NSP rebuts "cherry picking" comment by Lui Tuck Yew
-
By Ambiga Raju | Posted: 01 August 2011 1149 hrs
SINGAPORE: The National Solidarity Party (NSP) has responded to Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew's argument that its proposal for more competition in bus services would lead to "cherry-picking" of lucrative routes by multiple operators and hence be negative for commuters.
In a statement on Monday, NSP's Secretary-General Hazel Poa said lucrative routes are "lucrative because demand is high, and more commuters are packed into each bus".
She said "cherry-picking" then by multiple operators would mean more buses along these routes leading to shorter waiting time, less congestion in the buses and hence more comfortable rides, and more competitive pricing.
With greater supply, these "lucrative" routes would become less lucrative. The "cherry" could swiftly turn into a "lemon", forcing inefficient players out, and slowly turn into the common "apple".
Ms Poa also said the licence fee for the "lucrative" routes can be used to subsidise the operation of non-profitable routes.
The debate over transport was sparked by a proposal from the opposition Workers' Party (WP) for a not-for-profit National Transport Corporation to replace the current two listed public transport companies.
Mr Lui had said the WP's proposal had "serious downsides" with commuters and taxpayers likely to end up paying more.
The NSP entered the discussion arguing for more competition in bus services.
- CNA -
tot the garment is v gud at using tenderin logics?
why use a jaskass tat cant even uses his ass to think?
-
where is sbst?
-
TUCK YEW!!!
-
Well Well Well
Competition? I still remembered how congested the bus lane could go along Upp S'goon Rd before the NEL came, mind you with only SBS operating the area.
Yeah competiton, buses flooding up the bus lane. Ends up your freaking travelling time goes up by 50% overnight thanks to waiting & waiting for the freaking buses to move off. Then to maintain 8 mins freq for the same ridership, you inccur more buses thanks to the travelling time.
So now more drivers, more fuel consumed but split revenue, how?
One fine example - Woodlands Checkpoint. KNN, the Yellow Bus can flood the bus area for you during a certain period, no wonder I'd to wait 50 mins for 160 before, buses all got stucked at CIQ.
A decade ago, the govt tried to allow private operators for feeder buses which is meant to be even more profitable than trunk routes. But the operators lamented they've to operate during the off peak hours.
Of course some ppl would blast saying how profitable they're, but how much came from ops?
-
Last thurday 6pm, I waited for bus 65 at blk 105 bukit purmei. I used sbs nextbus app, and it gave 29 mins to the next bus, and another min more for the subsequent bus. True enough, it came 29 mins later, and the next one 1 min behind.
-
Any suggestion or policy will have their pro and con, it is up to the decision maker to decide which is benefiting the general public more.( by Right)
(By Left)
A suggestion from the others party will never be implemented, reason are
1) If the suggestion works, it help to prove others capability and increasing the acceptance from the general public.
2) Even the best suggestion, is usually formulated at a win win situation. The suggestion did not include another "Win" for the state which should be place in the first place.
The usual respond will always be using the "con" side to reject the suggestion, the smarter one will even make the suggestion looks "Silly / Stupid" so as to discourage further persevere.