WP should buy SMRT/ComfortDelgro shares

[phouse3]

1. WP proposed nationalisation of transport system:

Let's just forgive WP for flip-flopping between arguing for more competition and nationalisation and move on.

2. WP's accusations:
* The government is privatising profits and socialising costs.
* PAP is using tax-payers' money on $1.1 billion bus enhancement scheme.
* SMRT is running non-core business (retail).
* The operators are profitable.
* Operators are "under-investing" on maintenance.

3. Debunking WP:
- Infrastructure spending has always been funded by the government. The mass purchase of buses can be treated as infrastructure spending.
- A zero-profit target will not bring fares down. Instead, fares will move up to meet zero-loss.
- Retail businesses generate extra income to bring fares down.
- Commuters are consumers too. It will be a great disservice to them if the shops are gone.
- Is WP aware that part of the operators' profits are from overseas businesses?
- Is WP aware that the Downtown line/Circle line broke down too in their first week/month of operations. What "under-investment" is WP talking about?

4. The real problem:
Anybody can see that the transportation woes/crowdedness are due to the larger population. WP refuses to see the root cause because it has painted itself into a corner by proposing raising the population to 5.9 million.

5. Last:
WP often repeat the mantra on "privatising profits and socialising costs". It is not possible as there is a 45% free float. Hence, WP should buy SMRT and ComfortDelgro shares instead of a new building.

 

[scroobal]

Most people want to know how WP is going to capture East Coast GRC and maybe another SMC. To this end, you can see them working the ground. Pointless asking the WP or any other opposition parties on their detailed plan when they are not going to form the govt anytime soon.

Some of the opposition parties tend to spend too much of time rolling out too detailed policy papers that no one reads. It best to poke holes on the policies of the PAP that damages the society. Pointless coming out with comprehensive paper that cannot be implemented at all when they do not have any seats. People are keen to see how opposition parties are planning to contest what seats and how they are going to tackle the PAP at the next GE.

A defence counsel has to prepare his case for his client who is the defendant and not prepare the case for the prosecution.

 

[phouse3]

Some blogs reported that WP argued for a single public operator and that the government has listened to its call for nationalisation. How can this be true? Everybody can see that there will be more operators, including foreign players.

Some people asserted that privatisation is the cause of over-crowded public transport. How can this be true? Everybody knows it is due to more people on this island. Infrastructure development (or non-development) has always been the responsibility of the government and still is. SMRT/SBS Transit don't build MRT lines or more roads!

WP argued for transportation to be treated as a public good. This is despite its stand against the $1.1 billion funding. What is a public good? A public good is one that is free - like national defence.

Public transport should never be free or heavily subsidised because there is a high element of choice. You can choose between a private car, bus, taxi, and even water-taxi. Some people choose to walk. Some choose to skateboard. Some choose to cycle. Some simply choose to stay at home. Some people choose to pay a premium on housing properties near the train stations to avoid spending on feeder bus fares.

Many Singaporeans' lives will be turned upside down if transport is treated like a public good, like those who already paid a huge premium for properties at convenient locations, exorbitant COEs and yet must fork out even more for taxes to subsidise others.

Lastly, there is a huge difference between nationalisation of infrastructural assets and financial assets. SMRT and ComfortDelgro are still listed companies on the stock-exchange.

P.S. Fares will be paid to the government, not the operators. The government has always been bearing the costs of infrastructure. So it is wishful thinking that fares will go down.

 

[eremarf]

Let's just forgive WP for flip-flopping between arguing for more competition and nationalisation and move on.

Sorry ah, where is the flip-flopping? A quick google only shows me that the NSP has called for competition in public transport rather than nationalisation. AFAIK, WP has only called for nationalisation of public transport, not for more competition. If you have info, please share. Thanks!

3. Debunking WP:
- Infrastructure spending has always been funded by the government. The mass purchase of buses can be treated as infrastructure spending.

Proof's right there - costs are borne socially. In a fully private enterprise, the infrastructure is usually paid for by private enterprise itself.

