-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Hougang By-election later news up date
- Thread starter sengkang
- Start date
[h=2]Mr Low Thia Khiang’s speech at Post Hougang By-election Dialogue organised by NUSS[/h]
by The Workers' Party on Friday, June 22, 2012 at 12:45am ·
Good Evening, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Hougang SMC is a unique constituency in Singapore and is known beyond Singapore. It is unique because it represents the political conscience of Singapore!
By following their political conscience, the Hougang voters humbled both the PAP and the WP! To the PAP, their message is loud and clear – they want justice and fairness and will not bow down to bullying tactics.
The Hougang voters have also sent a message to WP that we have to do our best to live up to our promises, to serve the people and not be afraid to admit our shortcomings and mistakes, even if it embarrasses us.
The Hougang residents, in that sense, keep both the PAP and WP in check!
Voting for Workers’ Party was not an easy decision for Hougang voters. They have made huge personal sacrifices for more than 20 years in voting for the Workers’ Party. The PAP government punishes them by withholding infrastructure development and improvement to the estate.
The Main Upgrading Program and Interim Upgrading Program were not extended to Hougang. As for the Lift Upgrading Program (LUP), Hougang was thrown to the end of the queue. As of today, LUP work has not even started for about 80% or more of the HDB flats in Hougang.
The PAP leaders even tell Hougang voters during elections that the value of their HDB flats will fall behind other PAP constituencies if they voted for Workers’ Party and threatened them that Hougang would become a slum one day.
This is the reality of the PAP government. Where is the First World standard they claimed to be building? We have pledged ourselves to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. Where is the justice and equality for Hougang and how successful are we in our nation building process? I leave it to you to judge.
Hougang does not have complete covered walkways to link all the blocks in a precinct, a common facility in PAP wards. The Hougang residents are still waiting for the Lift Upgrading Program although many of them are aging as in other constituencies. Yet despite the generous offer of 100 million to upgrade Hougang estate to entice voters to vote for the PAP candidate during election, they decided to follow their conscience and not give in to the bullying and unjust tactics of the PAP.
In the recent By-election, there were some hiccups in the Workers’ Party. These were reported prominently by all media and could have shaken the faith of Hougang voters in Workers’ Party.
However, the By-election results show that the voters of Hougang are sharp to discern the truth and make their own independent judgment. I salute the voters of Hougang.
They understand that it is not easy to become a truly First World country with a First World parliament although a step has been taken at the last General Election in 2011 with the support of Aljunied GRC voters and Singaporeans in general.
They also understand that under our political system and our political climate where the ruling party, PAP, has been the government for nearly 50 years, it is not easy to build up an opposition political party, an organization with discipline and integrity and not just a grouping of like-minded individuals.
They appreciate the importance of a more balanced political system where the people are able to keep the government on its toes and hold it to account so that it will be more responsive to the needs and aspiration of Singaporeans. They believe that people, being the masters of the nation, must preserve the fundamental mechanism to enable them to exercise their power through the ballot box.
The political awakening and experience of Hougang voters in the last 20 years with the Workers’ Party has enabled them to closely monitor the development of opposition politics in Singapore and share the aspiration and vision of WP.
There are some who believe that the result of the Hougang By-Election is a personal result of Low Thia Khiang who had been there for 20 years, implying that it would have been a different story if Low Thia Khiang were no longer in politics.
People who hold this view fail to understand the people of Hougang. While it is true that I know a lot of people in Hougang over the years and have even become good friends with some, the majority of Hougang voters demand a standard of service and conduct from their MP that is worthy of their support.
It is based on this understanding that the Workers’ Party decided to expel Yaw Shin Leong and to let the voters in Hougang to decide again if they would give WP a fresh mandate to represent them in Parliament. This was a difficult decision with high political risk but we owe it to the Hougang voters.
The voters in Hougang had supported the Workers’ Party and me as their MP for 20 years; they have also supported the WP candidate in GE 2011 when I moved out to contest in Aljunied GRC. The candidate for Hougang who was then elected as MP failed to live up to the expectations of both Hougang voters and WP. If Workers’ Party had failed to do what was right, we would have shortchanged the Hougang voters and betrayed their trust.
