-
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.
Why Hong Kong's MTR beats Singapore's MRT
- Thread starter makapaaa
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 27,854
- Points
- 113
MTR management don't get million dollar salaries.
PAP breeds mediocrity.
PAP breeds mediocrity.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2010
- Messages
- 34,379
- Points
- 113
HK's MTR is focused on service delivery.
Sinkieland's MRT is only concerned about profit maximization like the vile pap government.
That's the difference.
Sinkieland's MRT is only concerned about profit maximization like the vile pap government.
That's the difference.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,652
- Points
- 0
Also quite crowded. Part of the problem is PAP tried to make Singapore become a Hong Kong by importing FT's.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2013
- Messages
- 829
- Points
- 0
I did had an exchange with Sam Leong on this issue earlier where I posted this to argue my case why Hong Kong's MTR is better than Singapore's MRT. No harm in repeating it again, so here goes in it's entirety...
Note: If it is TL;DR I have highlighted the relevant points.
The Unique Genius of Hong Kong's Public Transportation System
The use of a clever financing system has enabled the territory to provide world-class service—without breaking the bank.
Neil Padukone Sep 10 2013, 1:12 PM ET
New Yorkers are famous for complaining about the city's subway: despite an ever-increasing rise in fares, service never seems to get any better. And even still, ticket-sales still only funds part of the New York City subway system; the city still relies on supplementary taxes and government grants to keep trains running, as fares only cover about 45 percent of the day-to-day operating costs. Capital costs (system expansions, upgrades, and repairs) are an entirely different question, and require more state and federal grants as well as capital market bonds. And New York’s system is not unique: as in other cities, New York struggles to pay existing expenses and must go into debt to pay for upgrades, that is, without raising prices.
Is this problem intractable? Not exactly. Take Hong Kong for example: The Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Corporation, which manages the subway and bus systems on Hong Kong Island and, since 2006, in the northern part of Kowloon, is considered the gold standard for transit management worldwide. In 2012, the MTR produced revenue of 36 billion Hong Kong Dollars (about U.S $5 billion)—turning a profit of $2 billion in the process. Most impressively, the farebox recovery ratio (the percentage of operational costs covered by fares) for the system was 185 percent, the world's highest. Worldwide, these numbers are practically unheard of—the next highest urban ratio, Singapore, is a mere 125 percent.
In addition to Hong Kong, the MTR Corporation runs individual subway lines in Beijing, Hangzhou, and Shenzhen in China, two lines in the London Underground, and the entire Melbourne and Stockholm systems. And in Hong Kong, the trains provide services unseen in many other systems around the world: stations have public computers, wheelchair and stroller accessibility (and the space within the train to store them), glass doors blocking the tracks, interoperable touch-and-go fare payment (which also works as a debit card in local retail), clear and sensible signage, and, on longer-distance subways, first-class cars for people who are willing to pay extra for a little leg space.
How can Hong Kong afford all of this? The answer is deceptively simple: “Value Capture.”
Like no other system in the world, the MTR understands the monetary value of urban density—in other words, what economists call "agglomeration.” Hong Kong is one of the world’s densest cities, and businesses depend on the metro to ferry customers from one side of the territory to another. As a result, the MTR strikes a bargain with shop owners: In exchange for transporting customers, the transit agency receives a cut of the mall’s profit, signs a co-ownership agreement, or accepts a percentage of property development fees. In many cases, the MTR owns the entire mall itself. The Hong Kong metro essentially functions as part of a vertically integrated business that, through a "rail plus property" model, controls both the means of transit and the places passengers visit upon departure. Two of the tallest skyscrapers in Hong Kong are MTR properties, as are many of the offices, malls, and residences next to every transit station (some of which even have direct underground connections to the train). Not to mention, all of the retail within subway stations, which themselves double as large shopping complexes, is leased from MTR.
The profits from these real estate ventures, as well as that 85 percent farebox surplus, subsidize transit development: proceeds pay for capital expansion as well as upgrades. The MTR’s financial largesse means that the transit system requires less maintenance and service interruptions, which in turn reduces operating costs, streamlines capital investments, and encourages more people to use transit to get around. And more customers means more money, even if fares are relatively cheap: most commutes fall between HK $4 and HK$20 (about 50 cents to $3), depending on distance. (In London, by comparison, a Tube journey can cost as much as $18). Fare increases in Hong Kong are limited by regulations linking fares to inflation and profits, and the territory’s government recently started giving a HK $600-per-month travel stipend to low-income households, defined as those earning less than HK $10,000 a month.
