Why nationalising public transport won't work : Lim Hwee Hua
-
Apr 16, 2011 - Straits Times
By Rachel Scully
MINISTER in the Prime Minister's Office Mrs Lim Hwee Hua disagrees with the Workers' Party manifesto suggesting that Singapore's public transport system should be nationalised.
'I think the underlying motivation for suggesting that public transport should be nationalised is that it can be cheap. But nationalising in many other countries has led to a lot of inefficiency. And ultimately you get cheap transport but it doesn't quite work out,' said Mrs Lim who is also the Second Minister for Finance and Transport.
Speaking to the media at a dinner-cum-dialogue session with residents of Hwi Yoh Court, Mrs Lim, who is an MP for Aljunied GRC, explained the pros and cons of privatising a HUDC estate.
Residents of Hwi Yoh Court from Blocks 128 to 134 in Serangoon North Avenue 1 have been on a privatisation drive of their HUDC estate since 1997.
In order for the privatisation deal to go through, 75% of owners in the estate would have to agree to the move. Currently, only 180 of 264 owners have signed. Three more are required to fulfill the 75% requirement.
-
I'm only sure that it wouldn't work for PAP ministers' pockets.
-
nationalising dun work, why r they paid?
take money n shake balls?
-
PAP should fully let the public transport privatized. Currently they are many private bus companies who are not SBS ans SMART providing routes for the passengers in either booked or illegally. It make more sense to have MORE private bus companies coming in to fight for market. Our bus transport quality have dropped since the good old days.
-
This is wat's going on in London these days
The bus co just bid for the routes using some criteria. The govt pays them a fixed amount annually.
But problem is, it becomes I'm only operating it. Things like innovation (farecards, iris) aren't likely to appear.
Sometimes things are pretty funny, some projects could be started by e state, some are from private sector. The bus stop bus arrival panal was moltivated aft SBS launched the iris.
-
Originally posted by Lokey:
PAP should fully let the public transport privatized. Currently they are many private bus companies who are not SBS ans SMART providing routes for the passengers in either booked or illegally. It make more sense to have MORE private bus companies coming in to fight for market. Our bus transport quality have dropped since the good old days.
When you split up, there's no more econs of scale esp over fuel and bus purchases.I think the worst would end up being say spending $$ on farecards, who's going to spend back in 1980s if it wasn't a monopoly and govt back then had other things to focus on.
-
Another thing abt competition
Take a look what's going on in JB right now. It ends up everyone is only interested in plying the profitable routes and not plying the inner roads.
Simply cos the market becomes fragmented
-
Actually our transport operators are nationalized, just that they are operating in private liveries.
When they do something good, govt takes credit.
When something bad happens, its the fault that its a private company and their main interests is to make profits. -
Originally posted by sbst275:
When you split up, there's no more econs of scale esp over fuel and bus purchases.I think the worst would end up being say spending $$ on farecards, who's going to spend back in 1980s if it wasn't a monopoly and govt back then had other things to focus on.
What makes you think that a company operating under monopoly with savings in economies of scale will pass off savings to consumers?
Competition will only benefit consumers, monopolies will only benefit the owners of the monopolies.
-
Originally posted by Junyang700:
Actually our transport operators are nationalized, just that they are operating in private liveries.
When they do something good, govt takes credit.
When something bad happens, its the fault that its a private company and their main interests is to make profits.
Nationalised means it's directly runned by e govt, under a stat board.you pointed something right too. WP talk and talk because they're making profits, if the ever made losses which SBS did so in 1996, so how?
-
Originally posted by Clivebenss:
'I think the underlying motivation for suggesting that public transport should be nationalised is that it can be cheap. But nationalising in many other countries has led to a lot of inefficiency. And ultimately you get cheap transport but it doesn't quite work out,' said Mrs Lim who is also the Second Minister for Finance and Transport.
I thought our government take pride in itself, that it justify high salary on-par with the private sector, with its high efficiency.
so is it telling us now that our government actually generate more inefficiency and therefore does not deserve the stellar pay?
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
I thought our government take pride in itself, that it justify high salary on-par with the private sector, with its high efficiency.
so is it telling us now that our government actually generate more inefficiency and therefore does not deserve the stellar pay?
the reality is it has happened in the socialist states like UK. -
yes nationalising the tpt system might lead to inefficiency but there can be watchdog bodies set up to guard against that. On the other hand, privatising it and making it a monopoly can also lead to inefficiency, as shown by the crowded mrts and frequent suicides at mrt stations.
Nationalising it actually brings more pros than cons as compared to a privatisation. PAP is like that, they like to present only one side of the story, it's ingrained in their psyche.
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
yes nationalising the tpt system might lead to inefficiency but there can be watchdog bodies set up to guard against that. On the other hand, privatising it and making it a monopoly can also lead to inefficiency, as shown by the crowded mrts and frequent suicides at mrt stations.
