Public Transport Options

I was quite amused by Finance Minister's Budget statement for this year even though I wasn't really paying much attention to it. The spending of $1.1 billion on buses for private transport companies (providing public transport) stands up like a sore thumb among the lengthy budget statement (as usual).

I waited for some a couple of days to see whether the other opposition parties have anything to say about this one but unfortunately, I hear nothing about this from opposition parties so far (well, please update me if I am wrong) amidst some comments made by people writing to ST forum and bloggers like Lucky Tan.

PAP has started its privatization of government assets and companies in late 1980s and 1990s. Vital strategic assets like telecommunications, public utility as well as public transport companies were all "privatized" amidst the fact that the government still maintain as major shareholders of these companies. It isn't really a clear cut kind of privatization but when these companies want to raise tariffs and fares, the excuse that these are "private companies" which will have to make profits is always used to justify such moves.

Some opposition parties like Workers Party has called for the Nationalization of the public transport companies (i.e. Comfort Delgro/SBS Transit, SMRT). Other opposition party like National Solidarity Party has called for more liberalization of the public transport sector which it believes more competition will help to keep the whole system more efficient and hopefully, more cost effective for commuters. PAP government has resisted both calls.

Due to the ill-conceived explosive FT policy which jack up the population rapidly over the decade, the public transport system has come under tremendous strains. Last year major break downs of the MRT train system has set the major alarm that the train system has been overstressed. The mid-term strategy would be divert the heavy use on MRT to the bus system before it could come up with a comprehensive plan of solving the congestion in the train system. Buses operating parallel to the MRT services will be needed to provide alternative mode of transport to the train.

PAP's controversial plan of pumping $1.1 billion taxpayers' money into the bus companies to help them increase their buses (550 buses at $1.1 B = $2 million per bus! Really overpriced.) is a desperate move to help solve the congestion problem. However, it is done without much serious thought on the implications. This move will open up the can of worms for future government to justify spending public money on "private companies" as a form of subsidy. It has broken PAP's own golden rule of "market principles".

Some PAP minister has commented that by spending $1.1B to help the transport companies, it will help to "prevent fares" from increasing so that the commuters will not suffer. First of all, Singaporeans had already suffered once the public money is spent because the money comes from everybody, via taxation like GST and Income taxes. Furthermore, if the companies are to raise funds to invest in these buses, these buses would generate revenue and profits to pay up for the initial capital cost in terms of depreciation. If PAP is serious about "privatization" and adhering to market principles, it should allow these companies to function as it is. Especially so when these companies are already enjoying monopoly power and domination over the public transport sector.

For private companies, especially for public listed companies like SMRT and SBS Transit, there are numerous ways of raising funds from the financial market. They could issue bonds or issue more shares. They could borrow from banks as well. There are no lack of financial tools for them to meet their needs.

If the government is to spend over a billion on these companies, it must well nationalize these companies! Else, how could it account for the taxpayer's monies spent on private companies for them to make more money?

The other option is to liberalize the public transport industry. New investors may be interested in breaching the gap of demand and supply.

From an overall strategic view, Singapore has too many taxis per capital than Hong Kong. The main reason for such phenomenon is due to the existence of two types of Minibus system in Hong Kong which covered the needs of the middle class in providing a mode of transport which could rival taxi services.

In terms of efficient use of limited resources such as fuel and public roads, minibus proved to be the preferred system than taxi. Each Minibus could carry 16 passengers at any one time while Taxi could only carry 4. Most of the time, during peak hours, taxi normally carry 1 passenger who rush for work.

Taxi has no fixed timing and routes which make it ineffective at certain times. During certain hours, you could hardly find any taxi available due to changing shifts or taxi waiting for change in surcharge to kick in. The Dual-Minibus systems in Hong Kong provide a stable, cost effective and efficient alternative to the taxi system.

Red Top Minibus

The Red Top Minibus system provides the comfort of seating as well as flexible alighting and boarding points along the routes at a very reasonable price. The Red Top Minibus drivers could switch routes according to peak and off-peak hours. This provide stable and yet flexible adjustment to demand due to different timing.

Green Top Minibus

The Green Top Minibus system has more fixed time tables and routing as compared to the Red Top Minibus. It serves those less travelled routes or unprofitable routes well, especially those private estates at a slightly higher fare.

I believe Singapore needs to cut down on the reliance of taxi or even decrease the number of taxis by substituting it with the more cost effective and resource efficient Minibus system. The minister of transport should come up with more effective strategic plans instead of just throwing more money into private transport companies.

For a start, the population of taxi should be curbed/reduced and taxi operators should be encouraged to divert resources to run a comprehensive minibus system. This will relieve the strains on the road network as well as the train system.

I believe that the designs of bus terminals around Singapore could only cope with a certain number of long haul buses. If there is a need to increase the number of fleets drastically, the infrastructure may not cope. For the long term strategy, we may have to increase the number of bus operators to three with new infrastructure built.

LTA has spent much time studying the Hong Kong model but it seems too reluctant to come up with a comprehensive public transport plan to overhaul the present system. It is totally irresponsible for the Ministry of Transport to take the easier way out by throwing more money instead of thinking long term and the overview of the whole system.

Goh Meng Seng

WP may split if...

Workers Party may split if Yaw Shin Leong decided to challenge the expulsion decision. I seriously hope my analysis is wrong and such situation could be avoided but there is a high possibility of a split if things don't turn out right. Of course, I would expect a lot of WP members and supporters attacking me for this article but I also hope that they could read it with an open mind and maybe, it could have made them realize unity within the party is what they really need now.