5. Last:
WP often repeat the mantra on "privatising profits and socialising costs". It is not possible as there is a 45% free float. Hence, WP should buy SMRT and ComfortDelgro shares instead of a new building.

Please teach me why it is not possible? What does a 45% free float mean?

Thanks for sharing

 

[phouse3]

Most people want to know how WP is going to capture East Coast GRC and maybe another SMC. To this end, you can see them working the ground. Pointless asking the WP or any other opposition parties on their detailed plan when they are not going to form the govt anytime soon.

Some of the opposition parties tend to spend too much of time rolling out too detailed policy papers that no one reads. It best to poke holes on the policies of the PAP that damages the society. Pointless coming out with comprehensive paper that cannot be implemented at all when they do not have any seats. People are keen to see how opposition parties are planning to contest what seats and how they are going to tackle the PAP at the next GE.

A defence counsel has to prepare his case for his client who is the defendant and not prepare the case for the prosecution.

I know too much to be from SDP.

TOC, MARUAH and WP have criss-crossed relationships.

MARUAH is making use of SDP to push boundaries (sacrificial lambs) and WP to win seats. Ravi Philemon said it when he stepped down from TOC. Kumaran Pillai said the same after he stepped down from TOC and started The Independent. If the argument is sound, SDP should shut down and become an NGO.

I am trying to prove them wrong. WP doesn't have the intellectual content to be the sole Opposition party. Some senior politician said something similar.

 

[tanwahp]

Sorry ah, where is the flip-flopping? A quick google only shows me that the NSP has called for competition in public transport rather than nationalisation. AFAIK, WP has only called for nationalisation of public transport, not for more competition.

In that sense, WP recognizes the benefits of genuine market competition, but it is not an idea they advocate. WP spoke about "competition" in the context of the absence of this in the present system. The govt claims SMRT and SBS to be competitors but are actually 2 monopolies that do not ply on each other's roads.

This press release helps understand where WP stands on the transport issue:

http://wp.sg/2011/07/overhauling-singapore’s-public-transport-model/

 

[eremarf]

In that sense, WP recognizes the benefits of genuine market competition, but it is not an idea they advocate. WP spoke about "competition" in the context of the absence of this in the present system. The govt claims SMRT and SBS to be competitors but are actually 2 monopolies that do not ply on each other's roads.

This press release helps understand where WP stands on the transport issue:

http://wp.sg/2011/07/overhauling-singapore’s-public-transport-model/

Thanks for clarifying (I read WP's article). So there is no flip-flop, right? WP's consistent stand on the issue is public transport should be nationalised, because they are natural monopolies. Yes?

 

[eremarf]

Some blogs reported that WP argued for a single public operator and that the government has listened to its call for nationalisation. How can this be true? Everybody can see that there will be more operators, including foreign players.

Some people asserted that privatisation is the cause of over-crowded public transport. How can this be true? Everybody knows it is due to more people on this island. Infrastructure development (or non-development) has always been the responsibility of the government and still is. SMRT/SBS Transit don't build MRT lines or more roads!

WP argued for transportation to be treated as a public good. This is despite its stand against the $1.1 billion funding. What is a public good? A public good is one that is free - like national defence.

Public transport should never be free or heavily subsidised because there is a high element of choice. You can choose between a private car, bus, taxi, and even water-taxi. Some people choose to walk. Some choose to skateboard. Some choose to cycle. Some simply choose to stay at home. Some people choose to pay a premium on housing properties near the train stations to avoid spending on feeder bus fares.

Many Singaporeans' lives will be turned upside down if transport is treated like a public good, like those who already paid a huge premium for properties at convenient locations, exorbitant COEs and yet must fork out even more for taxes to subsidise others.

Lastly, there is a huge difference between nationalisation of infrastructural assets and financial assets. SMRT and ComfortDelgro are still listed companies on the stock-exchange.

P.S. Fares will be paid to the government, not the operators. The government has always been bearing the costs of infrastructure. So it is wishful thinking that fares will go down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

What's a public good?