Nationalising it actually brings more pros than cons as compared to a privatisation. PAP is like that, they like to present only one side of the story, it's ingrained in their psyche.
ehthe MRT project is nationalised actually.
Because SMRT dun spend any single cent on the MRT station and trains. It's like everything belongs to LTA, but it's given to SMRT to run and get to keep ops profit. SMRT didn't spend $33bn to build CCL, it's entirely taxpayers $$
But that means we can take SMRT accountable for the ops issue like train freq.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
What makes you think that a company operating under monopoly with savings in economies of scale will pass off savings to consumers?
Competition will only benefit consumers, monopolies will only benefit the owners of the monopolies.
The savings ended up with spending on things like iris isn't it? It does not need to be directly passed to lower fares always.
If we had small hold bus operators like those running the cross border svs, would they be able to secure diesel purchase at say $1.10 per lit?
Somemore who was e one tat bought in farecards n double decks? It was in e monopoly era -
So sbst, you think nationalise or privatise is better for Sg?
I value your opinion.
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
ehthe MRT project is nationalised actually.
Because SMRT dun spend any single cent on the MRT station and trains. It's like everything belongs to LTA, but it's given to SMRT to run and get to keep ops profit. SMRT didn't spend $33bn to build CCL, it's entirely taxpayers $$
But that means we can take SMRT accountable for the ops issue like train freq.
think MRT was sold to smrt for a token amount
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
The savings ended up with spending on things like iris isn't it? It does not need to be directly passed to lower fares always.
If we had small hold bus operators like those running the cross border svs, would they be able to secure diesel purchase at say $1.10 per lit?
Somemore who was e one tat bought in farecards n double decks? It was in e monopoly eraI thought you were talking about economies of scale, fuel and bus acquisition just now.
Now it's sidetrack to Iris.
What's the benefit of Iris to consumer? It only helps optimize their operations so that they could profit more from the system.
If it's about bulk fuel purchases, the bus operators could always set up an association to purchase fuel in bulk and distribute amongst the smaller operators. There are always work arounds, there are many solutions to the problems, it's not a mutually exclusive solution.
"When you split up, there's no more econs of scale esp over fuel and bus purchases.
I think the worst would end up being say spending $$ on farecards, who's going to spend back in 1980s if it wasn't a monopoly and govt back then had other things to focus on."
-
sbstranst and smrt is ether driect or indriect own by temasek holding which is an investment arm of the government. Also subana a contruction and design of urban city project company under HDB also own by them. think about it for MBT and LHH said.
that is why WP ask to national the transport.
-
but overall i think the transport scetor should open up for privatise . later not blame for increase of fare
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
I thought you were talking about economies of scale, fuel and bus acquisition just now.
Now it's sidetrack to Iris.
What's the benefit of Iris to consumer? It only helps optimize their operations so that they could profit more from the system.
If it's about bulk fuel purchases, the bus operators could always set up an association to purchase fuel in bulk and distribute amongst the smaller operators. There are always work arounds, there are many solutions to the problems, it's not a mutually exclusive solution.
"When you split up, there's no more econs of scale esp over fuel and bus purchases.
I think the worst would end up being say spending $$ on farecards, who's going to spend back in 1980s if it wasn't a monopoly and govt back then had other things to focus on."
Eh. Do you use iris? Isn't it comfort of at home instead of waiting at e hot bus stop another comfort? They've the money, they can start spending for others as well.
If it's nationalised, they'll tell you why spend? Taxpayers $$ bla bla bla.
Later your say another cartel over fuel right?
Furthermore, it's only an assn, as like opp parties they have their own ways of ops. -
more proactive programmes and effort should be placed to resolve the stagnant income gap
-
Originally posted by Askingyouto:
I'm only sure that it wouldn't work for PAP ministers' pockets.
you know what you are saying?
Nationalising the public transport system would be good for government pockets.
The government is against nationalising but for privatising, which is good for the share holders. I am a shareholder of SBS. I owned 5000 shares in the seventies for the purpose of bus pass. Now that 5000 shares has grown into 16040 ComfortDelgro shares and 1200 SBS Transit Ltd valued at about $28000, this does not include the dividends all these years.
So what are you saying?
or are you just whining erroneously?
-
Originally posted by mancha:
you know what you are saying?
Nationalising the public transport system would be good for government pockets.
The government is against nationalising but for privatising, which is good for the share holders. I am a shareholder of SBS. I owned 5000 shares in the seventies for the purpose of bus pass. Now that 5000 shares has grown into 16040 ComfortDelgro shares and 1200 SBS Transit Ltd valued at about $28000, this does not include the dividends all these years.
So what are you saying?
or are you just whining erroneously?
you really benefitted from it thanks to share split and so on.1978 listing? The govt then was smart la, SBS needed the funds to expand (govt can't provide back then, we're poor then) and everyone took public tpt (SBS was e only operator).
So it worked out well.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
So sbst, you think nationalise or privatise is better for Sg?
I value your opinion.
so how sbst? I value your opnion too