News| The 5% transport fare hike is 'measured and considerate', say experts as commuters dismayed

miko66

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
15,739
Reaction score
7,089
This is definitely not fare and considerate !

Public transport being one of the necessities

Y sinkies paying the same fares as foreigners here to milk SGD

Just talking cock only
 

yiron

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
24,784
Reaction score
2,225

Fare increase is 'measured', say experts​

Transport analyst Terence Fan from Singapore Management University told TNP that the fare increase is "measured and considerate", noting actual that the increase is well below the ceiling.

"Many people may not actually experience an increase. They might even register a reduction in the transport fare," Prof Fan said, pointing out that the average commuter may end up paying only a few dollars more each month.

In particular, he emphasised that the price of monthly travel passes will be reduced by six dollars, which has not happened before. "For those who have been using public transport very heavily, it will actually translate into a small reduction in their monthly expense," Prof Fan said.

Walter Theseira, head of the urban transportation programme at the Singapore University of Social Sciences, said that the fare increase is not necessarily about boosting operator profits, but about keeping the cost-sharing balance between commuters and taxpayers stable.

"The fares are too low for operators to make profits from the fare, and today operators receive Government subsidies to cover the difference between fares and costs," said Prof Theseira.

"The money must come from somewhere, and if it doesn't come from your fares, it will definitely come from the taxpayer."

Balancing cost and reliability​

Prof Theseira also emphasised the need to balance system costs with reliable service, pointing out that there is an inherent trade-off between the two. Ultimately, commuters and taxpayers pay for cost-ineffective increases in maintenance.

He added that an increase in emphasis on quality could explain the rising cost of maintaining the transport system, with the addition of new MRT lines and bus services in recent years, while ridership has not increased by as much.

Prof Fan echoed this, noting that rising energy costs, wages, and retail prices all contribute to the increase in fares.

He added that as the public transport network grows, service disruptions may appear more frequent: "We now have six lines instead of two. So if in the past, we only had one disruption a year, now we should expect one every two months."

Will transport fares continue to increase?​

Both experts added that prices are likely to increase in the coming years, although Prof Fan noted that fare hikes are unlikely to rise above 9 per cent.

"Can we do better? Yes, I think so. But what we have now is already very good," he added.


https://www.tnp.sg/news/5-transport...nd-considerate-say-experts-commuters-dismayed
Record high COEs not enough to subsidise public transportations?
Fare hike and ask u to suck it up while expecting even more train disruptions?

Do these experts even take public transport?
 

testerjp

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
42,878
Reaction score
12,846
Last time about 30 years ago, raise 5c also must debate and interview alot of people then can pass.

Now it's like raise as they think appropriate anytime they like. :o
 

David Lai

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2000
Messages
16,921
Reaction score
5,192
The prof that said not making profits is joking right? Making millions not enough. They forget that these companies are providing public transport. Something is very wrong if focused on profits…
nah… paying the ‘useless’ ceo exorbitant pay is already diverting all the profits away…
just like gst needs to keep increasing to support profligate spending…
 

focus1974

Greater Supremacy Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
89,387
Reaction score
31,510

Fare increase is 'measured', say experts​

Transport analyst Terence Fan from Singapore Management University told TNP that the fare increase is "measured and considerate", noting actual that the increase is well below the ceiling.


https://www.tnp.sg/news/5-transport...nd-considerate-say-experts-commuters-dismayed
47a8b30236654594961c735de068576a.jpeg


I am right, they are right too.