Loss of Two Core members with high support within

Since last General Elections held in 2011, WP has lost two key members: Eric Tan and Yaw Shin Leong. Eric Tan resigned from the party after he felt betrayed by the party leadership when the NCMP seat was not assigned to him, who is the leader of East Coast GRC team. Yaw Shin Leong has been expelled for his refusal to answer to allegation of adultery made against him.

Both Eric Tan and Yaw Shin Leong have very STRONG support base within the party cadre. In fact, they have the highest vote of support from the cadre members during the Ordinary Party Congress among those voted into CEC (The Chairman and Secretary General posts were uncontested) back in 2010.

Both Eric Tan and Yaw SL have led GRC teams in GE2006 and naturally they would have garnered respect and support from the cadre members.

For the party to lose two of the important CEC members, who had garnered top support from the cadres, within such a short span of time would post a big challenge to the current leadership to explain convincingly on why it happens.

Political Acumen

When the Yaw-gate first brewed, I have made several comments on how it should be managed and what went wrong subsequently. However, it seems that WP members and supporters are only concerned about short term interests instead of looking at the issue on a more matured perspective.

This is a worrying sign for WP. It indicates the lack of political acumen on the party members to understand the real issues behind Yaw-gate. More importantly, they are blinded by their loyalty to the party, instead to the core values of opposition.

What is more worrying to me is that some of the WP CEC members actually voted against the motion to expel Yaw SL. (WP confirmed it is not an unanimous decision.) Any seasoned politician would realize that the longer Yaw-gate drags, the more damage would be done to WP as well as the whole opposition movement. Thus it seems that these CEC members are most probably more emotional than rational when they cast their votes of objection.

The apparent lack of political acumen among WP members and CEC members would be a source of instability.

Internal Dyanmics

Any and every political parties will have factional internal dynamics. This is a fact of politics. However, I should caution political players that excessive politicking may just backfire on everybody.

It is a worry that factions may make use of this issue to create a situation which benefits their agenda within. Especially so when members lack good political acumen to make good judgement on what should be the right and good decision for the party.

Imagine what will happen if Yaw SL decided to challenge the expulsion and request for an extra-ordinary party congress?

The cumulative effect of Eric Tan's and Yaw Shin Leong's departure cannot be under estimated. Unless there is pro-active effort from the key party leaders to manage perceptions and expectations within, WP may risk big internal struggle or even a split which will affect its overall image.

Conclusion: Unity is vital

I sincerely hope that young cadre members of WP would look at things from a macro level. It is unfortunate that Yaw SL has done something very selfish and risk creating great damage to WP. Keeping quiet is not an option under such circumstances.

WP's crisis is not over yet. PAP will drag on for the Hougang by-election with the hope that WP internal strife will break it. Unity is the most important for WP to overcome such difficult time. You should be wary of those who wants to use Yaw-gate as the main issue to attack the leadership. It is the best decision Low Thia Khiang has made, though it is made a bit late into the saga.

Goh Meng Seng

饶欣龙事件

谨新明日报二月十二日对饶欣龙事件的报导，本人觉得有必要回应。

虽然本人转载了黄亦杰的文章，但本人并没有挑战饶欣龙议员辞职的意思。本人只是觉得饶欣龙和工人党对此事件的处理不当，导致原本只牵涉饶欣龙一人的感情缺失的事演变成中间选民对反对党阵营再次失去信心。

1991年民主党和工人党虽然得到重大突破赢得四个席位，但后因民主党党争致使中间选民对反对阵营失去信心，而导致反对党二十年来都无法再次有所突破。在2011年的大选里，反对党阵营好不容易再次取得中间选民的信任，不只把六名工人党议员送进国会，大体上其他的反对党的得票率也有跳跃式的进步。但是这次饶欣龙事件，却可能使反对阵营又再次遭遇打击，被打回原型了。这是非常遗憾的事。

这次事件的重点再也不是饶欣龙是否有感情缺失了。本人相信许多人对饶欣龙到底有没有情感越轨，大家心里早都有了定夺。最重要的是，工人党以第一世界国会为战旗、透明和问责为目标、魏征的大义为道德勇气走入国会，但是当自己的议员被质疑有道德缺失时，竟然一声不吭。这种沉默的处理方法，难免令中间选民对其政治架势的质疑。轻言魏征的大义，义无反顾地进死谏，塑造敢言不畏强权的幻觉，但是到了需要大义灭亲的时候，竟然鸦雀无声。这是令人非常失望的。工人党连承认过失，坦诚道歉，乞求原谅的道德勇气都没有，怎么能轻言魏征的大义呢？以此的鸵鸟政策来对应危机，工人党怎么能说服中间选民他们真的能成为世界一级的政党呢？

工人党目前是反对党阵营的龙头老大，如果中间选民对它都失去信心的话，他们又如何会对其他反对党有信心呢？作为反对党阵营楷模的工人党，应该有面对自己议员犯错的勇气。犯错并不可怕，人非圣贤，有道德瑕疵也是人之常情的。只不过我们不能容忍的是一个政党为了政治利益而包庇严重缺失。工人党让饶欣龙在没有任何具体交代的情况下辞去中委，这是非常不透明的做法。这与工人党一至提倡办事要有透明度相左。

工人党如此处理事件的手法是让人非常失望的，相比之下，饶欣龙辞不辞掉议员之职位已经并不太重要了。我恳请工人党为了真正建设第一世界的政治体系，应该拿出道德勇气来，把事情说清楚。如果饶欣龙真有感情缺失，就应该认错，对辜负了选民的支持道歉，并且乞求原谅。本人倒觉得这比辞去议员一席更为重要。

吴明盛