People in Hougang are People with 义气. This is the essence of the Hougang Spirit. I do not know how to accurately translate this into English; it is more than just personal loyalty or sense of brotherhood. The Chinese meaning of 义 encompasses the meaning of justice, fairness and morality. I believe that so long as Workers’ Party keep faith with the voters of Hougang, they will continue to support the Workers’ Party candidate in future elections.Thank you.
by The Workers' Party on Friday, June 22, 2012 at 12:45am ·
Good Evening, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Hougang SMC is a unique constituency in Singapore and is known beyond Singapore. It is unique because it represents the political conscience of Singapore!
By following their political conscience, the Hougang voters humbled both the PAP and the WP! To the PAP, their message is loud and clear – they want justice and fairness and will not bow down to bullying tactics.
The Hougang voters have also sent a message to WP that we have to do our best to live up to our promises, to serve the people and not be afraid to admit our shortcomings and mistakes, even if it embarrasses us.
The Hougang residents, in that sense, keep both the PAP and WP in check!
Voting for Workers’ Party was not an easy decision for Hougang voters. They have made huge personal sacrifices for more than 20 years in voting for the Workers’ Party. The PAP government punishes them by withholding infrastructure development and improvement to the estate.
The Main Upgrading Program and Interim Upgrading Program were not extended to Hougang. As for the Lift Upgrading Program (LUP), Hougang was thrown to the end of the queue. As of today, LUP work has not even started for about 80% or more of the HDB flats in Hougang.
The PAP leaders even tell Hougang voters during elections that the value of their HDB flats will fall behind other PAP constituencies if they voted for Workers’ Party and threatened them that Hougang would become a slum one day.
This is the reality of the PAP government. Where is the First World standard they claimed to be building? We have pledged ourselves to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. Where is the justice and equality for Hougang and how successful are we in our nation building process? I leave it to you to judge.
Hougang does not have complete covered walkways to link all the blocks in a precinct, a common facility in PAP wards. The Hougang residents are still waiting for the Lift Upgrading Program although many of them are aging as in other constituencies. Yet despite the generous offer of 100 million to upgrade Hougang estate to entice voters to vote for the PAP candidate during election, they decided to follow their conscience and not give in to the bullying and unjust tactics of the PAP.
In the recent By-election, there were some hiccups in the Workers’ Party. These were reported prominently by all media and could have shaken the faith of Hougang voters in Workers’ Party.
However, the By-election results show that the voters of Hougang are sharp to discern the truth and make their own independent judgment. I salute the voters of Hougang.
They understand that it is not easy to become a truly First World country with a First World parliament although a step has been taken at the last General Election in 2011 with the support of Aljunied GRC voters and Singaporeans in general.
They also understand that under our political system and our political climate where the ruling party, PAP, has been the government for nearly 50 years, it is not easy to build up an opposition political party, an organization with discipline and integrity and not just a grouping of like-minded individuals.
They appreciate the importance of a more balanced political system where the people are able to keep the government on its toes and hold it to account so that it will be more responsive to the needs and aspiration of Singaporeans. They believe that people, being the masters of the nation, must preserve the fundamental mechanism to enable them to exercise their power through the ballot box.
The political awakening and experience of Hougang voters in the last 20 years with the Workers’ Party has enabled them to closely monitor the development of opposition politics in Singapore and share the aspiration and vision of WP.
There are some who believe that the result of the Hougang By-Election is a personal result of Low Thia Khiang who had been there for 20 years, implying that it would have been a different story if Low Thia Khiang were no longer in politics.
People who hold this view fail to understand the people of Hougang. While it is true that I know a lot of people in Hougang over the years and have even become good friends with some, the majority of Hougang voters demand a standard of service and conduct from their MP that is worthy of their support.
It is based on this understanding that the Workers’ Party decided to expel Yaw Shin Leong and to let the voters in Hougang to decide again if they would give WP a fresh mandate to represent them in Parliament. This was a difficult decision with high political risk but we owe it to the Hougang voters.