This model of transit management works partly because Hong Kong is a closed system: There are no suburbs from which people can commute by car, so there are strong incentives for everyone within the territory to use the system. This feature, combined with other regulations, has kept car ownership low: 6 of every 100 vehicles in Hong Kong are for personal use, whereas the number in the U.S. is closer to 70. And while the NYC subway was built over a century ago and was neglected during much of the 20th century’s suburban sprawl, Hong Kong’s metro was only developed in the late 1970s. As a result, it doesn’t have to rely on signals technologies from the 1930s that are only slowly being upgraded (hence the track closures in New York).
As an independent corporation with the government serving as majority shareholder (rather than a public agency, ministry, or authority), the MTR has the freedom to develop real estate, to hire and fire who it will, and to take business-minded decisions—whereas other transit systems, including the one in New York, must deal with union contracts and legal restrictions. In Hong Kong, these value charges are often displaced onto consumers, causing real estate prices to go up a little faster than they otherwise might.
Still, value capture is a powerful idea for transit management. New York has tested the waters of this approach with its $2 billion 7-train extension to the Hudson Yards project, working with the state’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the project’s developers to fund the extension with property taxes from the newly served area. Dedicated taxes, too, serve a similar purpose. But fundamentally, Hong Kong’s metro succeeds because it understands that a subway system is more than just a means of transportation—it is also essential to the well-being of a city’s population and economy.
http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/09/the-unique-genius-of-hong-kongs-public-transportation-system/279528/
Note: If it is TL;DR I have highlighted the relevant points.
The Unique Genius of Hong Kong's Public Transportation System
The use of a clever financing system has enabled the territory to provide world-class service—without breaking the bank.
Neil Padukone Sep 10 2013, 1:12 PM ET
New Yorkers are famous for complaining about the city's subway: despite an ever-increasing rise in fares, service never seems to get any better. And even still, ticket-sales still only funds part of the New York City subway system; the city still relies on supplementary taxes and government grants to keep trains running, as fares only cover about 45 percent of the day-to-day operating costs. Capital costs (system expansions, upgrades, and repairs) are an entirely different question, and require more state and federal grants as well as capital market bonds. And New York’s system is not unique: as in other cities, New York struggles to pay existing expenses and must go into debt to pay for upgrades, that is, without raising prices.
Is this problem intractable? Not exactly. Take Hong Kong for example: The Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Corporation, which manages the subway and bus systems on Hong Kong Island and, since 2006, in the northern part of Kowloon, is considered the gold standard for transit management worldwide. In 2012, the MTR produced revenue of 36 billion Hong Kong Dollars (about U.S $5 billion)—turning a profit of $2 billion in the process. Most impressively, the farebox recovery ratio (the percentage of operational costs covered by fares) for the system was 185 percent, the world's highest. Worldwide, these numbers are practically unheard of—the next highest urban ratio, Singapore, is a mere 125 percent.
In addition to Hong Kong, the MTR Corporation runs individual subway lines in Beijing, Hangzhou, and Shenzhen in China, two lines in the London Underground, and the entire Melbourne and Stockholm systems. And in Hong Kong, the trains provide services unseen in many other systems around the world: stations have public computers, wheelchair and stroller accessibility (and the space within the train to store them), glass doors blocking the tracks, interoperable touch-and-go fare payment (which also works as a debit card in local retail), clear and sensible signage, and, on longer-distance subways, first-class cars for people who are willing to pay extra for a little leg space.
How can Hong Kong afford all of this? The answer is deceptively simple: “Value Capture.”
