改穿制服，以争取同初院生享有同等的待遇。
笔者可以理解为何交通业者要求乘客如付现金需多付两角的车资。原因不外是担心乘客“偷吃”，只付六角三分却从樟宜搭到裕廊，与及考量到需花人力与财力去算现金。但如果业者每年的盈佘都从几干万甚什一亿多元来说，这点开销又算得了什么呢？业者不应该因为一小窜害群之马而惩罚搭客，尤其是那些付担不起维持易通卡的贫困人土。如果业者不取消这个毫无人情味的措施，老百姓又如何相信总理说要诚心诚意的帮助贫困人士呢？
目前，“市场”的反应是淡马锡属下交通业者的股东其实都是政联公司，充其量不过是挂个名，“做戏”而己，好歹有个借口说 － “必需平衡股东和搭客的利益”，尤其是要求调整车资的时候。在这个前提下，笔者要求淡马锡做为最大的股东，考虑对所有交通业者的小股东进行收购，然后再把整个本地交通物流归还政府管埋。至于在海外的投资项目，淡马锡可继续此有。笔者強烈认为海外和本地的帐目应该完全独立，以加强透明度。笔者不认同把管理私营化就能为搭客提高服务素质和生产力。以笔者的亲身体验，我至今还经常看到蟑螂在我身边“察身而过”、在车座与窗口缝中的垃圾所发出异味、巴士广告阻碍視线而误了下车、与及在车站安装路线表将导至成本上涨的世界级理由等等。这所有的一切是都是拜私营化所赐。
重新整顿整个交通架构
笔者建议政府把所有巴士，地铁和易通卡公司整合为一，并精简人员，尤其的行政方面。这将能够有效的减少董事成员的数目，以符合公众的利益。事实上，我国的各大机构已经着手精简人事部，例如，国防部己实行中央军火集体采购计划，以減少开支。因此，笔者強烈认为，淡马锡也应该同政府机构同步，以配合“整合政府２０１０”（iGov2010）篮图。如果淡马锡做不到这点，这将无法避免外界的说法，既行动党为它的主要党员和支特者在淡马锡属下的公司安插和制造就业机会。这样一来，反对党将会把这课题浮出台面，指出与行动党关系密切的淡马锡集团并没有同公共机构同步，并质疑淡马锡是否比国家“还大”。
对于这点，执政党可能指出反对党只想捞取政治资本，只有批评，没有建设。但从笔者的观点上来看，政冶竞争的最大意义就是要尽可能完善现有的制度。在这大前提下，如果选民觉得反对党的候选人己俱备治理国家的条件与素质，并将保留并加以強化现有的制度，废除对国家和人民造成负担且毫无意义的机构，那选民将毫不犹疑把票投给反对党，尤其是当执政者因盈利而无法解决长期辣手的间题。让我引述己故英国前首相邱吉尔的一句名言：“没有永远的敌人，只有永远的利益”。的确。笔者也属于P65的选民，对于感恩图报没有什么概念，只知道如果执政者推行不利于国家和人民利益的政策，我将毫不犹豫投反对票，决无饮水之源可言。
如果笔者是执政者，为了不让反对党有机会捞取任何政治资本，笔者会加以完善整个制度，既使必需牺牲自己党员的利益。这样一来，反对党在没有资本可捞的情况下，只好提出比行动党更具建设性的方案以解决全球化和社会问题。笔者希望在在这样的政冶竞赛中，获益的将是国家和老百姓。这是笔者一直盼望的。
但如果执政者无法做到这点，情理上，选民将会邀请反对党去执行这个任务。事实上，由于反对党没有情感上的负坦，对他们而言，这项任务并不太难。
因此，如果执政者一直採取犹疑不决的态度，反对党却不会採取观望的态度，而是不断招揽人才加强他们的阵容。到时，并不是选举过后人们一觉醒来惊觉国家己由反对党执政，而是执政者发觉自己一夜之间成了反对党。
且让笔者打个比逾；顾客对一个一向获得长期合约的承包商说：“我们己经“好好跟你讲”你们的服务有待改善，但你们就是听不进去，以为只此一家，別无分号。但现在我们己经找到另一间承包商，並给于他们一个五年合约。虽然新的承包商可能经验下足，但如果服务令我们滿意，并能帮我们削减成本，我们将会给于他们第二个五年的合约。”
_________________________________________________________________
Nov 22, 2006
ComfortDelGro to review its domestic operations
Transport giant's dilemma - serving both shareholders and commuters
AS SINGAPORE'S largest public transport company ComfortDelGro expands overseas, it is re-examining its domestic operations.
