reaching everyone for active citizenry @ home
Singapore Government
 
 
Welcome to the REACH Portal.

i-REACH (April 2013) is out now.
 


Find us on
Twitter Facebook SMS YouTube RSS

Replies to Feedback

2 Mar 2012, 3.53PM
14 comments & replies |by REACH Administrator | Replies to Feedback
Since the Budget speech on 17 Feb 2012, REACH contributors have actively shared their views on the various announcements, including transport measures, which have been shared with the Ministry of Transport (MOT). One key concern is the co-funding of new bus fleets by the government, where the usage of public funds for private operators has been put to question. 

Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has made remarks on this topic in Parliament on 1 Mar 2012, which addresses contributors’ feedback on these areas. Here, we bring you MOT’s highlights from the Budget 2012 Round-Up Speech. 


Expanding Bus Capacity: Highlights from Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s Round-Up Speech for Budget 2012

In his round-up speech, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam explained that the Government’s one-time investment of $1.1 billion to increase bus capacity was the fastest way to reduce waiting times and crowding for commuters.

With the increased number of buses, commuters will enjoy less crowded buses on heavily utilised routes, experience shorter waiting times, and see a number of new bus services that will improve connectivity and provide more public transport choices.

Public transport operators are  still responsible for expanding their bus fleets to cater to commuter growth on public transport, meeting mandatory service level requirements, and the funding of 250 additional buses.

The transport-related excerpt of Mr Shanmugaratnam's speech is as below:

$1.1 Billion Package to Expand Bus Capacity – Who Are We Subsidising?

Finally, Mr Speaker Sir, we come to the issue of why the government is taking the extraordinary step of spending $1.1 billion over 10 years to increase bus capacity.

Several MPs have asked about this, including Ms Amy Khor, Mr Seng Han Thong, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Pritam Singh. There are in particular questions on whether this is a subsidy to the transport operators and their shareholders.

The Government considered its investment to expand bus capacity very carefully. This was not a normal budgetary decision. It is an important step, to reduce waiting times and crowdedness that Singaporeans experience daily as they take public buses.

Let me start by explaining what the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) themselves are responsible for. The PTOs are required to expand their fleets, their bus fleets to cater to the growth in passenger numbers, as well as to ensure that they meet the service levels that are mandated under the existing regulatory framework. This is why, in addition to operating the existing bus fleet of about 4000 buses, they will have to buy 250 additional buses to achieve this; and they will fund this on their own.103. The Government is putting $1.1 billion into the bus system in order to step up  bus service levels  beyond the current service standards that are required of the PTOs.
  1. It will increase bus capacity on existing heavily-utilised routes making them less crowded and giving commuters a more pleasant journey.
  2. Almost all feeder buses will run every 10 minutes or less - for two hours in the morning, and the evening, two-hour peak periods instead of the current one-hour peak period as under the current service level requirements.
  3. Commuters on existing routes will thus benefit both from shorter waiting times and less crowded bus journeys.
  4. And a number of new bus services, in addition to existing bus services, will be added to improve connectivity, and provide commuters with more public transport choices.
  5. So these are improvements that commuters have been hoping for and waiting for.
As a condition for the Government's investment, the PTOs will have to deliver on these service level improvements, which go beyond existing regulatory requirements.

We cannot simply mandate that the PTOs add these 550 buses to improve service levels. First, because it goes significantly beyond the current service levels in the current regulatory framework. Second, the PTO‟s bus operations are already running operating losses, and the 550 additional buses in particular are projected to be a loss-making operation. The cost of acquiring and running the 550 buses is beyond what can be recovered from revenues in running the buses.

Take the example of improving the frequency of feeder bus services. Increasing the number of buses to make this possible will shorten waiting times but will add little to revenues, since the total number of passengers taking the service will remain largely the same. So more buses, more drivers, more fuel but no similar increase in revenues because it is essentially the same pool of passengers. They now have to wait shorter times and enjoy less crowded journeys, but it is essentially the same pool.

Without the Government stepping in, these significant service level improvements would only have been achievable if  fares have been raised sharply. The 550 additional buses mean significantly higher costs - not only to purchase the buses, but also because more than 1000 drivers would need to be hired and paid a good wage, as Mr Seng Han Thong and NMP Mary Liew have pointed out. Fare revenues of the PTOs would have had to go up by about 12%-13% - which translates into an increase in passenger fares of about 15 cents per journey - if the PTOs had to achieve this on their own. How much is 12% - 13%? In the last 5 years since 2006, fares went up by 0.3%. So 12%-13% is quite a significant leap compared to what we have seen in the last 5 years. That would have been the only way which we could have achieved these service level improvements if the Government had not stepped in.