The voters in Hougang had supported the Workers’ Party and me as their MP for 20 years; they have also supported the WP candidate in GE 2011 when I moved out to contest in Aljunied GRC. The candidate for Hougang who was then elected as MP failed to live up to the expectations of both Hougang voters and WP. If Workers’ Party had failed to do what was right, we would have shortchanged the Hougang voters and betrayed their trust.
People in Hougang are People with 义气. This is the essence of the Hougang Spirit. I do not know how to accurately translate this into English; it is more than just personal loyalty or sense of brotherhood. The Chinese meaning of 义 encompasses the meaning of justice, fairness and morality. I believe that so long as Workers’ Party keep faith with the voters of Hougang, they will continue to support the Workers’ Party candidate in future elections.Thank you.
Pritam's chiobu wifey.... Lucky man....:p:p
"Residents in 20 blocks in Hougang Avenue 5 and 7 will be voting over the next two weeks for lift upgrading."
Hougang goes for lift upgrading vote - Channel NewsAsia
www.channelnewsasia.com
Those living in Blocks 320 to 328 will start to cast their votes tomorrow, while residents living in Blocks 332 to 337, 339 to 341 and Blocks 359 and 361 will begin voting next Friday.
Hougang goes for lift upgrading vote - Channel NewsAsia
www.channelnewsasia.com
Those living in Blocks 320 to 328 will start to cast their votes tomorrow, while residents living in Blocks 332 to 337, 339 to 341 and Blocks 359 and 361 will begin voting next Friday.
Last edited:
Png Eng Huat files by-election expenses statement
SINGAPORE: Workers' Party candidate and MP-elect for Hougang division Png Eng Huat has filed his expense statement with the Elections Department for the recent Hougang by-election.
Responding to Channel NewsAsia's queries, he said he spent S$72,810.95 for the hustings.
This worked out to S$3.12 per voter.
Mr Png said the three rallies held by the Workers' Party during the nine-day campaign period took up the bulk of the expenses.
Channel NewsAsia reported on Thursday that the PAP candidate Desmond Choo had spent S$77,650 for the hustings.
That worked out to S$3.32 per voter.
Both candidates have filed their claims within the stipulated period of 31 days from the day the results were gazetted.
The Hougang by-election was held on the 26 May this year, and the Workers' Party retained the seat.
- CNA/ck
SINGAPORE: Workers' Party candidate and MP-elect for Hougang division Png Eng Huat has filed his expense statement with the Elections Department for the recent Hougang by-election.
Responding to Channel NewsAsia's queries, he said he spent S$72,810.95 for the hustings.
This worked out to S$3.12 per voter.
Mr Png said the three rallies held by the Workers' Party during the nine-day campaign period took up the bulk of the expenses.
Channel NewsAsia reported on Thursday that the PAP candidate Desmond Choo had spent S$77,650 for the hustings.
That worked out to S$3.32 per voter.
Both candidates have filed their claims within the stipulated period of 31 days from the day the results were gazetted.
The Hougang by-election was held on the 26 May this year, and the Workers' Party retained the seat.
- CNA/ck
Png Eng Huat sworn in as MP for Hougang
SINGAPORE: Mr Png Eng Huat from the Workers' Party was sworn in as the Member of Parliament for Hougang on Monday.
"I, Png Eng Huat, having been elected as a Member of the Parliament of Singapore, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully discharge my duty as such to the best of my ability, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Singapore, that I will preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the Republic of Singapore, so help me God," said Mr Png.
Mr Png beat the People's Action Party's Desmond Choo in the Hougang by-election in May, winning with 62 per cent of votes.
SINGAPORE: Mr Png Eng Huat from the Workers' Party was sworn in as the Member of Parliament for Hougang on Monday.
"I, Png Eng Huat, having been elected as a Member of the Parliament of Singapore, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully discharge my duty as such to the best of my ability, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Singapore, that I will preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the Republic of Singapore, so help me God," said Mr Png.