The listed firm, which owns 75 per cent of transport operator SBS Transit, is doing some soul-searching, as its foreign business continues to dwarf its Singapore holdings.
In a speech yesterday, ComfortDelGro chairman Lim Jit Poh seemed to hint at a change in the company's future direction, while affirming that Singapore would always be its base.
He said his company supported the Transport Minister's recent call to make public transport the main choice for commuters, adding that as the ministry 'embarks on a review of the industry, we too will embark on a self-examination exercise'.
He sketched out the dilemma which his company finds itself in - having to serve both its shareholders and commuters.
The two roles, Mr Lim said, will have to be re-examined, and his company is preparing to submit a paper on this issue to the Transport Ministry.
'As an operator, SBS Transit will need to look at how best we can balance our duties as a service provider and as a public listed company with responsibilities to our shareholders,'he said.
While shareholders want good returns on their investments, commuters want a comprehensive service with low fares.
Indeed, Mr Lim noted that the public had taken two extreme positions on transport matters. He said,'I note the public calls for more competition. I also note the cry for centralised and integrated services.'
ComfortDelGro has become the world's second largest land transport operator since it was formed three years ago, Mr Lim said, in a speech to honour the company's service excellence award winners.
Revenues from its overseas operations have outstripped those of local operations since 2004. And its overseas operations accounted for nearly half of its group operating profit of $51.3 million for the third quarter of this year.
Mr Lim said his company was constantly looking at ways to improve and engage commuters, such as via the monthly season pass.
Mr Ong Kian Min, deputy chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport, said ComfortDelGro's corporate moves, if any, must place commuters' interests first.
'I don't know what it is going to do, but we must make sure that commuters' interests are always safeguarded,' he said.
(If there is no political competition, no need to safeguard liao hor! )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 25, 2006
Is Singapore's public transport system Two much?
A land transport review is on. A key question it must grapple: Can this city actually afford two public transport operators?
Goh Chin Lian and T. Rajan discuss the options
TRAVEL WOES: The hoped-for benefits of competition have not materialised, as many commuters end up making transfers to get from one town served by SBS Transit to another served by SMRT. A recent study found that more commuters are spending more time travelling to work. -- STEPHANIE YEOW
BANK employee Ang Ek Hoon grumbled when asked about the state of buses here.
'It's the time spent waiting that really gets you. It takes at least half an hour before the bus I want turns up. The scheduled time is 10 minutes. Besides, you may have to wait longer if the bus is packed.'
He was complaining not recently though. The year was 1972 and Mr Ang was among a long line of commuters with a truckload of woes this newspaper reported on, when a new roadmap for land transport was being laid out.
A milestone State and City Planning study had determined that the car population needed to be controlled before 1992 to prevent gridlock. By then, a rail transit system would also be vital.
The bus industry - plagued by reckless bus drivers, rude conductors and ramshackle buses - underwent several overhauls. Ten bus companies merged into three in 1970, and then to one Singapore Bus Service in 1972.
Thirty years later, much has improved.
Commuters' woes, however, sound strangely familiar.
Ms Tan Swee Huang, 39, a human resource executive, moans about how she takes 11/2 to get from Marsiling to Bukit Timah - by feeder bus, train and then another bus. When she was in school in Bukit Timah, she hopped onto a direct bus that took her less than an hour.
