View Poll Results: Do you agree with the smrt, comfort delgro fare hikes?

Voters
86. You may not vote on this poll
  • Agree

    5 5.81%
  • Disagree

    81 94.19%
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 124

Thread: price hike again by smrt, delgro comfort?

  1. #101

    Default

    heard over some news that no private buses are allowed to cross the smrt's bus route. What the hell, last time we still have some private buses that serves the civilian need, now they are all eradicted by smrt. kan nin na, see bay chow kuan. this is what happen when a bus company monopolise the business. singapore is democratic? PUI!

  2. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ahbeng
    heard over some news that no private buses are allowed to cross the smrt's bus route. What the hell, last time we still have some private buses that serves the civilian need, now they are all eradicted by smrt. kan nin na, see bay chow kuan. this is what happen when a bus company monopolise the business. singapore is democratic? PUI!
    Yes, heard that these private bus services were terminated to make way for the smrt. There was not much coverage in broadcast media then, except a brief report. Where is the free market for our public transport if there is such an intervention from the government bodies? This is truly sad! Lamentable!!!

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnlim
    Yes, heard that these private bus services were terminated to make way for the smrt. There was not much coverage in broadcast media then, except a brief report. Where is the free market for our public transport if there is such an intervention from the government bodies? This is truly sad! Lamentable!!!
    finally somone gets it. that's the whole point. our government is the culprit at the back. that's why they are privatising the smrt but with them as the boss. wolf in sheep skin you see, privatising is just a decoy. only idiots will think privatising means staying out of business. once the law sides the business, the sky's the limit.

    when you go johor refill our tanks, they implement the 3/4 tank laws, why? becasue they do not want the money to flow out of their clutches. and money is all they care.

    slowly they will eliminate all potential private business such as banks, airlines, supermarket, insurance, teleco, 24 marts, ship buildings, weapons, electronics, taxis, buses, trains, hotels, everything you can think of.
    Last edited by ahbeng; 10th May 2005 at 04:21 PM.

  4. #104
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ahbeng
    finally somone gets it. that's the whole point. our government is the culprit at the back. that's why they are privatising the smrt but with them as the boss. wolf in sheep skin you see, privatising is just a decoy. only idiots will think privatising means staying out of business. once the law sides the business, the sky's the limit.

    when you go johor refill our tanks, they implement the 3/4 tank laws, why? becasue they do not want the money to flow out of their clutches. and money is all they care.

    slowly they will eliminate all potential private business such as banks, airlines, supermarket, insurance, teleco, 24 marts, ship buildings, weapons, electronics, taxis, buses, trains, hotels, everything you can think of.
    If their only aim is to raise revenue, there are plenty of simpler ways to do that. Put up the GST and increase the income tax rate. Maybe you can explain why >60% of singaporeans don't pay income tax (the low income group) and why the GST is amongst the lowest in the developed world?

    If they aim to control the airline business, why have 4 budget airlines (some foreign) been given licenses to operate in the last 18 months? Much easier to keep a monopoly for SIA isn't it?

    If they aim to control the banking sector, why has the banking sector been progressively liberalised over the last 10 years and why have Citibank, HSBC, ABN-Amro, StanChart, Maybank been given permission to operate their own ATM network? Which of these foreign banks are owned by the 'garment'?

    I understand you are upset about the fare hikes but do try to be a little more balanced.

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnlim
    Yes, heard that these private bus services were terminated to make way for the smrt. There was not much coverage in broadcast media then, except a brief report. Where is the free market for our public transport if there is such an intervention from the government bodies? This is truly sad! Lamentable!!!
    This is standard practice. Otherwise the railway who has a high fixed startup cost simply can't compete with a bus route who's fixed costs are so much lower as they don't have to build and maintain the road they run on.

    The big problem with Public Transport is that it only makes a 'profit' on certain routes and certain times of the day. To get a regular full time service over all areas you have to have strong regulations.

    I would expect that PT if left to 'market forces' would run 2 hours in the morning peak, 2 hours in the evening and would be operated by 30 year old junk heaps of buses that barely operate. You would have no services during the day, evening or weekends.

    I'm of the opinion that governments should operate PT directly, however governments typically have terrible trouble running large concerns effciently - politics kicks in and the organisations get used as some sort of 'sheltered workshop' to make employment figures look good.
    However if you 'privatise' you need a strong transport regulator to ensure that that the companies are held to their supply contracts and that the government just doesn't end up funelling money into the pockets of the transport company shareholders. To often this is what appears to happen and socially every one was probably better off with the sheltered workshop model... :-)

    You need a strong transport regulator who works with the land use/planning people and together they make a development plan that includes the whole spectrum of land use, they draw bus and rail routes on the maps as decided by expert transport planners and either run the services them selves or write strong contracts for private companies to operate said services.
    But it has to be controlled and planned from the top in a holistic manner for the long term good.

