SMRT

How about SIA Engineering then? Planes hardly breakdown.

(05-11-2013, 10:38 AM)Ben Wrote:

(05-11-2013, 10:31 AM)Temperament Wrote: How about every citizen own a piece of SMRT ? Then runs SMRT as a community company but like a "private enterprise". Will it works? Or is it too communistic so it can not works? If it works, everyone should have equivalent dividends regardless of some rich citizens and many others who don't use the SMRT one reason or another. Naive? But we like to be the first to try in almost everything. Can try or not?
Of course not. There are just too many selfish, private reasons.

How to make every citizen own a piece of SMRT? Those who can not afford to pay will be given something FOC? And really, if this were to happen, I think it will be bad news for everyone, because by then, SMRT will not have to run efficiently, not even effectively. Just do the minimum, after all, govt will come to its rescue if they fail since everyone has a stake and govt cannot let it fail. My personal view only.

Yes! The idea that if something is community own, then it's actually nobody own. Can a community own runs like a "private enterprise"?
Why not?
Aren't our GOV. hospitals which are for all Singaporeans run almost like a "private enterprise"?
Sometimes, GOV hospitals charged more than private hospitals for some drugs/services. Maybe due to market mispricing or genuine mistake. At times, certain drugs are just too difficult (aka expensive) to stock. You have to buy it outside on your own. No subsidy?

So why can't a community own SMRT runs like a privately own enterprise?
It can be viable also.
The only thing is maybe new commercial regulations have to be passed and tailored to SMRT-COMMUNITY OWN ENTERPRISE allows to operate as private enterprise (aka sure make money).
Why?
The more money make, the more dividends back to every citizens.
Who will complain about SMRT MAKING MONEY then?
Of course there will be people who don't agree as they don't need to use SMRT at all.

I remembered that once the government want all of us to own part of Singtel. So I suppose a similar arrangement can be done? But have to pay for it lah. Is SMRT big enough to be share among 3+ million Singaporean? How about ComfortDelgro, instead of SMRT?

Could be a feasible idea. Maybe people will be less unhappy if shares are sold to citizens at discount, like Singtel. Citizens shld share a piece of the profit of gov entity. For now, the money made goes to Temasei, maybe re-invested or maybe paid bonus to the fund-managers.

(05-11-2013, 02:10 PM)NTL Wrote: I remembered that once the government want all of us to own part of Singtel. So I suppose a similar arrangement can be done? But have to pay for it lah. Is SMRT big enough to be share among 3+ million Singaporean? How about ComfortDelgro, instead of SMRT?

make SMRT, CDL become social enterprise?!

Why not? What the GOV. have are actually belonging to the people. They say GOV in every country produce nothing but from the people?

Communist countries did it, by making the whole country as social enterprise. We all know the consequences.

O. K. all the way left is not what i say or meant.
i say community own but run like private enterprise where everyone has equal share. Not some are more equal than others.- In this sense, actually whatever kind of system of GOV. there are always people who wants or will be more equal than others. There is really no Shangrila on Earth. At least, we can dream or try ma - Dream is FOC.

SINGAPORE: A high-level panel tasked with studying public transport fares has recommended an improved public transport concessions framework.

One million commuters are set to benefit if the government accepts and implements this concessions framework.

With the goal of keeping public transport fares affordable, the Fare Review Mechanism Committee has proposed two new concession schemes targeted at low-income workers and persons with disabilities.

It also recommended that the government funds these two schemes without imposing this as a financial burden on public transport operators (PTOs).

The committee also proposed significant enhancements for existing schemes.

One is allow children below the age of seven to travel for free instead of using the current height criterion.

Another change is a Monthly Travel Pass to be made available to adult commuters who frequently use public transport.

This will help them save on their monthly expenditures on bus and train rides.

Also recommended is an adjustment of the prices of various Student Monthly Concession Passes that could benefit polytechnic students.

The committee also recommended that public transport operators provide more help to the Public Transport Fund.

The fund helps needy families adjust to the impact of public transport fare increases.

Currently, the government is the primary source of funding for this fund, with transport operators contributing voluntarily.

To provide more resources to the fund, the committee recommended a formal mechanism be put in place for these operators to contribute a portion of the fare increase they receive to the fund.

In addition, it suggested that the government could continue to co-fund appropriate contributions to the fund, while financial penalties imposed on these transport operators' service lapses should also be channelled toward the fund.

The committee noted that energy costs have become a significant part of the transport operators' overall operating costs.

So it has proposed a more responsive fare formula that will include a new Energy Index (EI) component.

This is to ensure that transport operators remain financially viable while keeping fares affordable.

The committee also proposed that fares be adjusted regularly through annual fare review exercises to account for operating cost increases.

This will help mitigate the adverse impact of fare adjustments on commuters since significant fare hikes may be avoided.

In addition, the committee proposed that the Public Transport Council be given the discretion to roll over a portion of the quantum of fare adjustment in a particular year to the next fare review exercise.

The Transport Ministry said it is studying the recommendations and will give an official response next week.

(05-11-2013, 04:55 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: Communist countries did it, by making the whole country as social enterprise. We all know the consequences.

Actually Singapore has shown that social enterprises like NTUC and HDB can be done very well

Problem with communism is their utopian belief hence faulty assumption about human behavior and incentive system.