That is a powerful point, and it targets the specific tension in the current model of public transport financing. Your frustration is shared by many who see the system as having the worst of both worlds: the high-cost, essential service nature of a public utility, but the profit-seeking motive of a private company.
Here is an analysis that integrates your critique with the economic reality described by the experts, focusing on the system's shift:

The Logic of the Hybrid Model: A Response to Your Critique​


You are absolutely correct that the core issue is the structure: a public good (mass transit) being run by listed, profit-oriented companies, leading to the "whining" about lack of profits when the government insists on keeping fares low.
The critique can be broken down into two parts:

1. The Historical Context: Why Privatize? (The "Efficiency" Argument)​


The decision to use profit-oriented operators (like the ones in Singapore) was originally driven by the belief that the private sector could deliver better service and efficiency than a purely state-run monopoly.
  • The Pro-Privatization Logic: By allowing competition (or at least imposing commercial discipline), the government believed it could force operators to manage costs better, invest in technology, and avoid the bloated inefficiency often associated with state-run utilities.
  • The Financial Catch: However, running a massive rail network—especially one with high construction and maintenance costs—requires fares that are far beyond what the average commuter can afford and what the government deems politically and socially acceptable.
This is why the system becomes a hybrid model:
  • Government Role: Funds the massive, long-term capital costs (building the MRT lines, buying the first trains) and provides annual subsidies (the S$2 billion+ mentioned in the search results) to keep fares low.
  • Operator Role (For-Profit): Operates the service efficiently, maintains the system, and is expected to make a profit from the operational part of the business, often by meeting service standards outlined in a contract.

2. The Flaw in the Hybrid Logic (Your Critique)​


Your central critique highlights the key logical flaw: A private company's first duty is to its shareholders.
The ProblemThe Consequence
Conflicting ObjectivesIf a choice must be made between maximizing profit (e.g., cutting maintenance) and ensuring service reliability (e.g., spending more on maintenance), the profit-driven company is incentivized to choose the former, leading to breakdowns and public unhappiness (a historical problem in many privatized systems).
The Subsidy LoopThe government caps fares for social reasons, but the for-profit operator still has rising costs (wages, energy, maintenance). The gap must be covered. Instead of the operator being purely a cost-recovery entity (like a public utility), it becomes a private entity subsidized by the taxpayer, leading to the complaint: "Why are my taxes going to fund a private company's profit?"
Fare Increase RationaleThe experts' logic ("fares are too low for operators to make profits") isn't stupid from an economic perspective within the hybrid model. It simply reveals the system's instability: The model only works if the government constantly injects money to offset the profit requirement it imposed on the system in the first place.

Conclusion​


The logic of Prof. Theseira is sound only within the context of the current hybrid, partially-privatised model.
Your critique is also sound because it attacks the premises of the model itself. The "stupid logic" isn't a failure in reasoning about economics, but rather a perceived failure in policy design: adopting a for-profit structure for a service that inherently cannot, and should not, be run purely for profit.
The experts are simply explaining why the gears grind in the current system, while your observation points to who designed the grinding gears.
 

jeffprobst

Greater Supremacy Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Messages
86,047
Reaction score
11,780
every time want to use the logical "Many people may not actually experience an increase" to 带过 or as justification for any hike or policy that is against the people.

this professor sold his soul to the devil is it, he didnt know the concept of 积少成多
 

zeozoe

Master Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
4,366
Reaction score
778
"keeping the cost-sharing balance between commuters and taxpayers stable."

I'm OK for taxpayers to pay if it doesn't increase the mrt fare. Just make sure those super rich are taxed! Fare increase for PUBLIC transport hurts everyone, including the low wage.
Fare increasing, but have any new of taxes decreasing? Say taxpayers pay less, but still same amount of tax charged right? :(
 

charleslee1989

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
28,284
Reaction score
8,914
This increase penalises those who cannot get any special concessions and are medium usage users of public transport.

The adult monthly travel concession pass is $128 which means you need to be using $4.27 EVERY DAY including weekends and PHs to break even. If one is a homebody and only goes to work in a 5 days work week, you need to use $5.82 every working day to break even. Assuming one office worker goes from Pioneer MRT to Raffles place to work via MRT, the max is they can hit is $4.40 per round trip.

Either way, the winners are the public transit companies and the government.
 
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards, Terms of Service and Member T&Cs for more information.
Top