Hence the reality of the matter is that the $1.1 billion Government package, or $110 million per year, is a subsidy for public transport commuters, and not a subsidy for the PTOs. It will  improve service levels for commuters,  not the profits of the PTOs.

The $1.1 billion package is expected to cover the losses on the 550 buses - in other words, the additional costs net of revenues. Of the $1.1 billion package, $280 million is budgeted for the purchase of the 550 buses over the next five years, and $820 million to cover the net operating costs over the 10 years.  This is based on the best estimates currently. However, we will be monitoring and scrutinising the PTOs‟ actual costs for both the purchase and running of the buses. Should their losses turn out to be lower than expected, the Government funding will be reduced correspondingly. So one way or another, there are no profits to be made from the 550 buses. 

The $1.1 billion for additional buses complements the $60 billion we are putting into the expansion of the rail system. It will take several years for these new rail lines to come on stream or all of them to come on stream. That is why we are stepping in now to add bus capacity and quickly improve the daily experience of commuters. It is what commuters want, and we have assessed that it is worth the public investment. Both the $1.1 billion over the next 10 years for bus capacity, and  the $60 billion that we are putting into the rail system, are worthwhile public investments.

Despite this Government package and independent of this Government package, regular and incremental fare increases will continue to be necessary, as wages and operating costs rise, so that the bus industry can stay financially viable. The Government will also continue to make sure that needy commuters get adequate assistance for their transport expenses.

The MOT will elaborate further on all these issues during their COS.

Click here to read the highlights from MOT’s website or read the full speech here.
2696 views  |  14 comments & replies  |  Add a comment
Guest
2 Mar 2012, 4.49PM
I am skeptical "PTO‟s bus operations are already running operating losses" what does that means?

According to financial statement submitted by SBS transit to SGX: http://info.sgx.com/webcorannc.nsf/AnnouncementLast3MonthsByCompanyNameAndCategory/53707407D7C8E257482579A00026B6B5?opendocument

Full picture: Profit before taxation is $44,509,000 and $65,028,000 respectively for 2011 and 2010.


And according to SMRT financial statement submitted to SGX: http://info.sgx.com/webcorannc.nsf/Announcement4-12MonthsByCompanyNameAndCategory/B5C7EFE372D91DAB482578810028C8AB?opendocument

Train operating profit in FY2011 is $113,488,000 and FY2010 $129,729,000
Bus operating losses in FY2011 is $(3,100,000) and FY2010 $(1,940,000)

Sounds like when we say losses, we talk about particular sector. When we justify profits, we say the overall.


Ain't that's a fact that when we subsidize losses, the profit gets a better picture? I don't see how shareholders don't get benefits when the country is pumping in money into loss sector. The overall picture definitely gets rosier.

The justification just don't reasonably sounds convincing.
Guest
2 Mar 2012, 5.24PM
And if we continue to argue that bus is loss making, then Singapore should consider splitting up our PTO into respective smaller clusters of services.

Such as SBS Train Service LTD, SBS Bus Services LTD, SMRT Trains Services LTD, SMRT Taxi Services LTD, SMRT Bus Services LTD etc...

In such a way, we will have a full clear picture of their finances and it will not be so difficult for gov to justify public funds in supporting loss making but crucial services for the economy and country.

In such transparency, we can also see how the government had helped in making our public transport affordable.

 
Stars and Crescent
3 Mar 2012, 2.28PM
Much have been said about this $1B. After watching the Parliament debate, I think that citizens feedback will not matter much. The mind is already made up.

How is the bus companies losing money and yet declaring profit and issuing dividends? After Gov annouced this budget,  analysts begin recommending investing in SMRT stock. I too think that it may be time that I buy some shares.

We are spending $1B to improve the transport for the ppl and not the bus companies. I support the idea of buying more buses, hiring more drivers and paying good salaries. Yes we will scrutinize the reports but how? We will be hiring more foreign bus drivers using the tax payers money because SG do not want to be bus drivers? 

In 10 years, there will be more MRT / LRT, there would be less need for buses. Buses can be scrapped but what about the employees?  

At the end, commuters feelings may not be mixed. Even as the GOV subsidize $1B (could be less), busfare and MRT fare would still have to go up!! Beside drivers, you will need more mechanics to do maintenance work. Who pays for the spare parts. Where are these future employees? What about the need to hire more admin. staff as there would be additonal work? Would salary increase be implemented across the board? More buses are needed during peak hours, but after peak hours there will be more buses than passengers? Where is the parking space? Has cheap land been allocated to the bus companies? Does the $1B covers all these?  If not, then the bus companies has to work harder for the benefit of the shareholders. And with the additional operating cost, commuters would have to pay more (the pools remains the same??). All these would add to inflation. 