Like no other system in the world, the MTR understands the monetary value of urban density—in other words, what economists call "agglomeration.” Hong Kong is one of the world’s densest cities, and businesses depend on the metro to ferry customers from one side of the territory to another. As a result, the MTR strikes a bargain with shop owners: In exchange for transporting customers, the transit agency receives a cut of the mall’s profit, signs a co-ownership agreement, or accepts a percentage of property development fees. In many cases, the MTR owns the entire mall itself. The Hong Kong metro essentially functions as part of a vertically integrated business that, through a "rail plus property" model, controls both the means of transit and the places passengers visit upon departure. Two of the tallest skyscrapers in Hong Kong are MTR properties, as are many of the offices, malls, and residences next to every transit station (some of which even have direct underground connections to the train). Not to mention, all of the retail within subway stations, which themselves double as large shopping complexes, is leased from MTR.
The profits from these real estate ventures, as well as that 85 percent farebox surplus, subsidize transit development: proceeds pay for capital expansion as well as upgrades. The MTR’s financial largesse means that the transit system requires less maintenance and service interruptions, which in turn reduces operating costs, streamlines capital investments, and encourages more people to use transit to get around. And more customers means more money, even if fares are relatively cheap: most commutes fall between HK $4 and HK$20 (about 50 cents to $3), depending on distance. (In London, by comparison, a Tube journey can cost as much as $18). Fare increases in Hong Kong are limited by regulations linking fares to inflation and profits, and the territory’s government recently started giving a HK $600-per-month travel stipend to low-income households, defined as those earning less than HK $10,000 a month.
This model of transit management works partly because Hong Kong is a closed system: There are no suburbs from which people can commute by car, so there are strong incentives for everyone within the territory to use the system. This feature, combined with other regulations, has kept car ownership low: 6 of every 100 vehicles in Hong Kong are for personal use, whereas the number in the U.S. is closer to 70. And while the NYC subway was built over a century ago and was neglected during much of the 20th century’s suburban sprawl, Hong Kong’s metro was only developed in the late 1970s. As a result, it doesn’t have to rely on signals technologies from the 1930s that are only slowly being upgraded (hence the track closures in New York).
As an independent corporation with the government serving as majority shareholder (rather than a public agency, ministry, or authority), the MTR has the freedom to develop real estate, to hire and fire who it will, and to take business-minded decisions—whereas other transit systems, including the one in New York, must deal with union contracts and legal restrictions. In Hong Kong, these value charges are often displaced onto consumers, causing real estate prices to go up a little faster than they otherwise might.
Still, value capture is a powerful idea for transit management. New York has tested the waters of this approach with its $2 billion 7-train extension to the Hudson Yards project, working with the state’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the project’s developers to fund the extension with property taxes from the newly served area. Dedicated taxes, too, serve a similar purpose. But fundamentally, Hong Kong’s metro succeeds because it understands that a subway system is more than just a means of transportation—it is also essential to the well-being of a city’s population and economy.
http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/09/the-unique-genius-of-hong-kongs-public-transportation-system/279528/
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2008
- Messages
- 30,580
- Points
- 0
Here's the problem. Yes HK mtr is better but sg's mrt will never get better so no matter how many videos are shown or how you bitch here you still will be left with a lousy fucked up sg mrt system.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
The use of a clever financing system has enabled the territory to provide world-class service—without breaking the bank.
New Yorkers are famous for complaining about the city's subway: despite an ever-increasing rise in fares, service never seems to get any better. And even still, ticket-sales still only funds part of the New York City subway system; the city still relies on supplementary taxes and government grants to keep trains running, as fares only cover about 45 percent of the day-to-day operating costs. Capital costs (system expansions, upgrades, and repairs) are an entirely different question, and require more state and federal grants as well as capital market bonds. And New York’s system is not unique: as in other cities, New York struggles to pay existing expenses and must go into debt to pay for upgrades, that is, without raising prices.
Is this problem intractable? Not exactly. Take Hong Kong for example: The Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Corporation, which manages the subway and bus systems on Hong Kong Island and, since 2006, in the northern part of Kowloon, is considered the gold standard for transit management worldwide. In 2012, the MTR produced revenue of 36 billion Hong Kong Dollars (about U.S $5 billion)—turning a profit of $2 billion in the process. Most impressively, the farebox recovery ratio (the percentage of operational costs covered by fares) for the system was 185 percent, the world's highest. Worldwide, these numbers are practically unheard of—the next highest urban ratio, Singapore, is a mere 125 percent.