There are positive externalities to public transport use. Every person who moves from A to B using public transport reduces road demand. They also reduce air pollution. The price of smooth-flowing roads and clean air is hard to determine (e.g. ERP prices). But if you didn't have public transport, road congestion and air pollution would definitely be worse.

Maybe it isn't a public good itself, but public transport produces other public goods (fresh air, smooth-flowing roads)?

Anyway I don't think people mind paying higher fares (based on what my friends say, I ride a bike myself). I think people are more upset about squeezing, slow transport, and breakdowns. But I might not be seeing the full picture (my friends quite atas one).

 

[winnipegjets]

3. Debunking WP:
- Infrastructure spending has always been funded by the government. The mass purchase of buses can be treated as infrastructure spending.

Wahlau, since when procurement of bus is considered infrastructure spending? Another PAP bs!

- A zero-profit target will not bring fares down. Instead, fares will move up to meet zero-loss.

Remove the 10 percent return demanded by the business ...10 percent drop in fare price lah.

- Retail businesses generate extra income to bring fares down.

Government acquire land cheaply ...sell to these private business cheaply ...the business makes money, while commuters pay the price. If this is not privatize profits and socialize cost, what is?

- Commuters are consumers too. It will be a great disservice to them if the shops are gone.

Is SMRT running properties or transportation?
They screw up on core business and now move to focus on property management. Alamak, then SMRT should change its business lah.

- Is WP aware that part of the operators' profits are from overseas businesses?

These operators can't get it right here, they need to make money from overseas. See what is wrong with these two companies?

- Is WP aware that the Downtown line/Circle line broke down too in their first week/month of operations. What "under-investment" is WP talking about?

The operators cut back on their investment ...instead of buying reliable products from the West, they buy those Made-In-China stuff. That's the underinvestment lah!

5. Last:
WP often repeat the mantra on "privatising profits and socialising costs". It is not possible as there is a 45% free float. Hence, WP should buy SMRT and ComfortDelgro shares instead of a new building.

[/QUOTE]
A publicly listed company is still a business. Alamak, you don't even know the term 'privatiz profits and socialize cost' Give up lah.

 

[phouse3]

PM Lee: “The Workers' Party's policies are like the moon. On the first day and the 15th day it's different."

 

[winnipegjets]

PM Lee: “The Workers' Party's policies are like the moon. On the first day and the 15th day it's different."

Instead of responding to the criticism with facts, he derides the WP. You know the PAP polices are flawed just by that.

 

[eremarf]

PM Lee: “The Workers' Party's policies are like the moon. On the first day and the 15th day it's different."

Thanks for info.. but what does it mean? I talk to you seriously you anyhow answer.. sigh.

 

[tanwahp]

Thanks for clarifying (I read WP's article). So there is no flip-flop, right? WP's consistent stand on the issue is public transport should be nationalised, because they are natural monopolies. Yes?

I think I might have been wrong after reading WP's press release today.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/bus-contracting-model/1117834.html

Nationalization can also mean the government owning the facilities and infrastructure but with private companies owning and operating the buses. There are mainly 2 ways of nationalization - one operated fully by the government like a stat board and one leads to some form of competition between private companies.

A true privatized scheme would be something along today's system except without the duopoly of SBS and SMRT. A company gets a blanket approval to set up their own depots, ply certain lines, buy their own buses. This is what the NSP called for - have different companies with their own transport structure and everything.

This was actually implemented in the early 90s, but the smaller companies were squeezed out by lack of funds and could not expand. Today, you can still see a few private buses plying from Raffles Place to some town during peak hours.

 

[winnipegjets]

Most people want to know how WP is going to capture East Coast GRC and maybe another SMC. To this end, you can see them working the ground. Pointless asking the WP or any other opposition parties on their detailed plan when they are not going to form the govt anytime soon.

Some of the opposition parties tend to spend too much of time rolling out too detailed policy papers that no one reads. It best to poke holes on the policies of the PAP that damages the society. Pointless coming out with comprehensive paper that cannot be implemented at all when they do not have any seats. People are keen to see how opposition parties are planning to contest what seats and how they are going to tackle the PAP at the next GE.