In the end, we are only delaying the hike in transport cost until ....  And if the buses still arrive late, no aircon, etc .., then SG will feel very strong about this - even more angry!! If you spend $1B, you will raise expectations. ;)



Guest
8 Mar 2012, 11.24AM
Anyway, the latest news is: They had made up their mind.

Despite many unanswered questions.

In the first place, the losses of Bus operation supposed to be "subsidized" by the extreme profitability of Rail operation. What's how the business model of Public Transport system was designed to be, with only 2 major players and no real competition.

While we leave profitability to be shared by the PTO's board and shareholders and of course contributed back to corporate taxation, why do we, as taxpayer need to subsidize their loss-making portion and yet still receiving sub-standard service and be threatened with fare increase from time-to-time when we simply ask for service standard to be met and match previous justifications for fare hike requests?

We, the people, are the true losers. We got milked, conned, and cast aside.

I have a suggestion for the ministry to consider.

Amend the law requiring the PTOs to reinvest certain amount of profitability into every years budgeting on maintaining and upgrading the transport operation. Since these PTO are so bad in managing their finance and investments, government should step in to regulate in the interest of the society.

Let's say the total pre-tax profit is $150,000,000. The PTO will be required to invest 60% of pre-tax profit or $50,000,000 whichever is higher yearly into the subsequent year budget to improve the system. The amount for re-investment into it's operation should be made tax-exempted.

Thus, if the year's pre-tax profit is $40,000,000 then all $40,000,000 shall be reinvested in the operation & service. It shall be tax-exempted and 0-cents will be distributed as dividend.

I am very sad to see how some people get's all the fats and cream while other people footing the bill.

From what I see, $1.1 Billion is just going to be wasted without a long term plan. If not, proof otherwise and be transparent on its accountability.

Guest
8 Mar 2012, 6.37PM
First of all both the transport companies should cut the CEO and those top management pay. They are the want who sit inside the air-con office and always think of way to put money in their pocket as well as how to give good bonus to their shareholders.

They never think of how to made full use of their profit to return back to the commuters who take the buses and train daily. Take for example, the very basic maintenance like trains, buses, railway tracks maintenance, system maintenance, communications they are vey lack of.

Obviously Singapore must not see of having those trains collision happened in other countries in Singapore because of lack of maintenance by the transport companies.

Another thing going to highlight again and again, there is always at a certain timing, there is a train will stop at the station for a certain minutes with no passenger service. I have seen it with my own eyes at Tanah Merah MRT Station (It occur at this station very frequency at this station at a certain timing) So far there is no explanation to this query. Aspecially when the station is so crowded and the next train has to wait for 6 minutes towards Changi Airport station. Rather than this empty train with no passenger service stop at the station to wait time, they can insert another passenger service train to relief to crowd at the station.
Guest
2 Mar 2012, 9.55PM
we have been too pampered and getting too demanding about public transportation. govt should conduct on the travel patterns of the users. with well connected services , radical changes should be made to even going back to early 70s such as :- 1) removing bus stops within 1 km radius of interchanges or stations. this will force users to walk rather than taking bus. 2) to reduce the number of bus stops by  1/2 to prevent short travel by buses. 3) build more self-contained regional cities where people can live, study, work and recreate within their neighbourhood.
Guest
4 Mar 2012, 8.02PM
The basic problem is that despite knowing the long term strategy of increasing the population size by a signficant amount, the various relevant ministries failed to make adequate planning for this.  Only when the well-publicized problems of the MRT and inadequate transport infstructure in general become readily apparent there is now suddenly knee-jerk reactions.  The vision and planning of Singapore that was the pride of the nation 20 years ago is sadly lacking now.  If the authorities are not careful, these measures may not solve the problem and could end up a waste of tax payers money.  When private transport companies put profit above all else and cannot demonstrate they can run a complex and critical operation, what makes you think they can manage the extra buses and operational requirements this will bring?  The government would be better off to privatize these companies and staff them with dedicated and capable operation-focused expert staff who are not focused on collecting the largest profit related bonus they can get and who will do their job with vision and passion. 

Also I wonder whether all these new buses will simply add to the already worsening congestion and pollution.  If they are like the current buses I see spewing obnoxious emissions, the air quality will be far worse, especially for those staying near heavy bus routes and near bus stops.  If taxpayer money is going to be used, at least have the vision to get a type of bus that is cutting edge in environmental protection.  Many other countries use LPG and electric buses.  I presume Singapore uses the petrol/diesel buses because they are cheaper.  It would be great if Singapore could dare to return to being a visionary country (like it was 20 years ago but not now) with a truly world class and revolutionary transport system instead of just another has-been and even below the standard of most other benchmark western countries.