Mr Png beat the People's Action Party's Desmond Choo in the Hougang by-election in May, winning with 62 per cent of votes.
[h=2]Debate on LTA Amendment Bill - MP Png Eng Huat[/h]
by The Workers' Party on Monday, July 9, 2012 at 7:18pm ·
[h=2]Debate on LTA Amendment Bill - MP Png Eng Huat[/h]
by The Workers' Party on Monday, July 9, 2012 at 7:18pm ·
Mr Speaker Sir,
1. I am happy to note that commuters can expect better transport services going forward.
2. The $1.1 billion package by the government to help public transport operators (PTOs) meet service levels in bus operations is indeed extraordinary.
3. This government has also pull out all the stops to ensure bus operations remain viable going forward by bearing the development and land costs for bus service infrastructure. It will also allow PTOs to retain a portion of the advertising revenue from bus shelters.
4. While this government continues to tinker with the transport model, the introduction of the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP) is nonetheless a tacit admission that privatisation, particularly for bus operations, has not produced the intended results as envisioned by the government.
5. I know the ministers have stated that the $1.1 billion package is a subsidy to benefit commuters; not a subsidy to benefit the PTOs. But depending on how you want to look at it, a cup can be half-empty or half-full. The BSEP will definitely benefit the operators because it will lift a huge burden off their backs in meeting enhanced bus service standards without hurting their bottom lines.
Bus Service Enhancement Fund
6. The establishment of the Bus Service Enhancement fund under section 13B of the proposed amendment to the LTA Act allows the LTA ‘to provide for grants or loans to any holder of a bus service licence or a bus service operator’s licence for the purpose of improving and expanding the range and reliability of the bus services.’
7. From the onset, the government has already decided to give the PTOs a grant instead of a loan despite that the operators are financially healthy to begin with. These publicly traded operators have paid out more than a billion dollars in dividends to their shareholders over the years.
8. We must send a message to these operators that it will not be business as usual after the gifting of the 550 additional buses that comes complete with drivers and full maintenance. Because at the end of the day, the commuters should be the one smiling and not their shareholders.
9. The 2 main reasons cited by the government on the need to introduce the BSEP to help PTOs are:
a. The government cannot mandate the PTOs to add 550 buses to improve bus service levels beyond what is stipulated in the existing regulatory framework.
b. The PTO’s bus operations are already running operating losses.Bus Service Levels
10. While it may be seen as unfair to expect PTOs to meet higher bus service standards on short notice, it is not unreasonable to expect these operators to have planned for projected increases in ridership over the tenure of their service agreements.
11. I believe the PTOs have done their projections. That is why they have the provision and the ability to buy 250 additional buses on their own to meet the growth in ridership.
12. So what went wrong with their ridership projections that this government sees fit to come up with a shock treatment for bus operations to the tune of $1.1 billion?
13. The clue lies in an article in the Straits Times on 7 September 2010. It reads, ‘On housing, Mr Goh acknowledged that the surge of immigrants in 2007 and 2008 caught the Government by surprise. But the Government had not stopped them from coming because the booming economy needed workers.’ Mr Goh Chok Tong went on to say the National Development Ministry “did not provide for the sudden surge” in its housing plans.
14. Sir, when housing, which requires long term planning, can be caught by surprise by a surge in population growth, what hope is there left for public transport to avoid the sudden ‘crush’? When you have a problem housing the extra immigrants, you will have a problem moving them. In fact, most of the infrastructure and essential services will suffer the same fate.15. So the issue here is beyond the question of whether it is right or wrong to mandate the PTOs to ramp up their bus operations to cope with the rising demand. It is an issue where the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing, and the problem began to snowball to a point that this Government had no choice but to implement a $1.1 billion shock therapy to help bring back some sanity into our transport system.
16. I am happy to note that the government has decided to exercise more control in bus operations. The Workers’ Party has always advocated that. This will improve reaction time to meet any surge in demand for essential services caused by inorganic growth in population in the future.