  6. #106
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Global Village
    Posts
    443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ahbeng
    finally somone gets it. that's the whole point. our government is the culprit at the back. that's why they are privatising the smrt but with them as the boss. wolf in sheep skin you see, privatising is just a decoy. only idiots will think privatising means staying out of business. once the law sides the business, the sky's the limit.

    when you go johor refill our tanks, they implement the 3/4 tank laws, why? becasue they do not want the money to flow out of their clutches. and money is all they care.

    slowly they will eliminate all potential private business such as banks, airlines, supermarket, insurance, teleco, 24 marts, ship buildings, weapons, electronics, taxis, buses, trains, hotels, everything you can think of.
    Watch your mouth, man! Wait ganna sue by Big Brother! Then you have to issue unreserved apology... hehe...

  7. #107
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by matthew
    This is standard practice. Otherwise the railway who has a high fixed startup cost simply can't compete with a bus route who's fixed costs are so much lower as they don't have to build and maintain the road they run on.

    The big problem with Public Transport is that it only makes a 'profit' on certain routes and certain times of the day. To get a regular full time service over all areas you have to have strong regulations.

    I would expect that PT if left to 'market forces' would run 2 hours in the morning peak, 2 hours in the evening and would be operated by 30 year old junk heaps of buses that barely operate. You would have no services during the day, evening or weekends.

    I'm of the opinion that governments should operate PT directly, however governments typically have terrible trouble running large concerns effciently - politics kicks in and the organisations get used as some sort of 'sheltered workshop' to make employment figures look good.
    However if you 'privatise' you need a strong transport regulator to ensure that that the companies are held to their supply contracts and that the government just doesn't end up funelling money into the pockets of the transport company shareholders. To often this is what appears to happen and socially every one was probably better off with the sheltered workshop model... :-)

    You need a strong transport regulator who works with the land use/planning people and together they make a development plan that includes the whole spectrum of land use, they draw bus and rail routes on the maps as decided by expert transport planners and either run the services them selves or write strong contracts for private companies to operate said services.
    But it has to be controlled and planned from the top in a holistic manner for the long term good.
    Quite right, this is a thorny issue for so many countries. How do you ensure provision of a vital service at a reasonable cost for the public, and at the same time ensure a good level of service, safety, and not haemorrhage money. Given the history of our governmental policies, the bottom line takes precedence, unsurprisingly. The pros and cons of this approach can be debated to death......

  8. #108
    Jason H0
    Guests

    Default

    the kahment is allway rights. they say up, you dare to say down? blame our forfathers that they came to this country to breed us into sub-human who are worst then p@ppy dogs.

    Quote Originally Posted by kongg
    I work in the oil/gas industry. Oil prices had stabilised and had not rised drastically recently. So I wonder y the need to raise the charges.

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eric69
    I will. I'll still vote for PAY. Ten years down the road, I'll still vote for PAY. Unless the opposition can assemble a lineup of "capable" people, PAY is still for me. Despite all the price increases, nonsenses, you can't deny the good PAY did for Singapore ie security, education etc. I know I'll get abit of flames from this, but heck.

    Education

  10. #110
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Global Village
    Posts
    443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Ds
    Education
    True, PAY has a couple of hiccups like the education reforms and IRAS returns, etc etc etc..

  11. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw
    If their only aim is to raise revenue, there are plenty of simpler ways to do that. Put up the GST and increase the income tax rate. Maybe you can explain why >60% of singaporeans don't pay income tax (the low income group) and why the GST is amongst the lowest in the developed world?
    isn't GST on the rise and will be rising? who told you >60% of singaporeans don't pay income tax, the media? GST is the lowest for the time being, does it mean it will always be the lowest? who can assure?

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw
    If they aim to control the airline business, why have 4 budget airlines (some foreign) been given licenses to operate in the last 18 months? Much easier to keep a monopoly for SIA isn't it?
    budget airline has been around in the world for many years, but why didn't singapore have buget airline until the recent existence of air asia? and why suddenly from zero to four budget airlines?

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw
    If they aim to control the banking sector, why has the banking sector been progressively liberalised over the last 10 years and why have Citibank, HSBC, ABN-Amro, StanChart, Maybank been given permission to operate their own ATM network? Which of these foreign banks are owned by the 'garment'?
    operate own ATM network does not mean anything what? DBS/POSB, kepple bank, who do they belongs to? what does the attempt to take over OUB by DBS tells you?

