Liberalising bus services may lead to "cherry-picking": Lui Tuck Yew

[streetcry]

By Hetty Musfirah | Posted: 28 July 2011 1817 hrs

[TABLE="width: 260, align: right"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="width: 20, align: right"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 240, align: right"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="class: update"] [TABLE="width: 100%"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="width: 138, bgcolor: f6f6f6"]Photos [/TD]
[TD="width: 47, bgcolor: f6f6f6"]1 of 1[/TD]
[TD="width: 18, bgcolor: f6f6f6"]<input disabled="disabled" id="btnPrev" value="<< Previous" src="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/images/butt_previous.gif" height="15" type="image" width="18">[/TD]
[TD="width: 19, bgcolor: f6f6f6"]<input id="bntPlay" value="Play - Stop" src="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/images/butt_stop.gif" height="15" type="image" width="19">[/TD]
[TD="width: 18, bgcolor: f6f6f6"]<input disabled="disabled" id="btnNext" value=" Next >> " src="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/images/butt_next.gif" height="15" type="image" width="18">[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew (C)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="class: update"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 510"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]

---

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 430"] http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1143622/1/.html# Share
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]

---

[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]


SINGAPORE: Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew has shot down the opposition National Solidarity Party's (NSP's) proposal to introduce more competition among public bus operators here.

The NSP had said bus services should be liberalised. It argued that private operators, regardless of size, be allowed to apply for licences to ply any of the routes, based on business considerations.

This way, the party said, bus services could be more responsive to commuter needs.

However, Mr Lui said such a move would only lead to "cherry-picking" of the profitable routes among transport operators and might not benefit commuters.

He said: "Then the challenge would be - what happens to the non-profitable routes? And in the end, would commuters end up having to pay more overall - because they may pay less on certain routes, but overall on the longer routes, the less profitable routes, do they have to pay ... more?

"So that aspect needs to be considered further. When we look at the possible contestability of routes, which is really a complicated issue, it's really about packaging routes together rather than allowing people to select those they most prefer.

Mr Lui added that currently, bus operators are obligated to run services on less profitable routes.

He explained: "Today with SBS and SMRT, we know there are some routes that are profitable, some are really in a sense loss-making, but for which they are obliged under the USO - universal service obligations - to run buses, and there are certain routes that are breaking even.

"And so there is a certain amount of cross subsidy that is taking place from the profitable routes to the non-profitable routes."

The Land Transport Authority has taken over the role of central bus planning and its latest quarterly review of bus services saw 17 service improvements.

- CNA/al

 

[Avenger]

Transport ministry or PTA cannot even manage that? OMG!

 

[po2wq]

... He said: "Then the challenge would be - what happens to the non-profitable routes? And in the end, would commuters end up having to pay more overall - because they may pay less on certain routes, but overall on the longer routes, the less profitable routes, do they have to pay ... more? ...

tis burger dun even noe details about transport fares! ... how cud tis burger solf ze prob? ...

currently, commuters r oredi paying mor on less profitable mrt routes ... n tis burger dun even noe! ... wifout competition, u oredi have dat, u twit! ... :oIo:

 

[Devil Within]

What fucking cock is fucking Lui talking about? Liberalising to introduce more competition will bring balance to supply and demand. If there is a more profitable "high demand" route and too many buses plying for that route, won't it reduce waiting time and packed buses? And if there are route that are low in demand, let those buses that don't want to compete with other buses on popular route to take those route but with a little increased on the fare. Wouldn't that be much fair? Fucking Lui know nothing about running a business and free market principle.

 

[hairylee]

Excuses! Excuses!
They never ever think and try out new ways of running them.
When public requested platform screen doors there were tons of excuses not to install them. Now the doors are up and none of those excuses are valid.
Yes, air flow is a bit of problem now but those idiots should know better than to install totally glass screen doors.

 

[ayamaclone]

hahahahahaha

 

[Unrepented]

KNN he knows what is called rotation or not. Sub the services and rotate sub con among the routes on a fixed periodic basis lah, if sub con fuck up then ban them lah, allow sub con to complain if there is favouritism lah, one track mind and no fucking business sense.

 

[Cestbon]

Bus SBS and SMRT are monopoly both serve different area.

 

[Lestat]

Talking cock again. You have 3 bus companies plying the same route. A charges $1. B charges $.80. C charges $0.65. It's up to the public to choose which company they want to use. Those who don't mind paying more will get A. Those who are more cost conscious will choose B or C. So what f*** is LTY talking about?

 

[Loofydralb]

Obviously the more crabs/stars you get from the SAF, the more stupid you become in public.

Its not demonstrated once but numerous time by numerous incidences. The latest solid example is Chan. Who don't believe me, Kee Chiu.