Viability of Bus Operations and Cross-Subsidy
17. The next justification by the government on the need to help privatised and profitable operators run their bus operations is also disturbing.
18. Both the Finance and Transport Ministers have voiced their concerns about the viability of the bus industry going forward. The Transport Minister said “the reality is that the finances of the bus industry have been deteriorating in recent years and the PTOs’ bus operations have been running operating losses for some time already.”
19. Sir, it is not correct to single out bus operations as a loss making business to justify the need to help PTOs. The operators are also given other cash cows to operate to make good money for their shareholders.
20. Cross-subsidy is not an uncommon practice in business operations. Cross-subsidy is even more critical when it comes to essential services. It allows such services to continue even if they may become unprofitable. If the PTOs are losing some money in bus operations, the train operations and advertising revenue are more than sufficient to cover the losses incurred in the running of the buses.
21. I decided to find out how long the PTOs have been running losses for the past 5 years beginning 2007 for bus operations and how profitable the operators are as a company.
22. For bus operations alone, SMRT made a profit of $1.5 million in 2007 but lost $20.1 million from April 2008 to March 2012. The total bus operation P&L for SMRT for the 5-year period is a loss of $18.6 million. But over the same period, the company made a total of $756.5 million in after tax profit.
23. Although SMRT lost money on bus operations for the past 4 years, the amount is minuscule when compared to the total profit made from other operations. It is not easy for SMRT to run bus operations because it does not enjoy economy of scale. Its fleet size is only a third that of SBS Transit.
24. The picture for SBS Transit is quite the opposite. For bus operations alone, the company made a loss of $6 million in 2011 but made an operating profit of $71.4 million from 2007 to 2010. So 2011 was the only year it lost money on bus operations for this period. Over the same period, the company made a total of $236.2 million in after tax profit.
25. So the case that the finances of the bus industry have been deteriorating in recent years and that bus operations have been running operating losses for some time already does not hold true for SBS Transit. The company was running a healthy bus service with the exception of 2011.
26. It is not a coincidence that both companies lost money in 2011. Last year was a challenging year for businesses that depend a lot on fuel and electricity to operate. Oil prices ended 2011 up 13.3 per cent to average nearly $111 a barrel for the year as reported by Reuters.
27. But despite the volatility in oil prices, the most important thing to note is both PTOs have healthy cash cows in the form of rail operations to keep their shareholders happy.
BSEP and PTOs
28. The BSEP and PTOs make strange bedfellows. One entity in this unusual partnership is willing to spend without expecting a return while the other expects nothing but attractive returns.
29. The combination of these two entities may result in a smoother ride for commuters but not a cheaper ride. The combination of these two entities will not guarantee commuters a stay in fare increases but it will guarantee shareholders attractive dividend yield for the next 10 years.
30. I hope that moving forward the government does not see it fit again to dish out free money to profitable PTOs. These operators are not cash strapped to begin with and no operator will reject free money to improve service levels.
31. As mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I am happy that commuters can look forward to a better and less stressful public transport service.
32. I also look forward to working with the LTA to improve bus services in the Aljunied-Hougang areas. Last but not least, I want to thank the voters of Hougang for giving me this opportunity to serve them at the national level.
by The Workers' Party on Monday, July 9, 2012 at 7:18pm ·
[h=2]Debate on LTA Amendment Bill - MP Png Eng Huat[/h]
by The Workers' Party on Monday, July 9, 2012 at 7:18pm ·
Mr Speaker Sir,
1. I am happy to note that commuters can expect better transport services going forward.
2. The $1.1 billion package by the government to help public transport operators (PTOs) meet service levels in bus operations is indeed extraordinary.
3. This government has also pull out all the stops to ensure bus operations remain viable going forward by bearing the development and land costs for bus service infrastructure. It will also allow PTOs to retain a portion of the advertising revenue from bus shelters.
4. While this government continues to tinker with the transport model, the introduction of the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP) is nonetheless a tacit admission that privatisation, particularly for bus operations, has not produced the intended results as envisioned by the government.