A defence counsel has to prepare his case for his client who is the defendant and not prepare the case for the prosecution.

Why do folks like you think that the WP is incapable of forming the government? We got to get rid of the PAP planted idea that only the PAP has the talented people to be ministers.

The WP has the talent to form the next government.

 

[3_M]

Some blogs reported that WP argued for a single public operator and that the government has listened to its call for nationalisation. How can this be true? Everybody can see that there will be more operators, including foreign players.

It still a single operator (which is the gov) with essential function being outsource to many sub contractors. This is part and parcel of how organizations function today. Even SAF also outsource many functions to private operators, can you say SAF is a private army?

 

[winnipegjets]

It still a single operator (which is the gov) with essential function being outsource to many sub contractors. This is part and parcel of how organizations function today. Even SAF also outsource many functions to private operators, can you say SAF is a private army?

Outsourcing is based on the assumption that cost would be lower. Is that true? Have they figure out how much it would cost to operate a national bus company? And how much cheaper would it be by outsourcing?

This whole exercise is to save the butts of the two existing operators. Suddenly, these two inefficient operators will be generating huge profits from their bus operations.

 

[3_M]

Outsourcing is based on the assumption that cost would be lower. Is that true? Have they figure out how much it would cost to operate a national bus company? And how much cheaper would it be by outsourcing?

This whole exercise is to save the butts of the two existing operators. Suddenly, these two inefficient operators will be generating huge profits from their bus operations.

One of the closest example is PSA, the company owns and maintain the fleet of towheads , they own the port terminal, parking bay, control the operations, assign their deployment while the drivers come from many sub contractors.It something they have been doing quite successfully and helps the company cut costs. Essentially, we still see PSA as one single entity serving their clients. The latest gov initiative is nationalizing public transport whatever fanciful terms they want to call it. SBS and TIBS will be relegated to sub contractor in this arrangement.

 

[winnipegjets]

One of the closest example is PSA, the company manages and maintain the fleet of towheads , control the operations, assign their deployment while the drivers come from many sub contractors.It something they have been doing quite successfully. Essentially, we still see PSA as one single entity serving their clients. The latest gov initiative is essentially nationalizing public transport whatever fanciful terms they want to call. SBS and TIBS will be relegated to sub contractor in this arrangement.

Has the government done a cost analysis on subcontracting versus creating a national bus company? The bus operators could not run it profitably when they had the monopoly. So, the government is going to pay them more to run those routes. That to me is the government propping up business and a waste of our tax dollars.

 

[3_M]

Has the government done a cost analysis on subcontracting versus creating a national bus company? The bus operators could not run it profitably when they had the monopoly. So, the government is going to pay them more to run those routes. That to me is the government propping up business and a waste of our tax dollars.

I suppose they have done it on paper. It might be wiser to conduct trial first on certain routes before implementing it on larger scale. But by the time they finally ready, it election time.

I think the govt is quite desperate to solve transportation woes. I would say this is a gamble.

 

[scroobal]

You must be wondering why WP keeps winning seats and gaining ground despite in your opinion they do not have "intellectual content".

Old man used to harp how none of the opposition candidates are academically qualified and famously told us about Chiam See Tong's O level results. Don't fall for it. Chiam went on to serve in Parliament for 27 years.

Its was the PAP's way to undermine the opposition. An obviously they convinced you.

Don't waste your time talking about transport issues. Use your intellectual content to see if your team can outdo WP in the polls. Should be easy as you think the WP is not that smart.

I know too much to be from SDP.

TOC, MARUAH and WP have criss-crossed relationships.

MARUAH is making use of SDP to push boundaries (sacrificial lambs) and WP to win seats. Ravi Philemon said it when he stepped down from TOC. Kumaran Pillai said the same after he stepped down from TOC and started The Independent. If the argument is sound, SDP should shut down and become an NGO.

I am trying to prove them wrong. WP doesn't have the intellectual content to be the sole Opposition party. Some senior politician said something similar.