'I don't see how this is an improvement,' she says.
Just as in Mr Ang's time, Singapore is embarking on another comprehensive review of land transport that will set out the way ahead for the next 10 to 15 years.
Reviews may seem like the road well-travelled when it comes to land transport, spanning myriad aspects. But one clear destination is how to make more people use public transport, so much so that they can happily declare 'my other car is a bus or train', says Transport Minister Raymond Lim.
Hence, attention is not on road expansion, which will in fact slow down to 8 per cent over the next 15 years, half the rate of the previous 15. Neither is it on changing the controls on vehicle ownership and usage through quotas and electronic road pricing.
Why the almost singular focus on public transport usage?
The answer lies in a set of numbers that seemed to have crept up and shocked policymakers.
The last White Paper on Land Transport in 1996 set a target of raising the number of trips on public transport from 51 per cent daily, then to 75 per cent.
Instead, that share actually dipped - despite the heavy investment on public transport to the tune of $10 billion in the past decade. Fewer than half of the daily 8.3 million trips here are on buses and trains.
At the same time, the car population climbed up 'quite substantially' as Mr Lim put it when he announced the review last month. That's not the half of it.
The car is being used more heavily too. Between 1997 and 2004, the car population grew by 10 per cent, but the daily number of car trips shot up by 23 per cent.
Mr Lim wants a big shift: Public transport should make up at least 70 per cent of trips in morning peak hours - from the current 63 per cent - over the next 10 to 15 years.
On the face of it, the to-do list for infrastructure seems straightforward: Extend the rail network and improve the bus system.
The Land Transport Authority is also reviewing the regulatory and competition framework, 'to achieve the outcome of providing commuters with more choice and a more integrated and efficient public transport system'.
Shaping the industry
MR LIM tells Insight a review panel will study these issues over the next year, including roping in external consultants with lessons from elsewhere.
Yet, all eyes seemed trained on the current duopoly in public transport. It has to go, say observers, MPs and experts alike.
Right now, SBS Transit and SMRT both run trains and buses. SBS Transit dominates the bus industry, providing 75 per cent of the scheduled bus services, while SMRT is the major rail player, running the North-South and East-West Lines as well as the future Circle Line.
The hoped-for benefits of competition have not materialised.
The two operators' bus and train routes hardly overlap with each other, making them monopolies in their own kingdoms rather than direct competitors.
This is bad news for commuters who end up making transfers to get from one town served by SBS Transit to another served by SMRT. Indeed, a recent study found that more commuters are spending more time travelling to work.
This is why some have had it with competition. They say merge these companies into one private, but regulated, monopoly.
Mr Cedric Foo, who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport, told Parliament last week: 'The single operator would enjoy economy of scale and there would be less inefficiencies at the boundaries of the two operations.'
The Public Transport Council and the Competition Commission could monitor and moderate fare increases.
But Dr Paul Barter, assistant professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, sees a downside.
'In this arrangement, it is difficult to raise standards, since it is hard to know how much the operator can bear when we 'raise the bar'.'
An alternative suggestion: a single operator for trains and a single operator for buses.
Mr Ong Kian Min, deputy chairman for the GPC for Transport, believes some controlled competition between trains and buses would give commuters more choice over which service or route suits them better.
'It will also keep the different operators on their toes, and be responsive to changes and the needs of the commuters.'
One problem, though, is that the buses may leave trains in their wake as people prefer the point-to-point service buses offer.
Then, the question about heavy investments will surface again: Will the trains serve enough commuters to justify the billions poured into the rail system?
Another scenario is that the rail system may become more attractive when its network grows with the opening of the Circle Line by 2010 and other rail lines in Bukit Timah and the eastern region.
But the question of who pays still hangs over this outcome. The network, as it expands, will go into increasingly less dense areas. Already, the North-East Line (NEL) is feeling this effect and struggling as projections on housing populations in the northern corridor have not panned out.
