1 trip is $1.28 from this Dec. Next year maybe increase to $1.4?In b4 elderly collect cardboard is for exercise
Getting worst.1 trip is $1.28 from this Dec. Next year maybe increase to $1.4?
Record high COEs not enough to subsidise public transportations?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
And it becomes a yearly thing.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.![]()
nah… paying the ‘useless’ ceo exorbitant pay is already diverting all the profits away…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…
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
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.
This is why the system becomes a hybrid model:
- 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.
- 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 Problem The Consequence Conflicting Objectives If 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 Loop The 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 Rationale The 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.
Fare increasing, but have any new of taxes decreasing? Say taxpayers pay less, but still same amount of tax charged right?"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.
No, it's the state media that knows WHOM to interviewWhen interviewed by state media sure will need to say the words the state wants to hear
They only started increasing yearly since 2021..Now 1 stop trip is around $1.2?
So means u took public transport (if 1 stop) for free in 2013? I dun recall free public transport in the past....