In addition to Hong Kong, the MTR Corporation runs individual subway lines in Beijing, Hangzhou, and Shenzhen in China, two lines in the London Underground, and the entire Melbourne and Stockholm systems. And in Hong Kong, the trains provide services unseen in many other systems around the world: stations have public computers, wheelchair and stroller accessibility (and the space within the train to store them), glass doors blocking the tracks, interoperable touch-and-go fare payment (which also works as a debit card in local retail), clear and sensible signage, and, on longer-distance subways, first-class cars for people who are willing to pay extra for a little leg space.
How can Hong Kong afford all of this? The answer is deceptively simple: “Value Capture.”
Like no other system in the world, the MTR understands the monetary value of urban density—in other words, what economists call "agglomeration.” Hong Kong is one of the world’s densest cities, and businesses depend on the metro to ferry customers from one side of the territory to another. As a result, the MTR strikes a bargain with shop owners: In exchange for transporting customers, the transit agency receives a cut of the mall’s profit, signs a co-ownership agreement, or accepts a percentage of property development fees. In many cases, the MTR owns the entire mall itself. The Hong Kong metro essentially functions as part of a vertically integrated business that, through a "rail plus property" model, controls both the means of transit and the places passengers visit upon departure. Two of the tallest skyscrapers in Hong Kong are MTR properties, as are many of the offices, malls, and residences next to every transit station (some of which even have direct underground connections to the train). Not to mention, all of the retail within subway stations, which themselves double as large shopping complexes, is leased from MTR.
The profits from these real estate ventures, as well as that 85 percent farebox surplus, subsidize transit development: proceeds pay for capital expansion as well as upgrades. The MTR’s financial largesse means that the transit system requires less maintenance and service interruptions, which in turn reduces operating costs, streamlines capital investments, and encourages more people to use transit to get around. And more customers means more money, even if fares are relatively cheap: most commutes fall between HK $4 and HK$20 (about 50 cents to $3), depending on distance. (In London, by comparison, a Tube journey can cost as much as $18). Fare increases in Hong Kong are limited by regulations linking fares to inflation and profits, and the territory’s government recently started giving a HK $600-per-month travel stipend to low-income households, defined as those earning less than HK $10,000 a month.
This model of transit management works partly because Hong Kong is a closed system: There are no suburbs from which people can commute by car, so there are strong incentives for everyone within the territory to use the system. This feature, combined with other regulations, has kept car ownership low: 6 of every 100 vehicles in Hong Kong are for personal use, whereas the number in the U.S. is closer to 70. And while the NYC subway was built over a century ago and was neglected during much of the 20th century’s suburban sprawl, Hong Kong’s metro was only developed in the late 1970s. As a result, it doesn’t have to rely on signals technologies from the 1930s that are only slowly being upgraded (hence the track closures in New York).
As an independent corporation with the government serving as majority shareholder (rather than a public agency, ministry, or authority), the MTR has the freedom to develop real estate, to hire and fire who it will, and to take business-minded decisions—whereas other transit systems, including the one in New York, must deal with union contracts and legal restrictions. In Hong Kong, these value charges are often displaced onto consumers, causing real estate prices to go up a little faster than they otherwise might.
Still, value capture is a powerful idea for transit management. New York has tested the waters of this approach with its $2 billion 7-train extension to the Hudson Yards project, working with the state’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the project’s developers to fund the extension with property taxes from the newly served area. Dedicated taxes, too, serve a similar purpose. But fundamentally, Hong Kong’s metro succeeds because it understands that a subway system is more than just a means of transportation—it is also essential to the well-being of a city’s population and economy.
http://www.theatlantic.com/china/ar...ng-kongs-public-transportation-system/279528/
New Yorkers are famous for complaining about the city's subway: despite an ever-increasing rise in fares, service never seems to get any better. And even still, ticket-sales still only funds part of the New York City subway system; the city still relies on supplementary taxes and government grants to keep trains running, as fares only cover about 45 percent of the day-to-day operating costs. Capital costs (system expansions, upgrades, and repairs) are an entirely different question, and require more state and federal grants as well as capital market bonds. And New York’s system is not unique: as in other cities, New York struggles to pay existing expenses and must go into debt to pay for upgrades, that is, without raising prices.