5. I know the ministers have stated that the $1.1 billion package is a subsidy to benefit commuters; not a subsidy to benefit the PTOs. But depending on how you want to look at it, a cup can be half-empty or half-full. The BSEP will definitely benefit the operators because it will lift a huge burden off their backs in meeting enhanced bus service standards without hurting their bottom lines.
Bus Service Enhancement Fund
6. The establishment of the Bus Service Enhancement fund under section 13B of the proposed amendment to the LTA Act allows the LTA ‘to provide for grants or loans to any holder of a bus service licence or a bus service operator’s licence for the purpose of improving and expanding the range and reliability of the bus services.’
7. From the onset, the government has already decided to give the PTOs a grant instead of a loan despite that the operators are financially healthy to begin with. These publicly traded operators have paid out more than a billion dollars in dividends to their shareholders over the years.
8. We must send a message to these operators that it will not be business as usual after the gifting of the 550 additional buses that comes complete with drivers and full maintenance. Because at the end of the day, the commuters should be the one smiling and not their shareholders.
9. The 2 main reasons cited by the government on the need to introduce the BSEP to help PTOs are:
a. The government cannot mandate the PTOs to add 550 buses to improve bus service levels beyond what is stipulated in the existing regulatory framework.
b. The PTO’s bus operations are already running operating losses.Bus Service Levels
10. While it may be seen as unfair to expect PTOs to meet higher bus service standards on short notice, it is not unreasonable to expect these operators to have planned for projected increases in ridership over the tenure of their service agreements.
11. I believe the PTOs have done their projections. That is why they have the provision and the ability to buy 250 additional buses on their own to meet the growth in ridership.
12. So what went wrong with their ridership projections that this government sees fit to come up with a shock treatment for bus operations to the tune of $1.1 billion?
13. The clue lies in an article in the Straits Times on 7 September 2010. It reads, ‘On housing, Mr Goh acknowledged that the surge of immigrants in 2007 and 2008 caught the Government by surprise. But the Government had not stopped them from coming because the booming economy needed workers.’ Mr Goh Chok Tong went on to say the National Development Ministry “did not provide for the sudden surge” in its housing plans.
14. Sir, when housing, which requires long term planning, can be caught by surprise by a surge in population growth, what hope is there left for public transport to avoid the sudden ‘crush’? When you have a problem housing the extra immigrants, you will have a problem moving them. In fact, most of the infrastructure and essential services will suffer the same fate.15. So the issue here is beyond the question of whether it is right or wrong to mandate the PTOs to ramp up their bus operations to cope with the rising demand. It is an issue where the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing, and the problem began to snowball to a point that this Government had no choice but to implement a $1.1 billion shock therapy to help bring back some sanity into our transport system.
16. I am happy to note that the government has decided to exercise more control in bus operations. The Workers’ Party has always advocated that. This will improve reaction time to meet any surge in demand for essential services caused by inorganic growth in population in the future.
Viability of Bus Operations and Cross-Subsidy
17. The next justification by the government on the need to help privatised and profitable operators run their bus operations is also disturbing.
18. Both the Finance and Transport Ministers have voiced their concerns about the viability of the bus industry going forward. The Transport Minister said “the reality is that the finances of the bus industry have been deteriorating in recent years and the PTOs’ bus operations have been running operating losses for some time already.”
19. Sir, it is not correct to single out bus operations as a loss making business to justify the need to help PTOs. The operators are also given other cash cows to operate to make good money for their shareholders.
20. Cross-subsidy is not an uncommon practice in business operations. Cross-subsidy is even more critical when it comes to essential services. It allows such services to continue even if they may become unprofitable. If the PTOs are losing some money in bus operations, the train operations and advertising revenue are more than sufficient to cover the losses incurred in the running of the buses.
21. I decided to find out how long the PTOs have been running losses for the past 5 years beginning 2007 for bus operations and how profitable the operators are as a company.
22. For bus operations alone, SMRT made a profit of $1.5 million in 2007 but lost $20.1 million from April 2008 to March 2012. The total bus operation P&L for SMRT for the 5-year period is a loss of $18.6 million. But over the same period, the company made a total of $756.5 million in after tax profit.