Maybe this line of thinking is beyond the capability of the million dollar salary ministers who are now too afraid to be truly innovative and visionary .....
Guest
10 Mar 2012, 11.14AM
Yes, the money should be used to improve more than one aspect of our publiec transport system. I am not sure if the two public bus serivce providers are currently involved in the Electric Vehicles Test-bed project. They were not in the initial phase, may be as it was not profit making.

The $1.1 billion subsidy should used to make our transport system more efficient, but not necessarily causing more air pollution or generating more noise. In fact, we should be forward looking and take this opportunity to test-bed and evaluate the feasiblity of fuel cell buses and electric buses and to justify the amount to be spent.
Guest
5 Mar 2012, 9.41AM
Since profitability is so important for listing companies and public transport is core well-being in interest of the country, these are what the government can do:

Take back the loss-making business - Nationalize the bus operation. Let us, the taxpayers, foot the bill. In any case, if we are going to pay the money so as to benefit ourselves, why not just own it?

Train business is making good profit (but maintenance is lacking which compromise safety) leave it to the listed companies. That looks good. Leave the money making business for listed companies so that shareholders are happy.

Alternatively, leave everything as it is, laws, regulation, requirements etc... just leave it alone and use $1B to set up the third bus operator under the governance of statutory board. Running a fleet of people's public bus service and directly competes with the current operators for peak hour demands which they failed to fill.

$1B is no small money. You can set up a fleet of new buses.
Guest
7 Mar 2012, 2.54PM
Agreed.

Anyway which agency oversees/licenses the bus capacities... why do buses state that they are each 'licenced to carry' 43 seated passengers and 41 standing passengers: so for each row of two seaters, 4 persons are expected to stand in the narrower aisle and block the passage - isn't this overcrowded and overloaded? Shouldn't the standing capacity by only around 20% of seated capacity (that is 1 standing person per row of 4 seated, so that that is ample space for passengers to pass, board & alight and carry a bag/belongings)?
Guest
5 Mar 2012, 11.41PM
How the billion dollars are used to help transport operators is not an issue. Singaporeans are questioning the why state funds are used. This our government conveniently brushed over as if they heard nothing. It goes to show what belies their intentions and accountability of our tax-payers' money.

Fat MaMa
Guest
13 Mar 2012, 8.51PM
The government should look into subsidizing company when they provided bus transport for their workers during the Peek hours as this will help to offload some of passenger from the public transport network nd also worker will benefit from this as their transport cost will be offset and increase their productive indirectly. It can be implemented as a incentive and hence promoting to company to adopt this policy.
Guest
3 May 2012, 10.24AM
Years back we decided that privatise will increase productivity.  Did it came true?

If the companies still need subsidies to improve the quality, I would say the plan failed.
So options are
a) Break up the monopoly or oligapoly.  Have more competition.  Subsidies can come from government, but we need them to compete to get the pie.
b) Nationalise the transport system back.

We should not subsidies a lousy private company.  They may just take the money and buy very expensive bus etc.  Left pocket, right pocket.  Perfectly legal, totally immoral.
Guest
24 Jul 2012, 11.19PM
I suggest we consider introducing a Feeder Taxi Service (FTS) like the Feeder Bus Service (FBS) now in operation.  The FTS can have taxis plying the FBS routes and be allowed to pick up those waiting at bus stops and along the road and who are in a hurry to reach the MRT station.  The advantage is that once the taxi is full with 4 persons it will proceed straight to the nearest MRT station unlike the feeder bus which will take a fixed route. Could consider charging $2 per trip and allow the use of ezlink card or cash box like buses for easy and efficient collection and record of trips.  The route eg. 222 can be displayed on the display panel atop the taxi.  This I believe will be an additional service to attract motorists to take the train instead of driving their own cars to work. Preference should be given to Singaporean taxi drivers who are 55 years old and above to drive the feeder taxis.  Meaningful employment for the elderly.

Vodcast

Post-Budget Forum 2013 – Opening Remarks by Dr Amy Khor and Mrs Josephine Teo

Podcast

Policy Study Workgroups Appreciation Lunch on 23 September 2009 - Opening Speech by Dr Amy Khor
Speaker
REACH's Chairman, Dr Amy Khor announced the formation of three new Policy Study Workgroups



Download (MP3, file size: 1.02 MB, Time:01:51mins)
Subscribe: [feed]

Best viewed at 1024*768 resolution with IE 7.0 or FireFox 3.0