Is this problem intractable? Not exactly. Take Hong Kong for example: The Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Corporation, which manages the subway and bus systems on Hong Kong Island and, since 2006, in the northern part of Kowloon, is considered the gold standard for transit management worldwide. In 2012, the MTR produced revenue of 36 billion Hong Kong Dollars (about U.S $5 billion)—turning a profit of $2 billion in the process. Most impressively, the farebox recovery ratio (the percentage of operational costs covered by fares) for the system was 185 percent, the world's highest. Worldwide, these numbers are practically unheard of—the next highest urban ratio, Singapore, is a mere 125 percent.
In addition to Hong Kong, the MTR Corporation runs individual subway lines in Beijing, Hangzhou, and Shenzhen in China, two lines in the London Underground, and the entire Melbourne and Stockholm systems. And in Hong Kong, the trains provide services unseen in many other systems around the world: stations have public computers, wheelchair and stroller accessibility (and the space within the train to store them), glass doors blocking the tracks, interoperable touch-and-go fare payment (which also works as a debit card in local retail), clear and sensible signage, and, on longer-distance subways, first-class cars for people who are willing to pay extra for a little leg space.
How can Hong Kong afford all of this? The answer is deceptively simple: “Value Capture.”
Like no other system in the world, the MTR understands the monetary value of urban density—in other words, what economists call "agglomeration.” Hong Kong is one of the world’s densest cities, and businesses depend on the metro to ferry customers from one side of the territory to another. As a result, the MTR strikes a bargain with shop owners: In exchange for transporting customers, the transit agency receives a cut of the mall’s profit, signs a co-ownership agreement, or accepts a percentage of property development fees. In many cases, the MTR owns the entire mall itself. The Hong Kong metro essentially functions as part of a vertically integrated business that, through a "rail plus property" model, controls both the means of transit and the places passengers visit upon departure. Two of the tallest skyscrapers in Hong Kong are MTR properties, as are many of the offices, malls, and residences next to every transit station (some of which even have direct underground connections to the train). Not to mention, all of the retail within subway stations, which themselves double as large shopping complexes, is leased from MTR.
The profits from these real estate ventures, as well as that 85 percent farebox surplus, subsidize transit development: proceeds pay for capital expansion as well as upgrades. The MTR’s financial largesse means that the transit system requires less maintenance and service interruptions, which in turn reduces operating costs, streamlines capital investments, and encourages more people to use transit to get around. And more customers means more money, even if fares are relatively cheap: most commutes fall between HK $4 and HK$20 (about 50 cents to $3), depending on distance. (In London, by comparison, a Tube journey can cost as much as $18). Fare increases in Hong Kong are limited by regulations linking fares to inflation and profits, and the territory’s government recently started giving a HK $600-per-month travel stipend to low-income households, defined as those earning less than HK $10,000 a month.
This model of transit management works partly because Hong Kong is a closed system: There are no suburbs from which people can commute by car, so there are strong incentives for everyone within the territory to use the system. This feature, combined with other regulations, has kept car ownership low: 6 of every 100 vehicles in Hong Kong are for personal use, whereas the number in the U.S. is closer to 70. And while the NYC subway was built over a century ago and was neglected during much of the 20th century’s suburban sprawl, Hong Kong’s metro was only developed in the late 1970s. As a result, it doesn’t have to rely on signals technologies from the 1930s that are only slowly being upgraded (hence the track closures in New York).
As an independent corporation with the government serving as majority shareholder (rather than a public agency, ministry, or authority), the MTR has the freedom to develop real estate, to hire and fire who it will, and to take business-minded decisions—whereas other transit systems, including the one in New York, must deal with union contracts and legal restrictions. In Hong Kong, these value charges are often displaced onto consumers, causing real estate prices to go up a little faster than they otherwise might.
Still, value capture is a powerful idea for transit management. New York has tested the waters of this approach with its $2 billion 7-train extension to the Hudson Yards project, working with the state’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the project’s developers to fund the extension with property taxes from the newly served area. Dedicated taxes, too, serve a similar purpose. But fundamentally, Hong Kong’s metro succeeds because it understands that a subway system is more than just a means of transportation—it is also essential to the well-being of a city’s population and economy.
http://www.theatlantic.com/china/ar...ng-kongs-public-transportation-system/279528/
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 59,282
- Points
- 113
in sg, they're trying to emulate the hk mtr's concept of "value capture" by building malls around and within stations, but instead there is more "vulva capture" as more cheebyes from the region and the prc congregate in sg and their panties are exposed to the exploits of upskirt pranksters. :p
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,884
- Points
- 0
The different is gov and public transport management.