23. Although SMRT lost money on bus operations for the past 4 years, the amount is minuscule when compared to the total profit made from other operations. It is not easy for SMRT to run bus operations because it does not enjoy economy of scale. Its fleet size is only a third that of SBS Transit.
24. The picture for SBS Transit is quite the opposite. For bus operations alone, the company made a loss of $6 million in 2011 but made an operating profit of $71.4 million from 2007 to 2010. So 2011 was the only year it lost money on bus operations for this period. Over the same period, the company made a total of $236.2 million in after tax profit.
25. So the case that the finances of the bus industry have been deteriorating in recent years and that bus operations have been running operating losses for some time already does not hold true for SBS Transit. The company was running a healthy bus service with the exception of 2011.
26. It is not a coincidence that both companies lost money in 2011. Last year was a challenging year for businesses that depend a lot on fuel and electricity to operate. Oil prices ended 2011 up 13.3 per cent to average nearly $111 a barrel for the year as reported by Reuters.
27. But despite the volatility in oil prices, the most important thing to note is both PTOs have healthy cash cows in the form of rail operations to keep their shareholders happy.
BSEP and PTOs
28. The BSEP and PTOs make strange bedfellows. One entity in this unusual partnership is willing to spend without expecting a return while the other expects nothing but attractive returns.
29. The combination of these two entities may result in a smoother ride for commuters but not a cheaper ride. The combination of these two entities will not guarantee commuters a stay in fare increases but it will guarantee shareholders attractive dividend yield for the next 10 years.
30. I hope that moving forward the government does not see it fit again to dish out free money to profitable PTOs. These operators are not cash strapped to begin with and no operator will reject free money to improve service levels.
31. As mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I am happy that commuters can look forward to a better and less stressful public transport service.
32. I also look forward to working with the LTA to improve bus services in the Aljunied-Hougang areas. Last but not least, I want to thank the voters of Hougang for giving me this opportunity to serve them at the national level.
[h=2]Debate on LTA Amendment Bill - MP Png Eng Huat[/h]
[h=2]Debate on LTA Amendment Bill - MP Png Eng Huat[/h]
by The Workers' Party on Monday, July 9, 2012 at 7:18pm ·
Mr Speaker Sir,
32. I also look forward to working with the LTA to improve bus services in the Aljunied-Hougang areas. Last but not least, I want to thank the voters of Hougang for giving me this opportunity to serve them at the national level.
Well said, especially he ended with a thanks to all courageous voters of Hougang.
Last edited:
Although the $1.1 billion is used to benefit commuters which is a good thing. But the fact that it indicates that privatisation has failed gives rise to the next question : "Why is the Govt, through the privatisation process, funding the profits of these shareholders in our public transport systems from our taxpayers' money?"
[h=2]2012-08-09 National Day Outreach[/h] <abbr title="Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 10:28am" data-utime="1344479323" class="timestamp livetimestamp">14 minutes ago</abbr> via iLoader for iOS
[h=2]Pre-Hari Raya Visits[/h]
On the evening of 15 August 2012, MP for Hougang, Mr Png, together with a group of volunteers from HGCC went on a pre-Hari Raya distribution for the needy Muslim residents of Hougang SMC. Items included briyani for break fast and kueh tat and kueh makmur for the coming Hari Raya celebration. There were also $30 vouchers for every family as well as a pair of tickets to the upcoming HGCC Hari Raya Dinner. This event was made possible, thanks to the many kind sponsors and the efforts of all the volunteers involved.
On the evening of 15 August 2012, MP for Hougang, Mr Png, together with a group of volunteers from HGCC went on a pre-Hari Raya distribution for the needy Muslim residents of Hougang SMC. Items included briyani for break fast and kueh tat and kueh makmur for the coming Hari Raya celebration. There were also $30 vouchers for every family as well as a pair of tickets to the upcoming HGCC Hari Raya Dinner. This event was made possible, thanks to the many kind sponsors and the efforts of all the volunteers involved.
Similar threads