 

[Char_Azn]

Instead of just blindly liberalizing they could use regulations to ensure that bus operators, specifically SBS and SMRT have to continue servicing some of the more ulu routes while liberalizing the major ones. This way, cherry picking routes is going to become a Good thing. Those bus operators will choose routes which have more passengers in the first place

 

[Spock]

What a load of rubbish. In a free market, the service will find its own level of price. For routes with less commuters, the price will be higher in order to earn a profit. If the profit is too much, other operators will come in to share in the profit by offering a better service or a lower price. For these routes, it is likely that they are mostly serving more rural areas or private estates. The people living in these areas should be able to afford the premium necessary to obtain the service. If there are really poor people who can't afford the fares, then that is where social welfare comes in to help these people with their daily expenses. He is putting the cart before the horse by arguing that a monopoly is needed to provide services on less profitable routes. There is no such thing as less profitable in a free market. If there is a profit to be earned, the service will be provided. If there is no profit, there will be no service. This simply means that people on less profitable routes are not willing to pay the premium to have their areas serviced. As it is now, is he implying that people on more profitable routes are subsidising those on less profitable ones? Looks like the poorer segment of the population ends up subsidising the richer one. What an irony!

 

[Spock]

Instead of just blindly liberalizing they could use regulations to ensure that bus operators, specifically SBS and SMRT have to continue servicing some of the more ulu routes while liberalizing the major ones. This way, cherry picking routes is going to become a Good thing. Those bus operators will choose routes which have more passengers in the first place

Why shouldn't those living on ulu routes pay more for their service so that the operators can earn a profit? If they are unwilling to pay, then they should live with having no bus services. With the current scenario, it means the HDB dwellers are subsidising those who live in private estates.

 

[red amoeba]

Why shouldn't those living on ulu routes pay more for their service so that the operators can earn a profit? If they are unwilling to pay, then they should live with having no bus services. With the current scenario, it means the HDB dwellers are subsidising those who live in private estates.

==
initially they may pay more...but if the whole market is liberalised, there will be a price point where operator will find it profitable to operate n enter the market as competitor to bring price down. Or the bus service is available at certain peak period hours. Liberalisation does not mean free for all. LTA still serve as a watch-dog where certain rules and regulations must be met - eg: safety standards of vehicles, etc.

the existing regulations is too strict and the entry barrier to high to allow market entrants. I take example of the taxi...if u r not happy, u can avoid taking the bentley or merc limo cab, but if you are rushing for time, u lan lan got to take it becos it is there.

 

[red amoeba]

Instead of just blindly liberalizing they could use regulations to ensure that bus operators, specifically SBS and SMRT have to continue servicing some of the more ulu routes while liberalizing the major ones. This way, cherry picking routes is going to become a Good thing. Those bus operators will choose routes which have more passengers in the first place

==
that's what Lui is saying- LTA is now forcing SBS / TIBS when bidding for services to provide a package deal - meaning, while you get to ply a prime area, u will also, as part of deal, provide service to some ulu parts of the island.

 

[streetsmart73]

Transport ministry or PTA cannot even manage that? OMG!

hi there


1. not surprising!
2. that is the result of paying millions to some useless sheep acting to manage transport.

 

[LonewolfAlfa]

==
that's what Lui is saying- LTA is now forcing SBS / TIBS when bidding for services to provide a package deal - meaning, while you get to ply a prime area, u will also, as part of deal, provide service to some ulu parts of the island.

so why can't they still do that when they liberize and allow more competitors?

if u want the license to ply a prime are, u must also ply an ulu route. dont want, done. am sure some other bus co will apply for it.

 

[streetsmart73]

What fucking cock is fucking Lui talking about? Liberalising to introduce more competition will bring balance to supply and demand. If there is a more profitable "high demand" route and too many buses plying for that route, won't it reduce waiting time and packed buses? And if there are route that are low in demand, let those buses that don't want to compete with other buses on popular route to take those route but with a little increased on the fare. Wouldn't that be much fair? Fucking Lui know nothing about running a business and free market principle.

hi there


1. bro, no-porn is lip servicing leh!
2. clueless on ground sentiments.
3. honest, no-porn's mind, if he has some left, has already made up.
4. increase at all cost, help bus operators!

 

[Devil Within]

hi there


1. bro, no-porn is lip servicing leh!
2. clueless on ground sentiments.
3. honest, no-porn's mind, if he has some left, has already made up.
4. increase at all cost, help bus operators!

Honestly, I don't think these PAP fuckers are that really that dumb. On the contrary, I think they are fucking smart. All these excuses for increasing transport fares are to increase the profits for themselves. Guess who is the biggest "private" shareholder for SMRT and SBS? It's an excuse for them to collect more profits to fatten themselves. That is also why they don't welcome fair play in free market and they don't want real competition.

 

[Capano2121]

Bottomline; who is/are the biggest shareholder(s) in SBS, TIBS, SMRT? Take a pot shot guess lah! You can even take a cowboy shooting guess & you will be so on target! They are merely protecting the interest of these "esteemed" individuals! A dog should faithfully protect their master! It is just basic instinct for them!