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw
    I understand you are upset about the fare hikes but do try to be a little more balanced
    how can i get balance when my balance in bank is getting lesser and lesser when i am working more and more?

  12. #112
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Beach Road
    Posts
    3,752

    Default

    considering that S M R T made record profits last quarter, I can't believe that 6% here agree with the fare hike!

    these people either don't take public transport, work there or are simply loaded!!

  13. #113
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ahbeng
    isn't GST on the rise and will be rising? who told you >60% of singaporeans don't pay income tax, the media? GST is the lowest for the time being, does it mean it will always be the lowest? who can assure?



    budget airline has been around in the world for many years, but why didn't singapore have buget airline until the recent existence of air asia? and why suddenly from zero to four budget airlines?



    operate own ATM network does not mean anything what? DBS/POSB, kepple bank, who do they belongs to? what does the attempt to take over OUB by DBS tells you?



    how can i get balance when my balance in bank is getting lesser and lesser when i am working more and more?

    You are not being very coherent......I'm having a hard time following the logic of your arguments.

    In post #103, you claim that the government wants to take over the airline business, banking business, etc. etc. That flies in the face of the reality which is that the government, far from trying to monopolise these businesses, have progressively opened up these sectors to foreign competitors.

    Budget airlines have been in existence in the US and Europe for a while, but they are a relatively new phenomenon in this region. Changi Airport, whilst not the first, has moved quickly to attract these airlines. Tell me how this is consistent with your contention that the government wants to monopolise the airline business??

    As for income tax, look at our personal income tax structure here -->
    http://www.iras.gov.sg/ESVPortal/res...arslidesa4.pdf

    With deductions for NSman relief, CPF, earned income, parent, child and what not, you effectively have to to be earning above $30,000 a year to start paying any income tax at all! Say you are a relatively 'high' earner at $5000 a month, with about $30,000 chargeable income after reliefs, you will pay a maximum of ......$1800 tax a year, or $150 a month! This is such a paltry sum my foreigner colleagues are green with envy. With the exception of Hong Kong, please find me another developed country where income tax rates are lower AND a lower percentage of the population actually pay income tax, AND have lower MRT fares.

    I don't understand what you are saying about the bank ATMs. I was merely illustrating the point that if the government wanted to monopolise banking, why on earth would they be allowing big foreign players into the market.

    Before you go on a long rant about the cost of living here, how about you ask yourself this question.....would you be better off anywhere else?

  14. #114
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tao
    considering that S M R T made record profits last quarter, I can't believe that 6% here agree with the fare hike!

    these people either don't take public transport, work there or are simply loaded!!
    I do take public transport a few times a week, I don't work at SMRT, I am not loaded and I DO NOT object to the fare hike. If you are unhappy about the hikes, take it to the government, PTC or SMRT, there is no need to berate folk who express an alternative opinion.

    IMO, the proposed hikes are entirely fair, and the costs trivial for the majority of commuters. There will be some folk who will face difficulties, so it is up to us, VWOs and the government to help those in need, and not the responsibility of a publicly listed company to perform charity.

  15. #115
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Cons digger.
    Posts
    3,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XXX Boy
    Those bloody suckers should not increase the fares at all! Their service is so damn lousy and accident happened so many times in MRT stations and the security camera is not working at all! Still got the cheek to rise the fare??
    that is why they need to raise the fares.. to 'improve' the system.. then after this increase.. for the next increase.. they will cite this 'improvement' that has been implemented and it costs money.

    this fare hike,
    Train Co.: We need the money to improve the CCTv, so we need to increase the fares

    2yrs later, next fare hike,
    Train Co.: We have improved the CCTv which costs money, so we need to increase the fares, which have not raised for the past 2 years.

    6mths later,
    Train Co.: We need to increase again to maintain the CCTv, we have not increased the fares for the past 6mths.

    I feel that they shouldn't implement features and pass the costs to us. If they can't afford it, don't implement it. But stuff like CCTvs should be standard and I'm just using the above example above to humour myself
    “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

  16. #116
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Beach Road
    Posts
    3,752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw
    I do take public transport a few times a week, I don't work at SMRT, I am not loaded and I DO NOT object to the fare hike. If you are unhappy about the hikes, take it to the government, PTC or SMRT, there is no need to berate folk who express an alternative opinion.