HK MTR also making profit. Only less than 10 line in the world making profit. SG and HK one of them.
Let discuss into more detail( some one my own experience taking both HK MRT and SG MRT).
1. HK very transparent all account of transport management are transparent and they take into all ideas and imput of there citizen and manage by a group that accountable to shareholder and cummuter vs SG account are all keep secret and only take ideas from certain people(wayang so called PTC) and manage by assign someone will protect MRT at all cost without thinking cummuter feeling. Profit is priority .
2. HK MTR are very punctual and time between train are shorter and SG( that my own experience taking MTR in HK) maybe 30 sec shorter during peak between each train>> actually I do my own survey didn't board the train during peak even I can boarding the train and do timing.
3. Fare consider comparable to SG base on distance after currency exchange rate.
4. HK people are more cummuter courtesy (less people bloocking MTR door for passenger come out from train and basically all will stand to the left handside of escalator if they not walking) vs SG commuter all are selfish stand where ever they want.
5. Escalator in train station HK are more well maintain. Just look at how many accident related to escalator year 2013. And Noise and vibration from the escalator in SG. Accident involved death waiting to happen >>> trust me.
6. Also quite a smooth ride on old MTR line compare to old MRT line .
7. HK train are longer compare to SG( if I not wrong because base on the look and I didnt measure on it).
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2013
- Messages
- 559
- Points
- 28
Does Hong Kong have a scholar or nothing type of system as in Singapore ie no scholar no talk?
lianbeng replies laksaboy: u can migrate to HK if u prefer their MTR!
i'm not complaining about our MRT lah!
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2010
- Messages
- 34,379
- Points
- 113
lianbeng replies laksaboy: u can migrate to HK if u prefer their MTR!
Classic!
Pap IBs to officially adopt this as their new motto whenever sinkies complain of the mrt or public transport in general.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,884
- Points
- 0
lianbeng replies laksaboy: u can migrate to HK if u prefer their MTR!
Start to behave like 3rd world country very same comment in Malaysia and Indonesia by there ministers.
I wonder what that bitch Josephine Teo will have to say after viewing this video clip. Fuck to her indeed and all her crap.
I was once told that the MTR took 10 years to be profitable whilst our MRT started to profit from the 2nd year.
I was once told that the MTR took 10 years to be profitable whilst our MRT started to profit from the 2nd year.
Last edited:
Right on bro!!! Military Experts should be confined to the barracks & not treat the MRT as their command centre. This is about giving commuters scheduled transportation & un-sardined pack pleasant journeys. I suspect MRT's mission statement is about squeezing pesants for more money & giving hefty dividends to the stakeholders.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 7,177
- Points
- 48
Yes. MTR is better than MRT and cheaper too.
I wonder if it has to do with those who does the maintenance...
I took their feeder bus and it only cost S$0.50 (HK3 dollars) per ride. This was the price we pay in the 80s...and they are still paying that price.
I wonder if it has to do with those who does the maintenance...
I took their feeder bus and it only cost S$0.50 (HK3 dollars) per ride. This was the price we pay in the 80s...and they are still paying that price.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 7,083
- Points
- 63
The key difference is the MTR served Hong Kongers
MRT of Stinkapore is to suck and fuck sinkies of as much money into that smear of shit on sole of shoe Stinkapore sovereign funds and for his PAP maggots cockroaches paper generals to feed from like pigs snouts in the swill trough
GET THE PAP OUT BY BALLOT OR GET THEM OUT BY PIANO WIRE
MRT of Stinkapore is to suck and fuck sinkies of as much money into that smear of shit on sole of shoe Stinkapore sovereign funds and for his PAP maggots cockroaches paper generals to feed from like pigs snouts in the swill trough
GET THE PAP OUT BY BALLOT OR GET THEM OUT BY PIANO WIRE
Similar threads