In trying to make the rail network more connected, Mr Ong suggests allowing the train operator to offer bus services or other means to feed passengers in a housing estate to a nearby MRT station.
Other smaller, enterprising bus operators should also be allowed to offer mini-buses that take fewer passengers than the big SBS Transit buses. They could make shorter loops for commuters dissatisfied with the waiting and journey times of feeder services.
Monopoly with expiry date
IN SEVERAL cities, including London, transport operators run a monopoly - but for a limited period.
This is an idea that could also work in Singapore to replace the current duopoly.
It would involve dividing the bus and rail systems into several parts and opening them up regularly for competitive bidding by operators - including foreign players if there are not enough local operators.
While the winning bidder will monopolise the route, it cannot afford to be inefficient or to exploit the market. Otherwise, it risks losing the route to a stronger bidder several years later.
The authorities could also dictate terms. It could fix in the contract certain routes, timetables, penalties and rewards for service, along with physical demands like automated ramps for wheelchair users.
The contract could require a uniform image and integrated ticketing and marketing.
'Passengers need not even be aware that different operators are involved,' Dr Barter says, noting that bus systems in Hong Kong, London, Sweden, Australia and several Latin American cities practise such competitive tendering.
London, for example, introduced competitive tendering of bus routes in 1986 and incentives for quality service into contracts in 2001.
A government report this year presented a rosy picture. Since 2001, excess waiting time has been halved and the network has expanded by 26 per cent more kilometres. Seven major players run the network, compared to one or two in other British cities.
For every route retendered, there are, on average, three bidders. Contract costs stayed flat over the last four years, while operator returns are around 8 per cent in the capital.
Transport economist Anthony Chin of the National University of Singapore notes, however, that with competition, the cost of monitoring the operators as well as of enforcement may go up.
In London, where the mayor sets the fares, the improved services also come at a cost to the government.
Fares collected cannot cover the cost of the contracts. Public subsidy across the network increased from zero in 1999 to £550million (S$1.6 billion) in 2004/05, or an annual subsidy of almost £200 per household in London.
To be sure, a change in the current structure of competition will not immediately guarantee a shift towards more people using public transport.
There are other factors at play. If, as Mr Lim says, the idea is to get more people to think of the bus or train as one's 'other car', the transition to public transport must be not so discombobulating for this category of commuters.
Right now, it feels that way for many. One of them, Mr Simon Sia, 37, a tax manager, drives but takes the train reluctantly when his wife needs his car. He hates it that the buses and trains are always crowded and he has to rush.
'I wasn't holding my breath,' he says in a resigned voice about the promise that a two-operator transport network would lead to better service.
Even as he begrudges the profits of the operators, the irony is people like Mr Sia are prepared to pay a bit more for better service.
Yet, public transport here a one-size-fits-all model, including fares. And fares - a permanent political hot potato - must remain affordable to the lower-income groups.
But middle- and higher-income commuters - like those who own cars - may be willing to pay more for a better level of service in public transport.
The conundrum is: How to juggle different expectations and yet not end up being scalded by the hot potato because one group feels transport is too expensive.
Mr Gerard Ee, who chairs the Public Transport Council, has another take on how to make public transport one's 'other car'. Use the information superhighway to provide real-time travel information to commuters.
'A lot of frustration is due to unmatched expectations,' Mr Ee says.
Real-time information will allow commuters to plan their journey and deal with their frustrations - even if the bus is late because of congestion on the road.
The idea is not new. The 1996 White Paper provided for the display of bus arrival times at bus stops, as well as through other means, such as the Internet and telephone hotlines.
The project never took off.
Insight understands that SBS Transit is still looking at a system that can give such real-time information via the Internet, cellphone and personal digital assistant.
Looking ahead
WHETHER the review will lead to an overhaul is anyone's guess right now.
But those reading tea leaves had plenty of material when ComfortDelgro's chairman, Mr Lim Jit Poh, said on Tuesday that it is on a 'soul-searching exercise' to review its domestic operations, now that the group's bus operations overseas dwarf its Singapore operations.
Some see it as a big hint that its subsidiary SBS Transit may change hands or form.
'As an operator, SBS Transit will need to look at how best we can balance our duties as a service provider and as a public listed company with responsibilities to our shareholders,' he said.
SMRT has not issued any statement. But in a recent interview, its chief executive, Ms Saw Phaik Hwa, notes that one key question facing public transport is the choice between competition or complementarity.
Although Mr Lim cautions against prejudging which sacred cows should be slaughtered in reviewing public transport, the knife seems keenly poised over the current duopoly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking 10, 15 years and beyond
Transport Minister Raymond Lim speaks to Insight on the transport review:
'Developing a good urban transport system is a serious and challenging issue for every major city. 'There is no silver bullet to solving this issue.
'The solutions we come up with must be holistic ones that do not just plug individual shortcomings or address specific complaints, but ones that can work together in a consistent and sustainable system.
'The review will therefore be a comprehensive one. But we should not make changes for the sake of change or prejudge which sacred cows should be slaughtered at the onset.
'We must guard against simply doing what is popular but rather we must do what is right and necessary for the greater good of the community, and which would put us in good stead not just for the present times but for the long term - 10, 15 years and beyond.
'Given that trade-offs are inevitable as there are diverse and competing user groups, we will take care to hear different views and perspectives from different stakeholders as part of the review process.
'On the various suggestions to change the industry structure, be it to have more direct competition or to have a single operator, I believe that it is only prudent to introduce any changes, especially those that may radically alter our public transport model, only after carefully examining the strengths and weaknesses of our current model, which has served us well on the whole. (well, don't change lor!)
'This we will do over the next one year or so, with inputs from external consultants who can help us draw on from other cities. What is clear is that the desired outcome is a public transport regulatory and industry framework that will provide commuters with a more integrated and efficient public transport system that clearly puts the commuter at the centre.'
Singapore News // Friday, January 12, 2007
Aussie experts to drive review of Singapore's public transport system
Tan Hui Lenghuileng@mediacorp.com.sg
THE big job of reviewing Singapore's public transport system — from the nuts and bolts to the service standards — has gone to the Australians.
In its first move to rope in an external consultant, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has appointed the Australian arm of United States-based consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton for the comprehensive study.
Over the next six months, the company will review Singapore's current industry structure and regulatory framework for its bus and rail systems.
And in the process, some fundamental questions could be answered.
Madam Cynthia Phua, a member of Government Parliamentary Committee for transport, thinks a comprehensive review of the system cannot escape the question of whether the Singapore market is big enough for two public transport operators.
"Does having two public transport operators allow for competition in terms of efficiency and profitability?" she told Today. (Hmm..why don't Cynthia Phua made these "suggestions" BEFORE or DURING the GE 2006 on May, BUT NOW?)
Mooted by Minister for Transport Raymond Lim in October, the idea of appointing external consultants will allow LTA to explore more options.
These could include best practices in other cities, identifying areas for improvements, and proposing measures to strengthen the system, the LTA said yesterday.
"The consultants will add value to the review process with their international experience while providing an external perspective to current viewpoints, standards and systems," it added.
The Singapore public transport system sees about four million commuter trips daily. The LTA aims to increase the share of commuters from the current 63 per cent to 70 per cent over the next 10 to 15 years.
For this to happen, chairman of the Public Transport Council Gerard Ee told Today that timing and scheduling are critical.
"For more public commuters to switch to public transport, reliability is key and ultimately factors such as waiting times, travelling times and scheduling matter," he said.
Mr Ee said the review could look into road design and development so that bus routes can be more efficiently mapped out — for example, dedicated bus lanes can be considered.
Booz Allen Hamilton is expected to submit their findings to the LTA in the middle of this year for review and evaluation.
Tan Hui Lenghuileng@mediacorp.com.sg
_________________________________________________
Please refer to WP's Manifesto on Public Transport:
http://www.wp.sg/party/manifesto_2006.htm