    IMO, the proposed hikes are entirely fair, and the costs trivial for the majority of commuters. There will be some folk who will face difficulties, so it is up to us, VWOs and the government to help those in need, and not the responsibility of a publicly listed company to perform charity.
    they made record profits and you call the fairhikes fair? what increase in operation costs? nonsense... the profits prove that the MRT line is lucrative enough and costs can be covered.

    remember the last time that bus fares increased? what happened the following year was that SBS/TIBS DOUBLED their net profits. fare increase all in the name of the operations making loss, maintainence, blah blah blah... yeah right, my foot. you can go ahead with 'donating' more to these blood suckers thank you very much.

    it has nothing to do with charity, just simply because it is public transport and the only one in town, they have the duty to offer fares that are fair and not just for the sake of money going into their deep pockets.

    also, this is a public forum, and I will say what I want to. and that is what this thread is all about.

  17. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw
    I do take public transport a few times a week, I don't work at SMRT, I am not loaded and I DO NOT object to the fare hike. If you are unhappy about the hikes, take it to the government, PTC or SMRT, there is no need to berate folk who express an alternative opinion.

    IMO, the proposed hikes are entirely fair, and the costs trivial for the majority of commuters. There will be some folk who will face difficulties, so it is up to us, VWOs and the government to help those in need, and not the responsibility of a publicly listed company to perform charity.
    Therein lies your problem, and our problem with our country and its leaders, you come from numbers and prudent calculations, a thinking man no doubt, but not a wise man. A wise man understands what it means to think with the heart and not the head, we've got enough scholars cracking their brains already, what we need now are leaders that think with heart instead of, like you, with their heads, with their calculators.

  18. #118
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Beach Road
    Posts
    3,752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeusExMachina
    Therein lies your problem, and our problem with our country and its leaders, you come from numbers and prudent calculations, a thinking man no doubt, but not a wise man. A wise man understands what it means to think with the heart and not the head, we've got enough scholars cracking their brains already, what we need now are leaders that think with heart instead of, like you, with their heads, with their calculators.
    thanks for bringing this up... *clap hands*

    one big problem with our country is the way that we have been educated by the system, to learn to conform, to step in line... and what do you end up with? a country of 4 million in which 90% or so of the population is absolutely pragmatic and live in fear of coming out of their comfort zone and want to payandpay to be well taken care of by the garmen. go watch cartoons like bug's life and antz and you will know what i mean.

    i do appreciate the efforts of the garmen to promote creativity, entrepreneurship, risk taking, etc but with the ways so many things are happening nowadays (the casino debate, this fare hike debate, scholar debate, etc), it is plain obvious to see that alternative thoughts, for good or bad will always be clamped down.

    so, they are just slapping their right face with the left hand and vice versa and it is a case where the goodwill/intend is not reflected by the policy and it seems they will ever never realise the reason what went wrong.

  19. #119

    Default

    Increase, Increase, Increase,....... Increase in profit! That is the sole objective of any bussiness. So much more for a listed company! It's main objective is to grow bigger & bigger; It is not surprising that traveling fares will increase further as years go by. I will not be surprised at all when the prices will eventually reach a comparable stage as the US & European countries.

    There is always a leeway to give various reasons for fare increases. These reminds me about the book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". The author had already stated very clearly about the relationship between government & big corporations. A lot of rules & decisions are made in favour of these corporations because they bring revenues to the government; they are the pillars of the economy.

  20. #120
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeusExMachina
    Therein lies your problem, and our problem with our country and its leaders, you come from numbers and prudent calculations, a thinking man no doubt, but not a wise man. A wise man understands what it means to think with the heart and not the head, we've got enough scholars cracking their brains already, what we need now are leaders that think with heart instead of, like you, with their heads, with their calculators.
    Sorry my friend, you are making this personal. You neither know me nor my background, so I would appreciate if you refrain from making statements about my wisdom of lack thereof. You will see from my posting history that I certainly do not bow before the almighty dollar. I argued strenuously against the casino despite the so called economic windfall, so no, I do not whip out the calculator at each earliest opportunity. I do have a heart but I do not see the need to wear it on my sleeve, so your statement is just plain baseless.

    Why do I not object to the fare hike? Well, its a zero sum game. Whether or not the money comes from commuters or from taxes, the result is the same, it as to be paid for one way or another. If you want to talk about caring for the poor, this is simply the wrong battle to fight. Why should SMRT take a hit on revenues when the majority of commuters can easily absorb this rise? This is a camera forum where folk spend hundreds if not thousands on a hobby, and they want to quibble over a small fare hike? Gimme a break!

    Yes there are the poor and needy, lets find ways to help them find their feet. Poverty affects their ability to pay ALL bills, electricity, transport, schooling, healthcare. So what is the better way, help the poor or complain every single time Singpower/SMRT/MOE/MOH raise fees/fares?? All you guys complaining have got it on backwards!

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •