Mustank Hypersonic February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 If it is left to the two operators, they will not be able to gear up at the pace the Government wants. You need intervention to fast- track that process. If the privatised public transport model cannot meet SG's needs, then can they be nationalised? I think obviously not. ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonTan 2nd Gear February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 WTf? What about those private buses that bring factory workers to work? What about those school buses for student? They are essential to reduce the demand on the public system!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonTan 2nd Gear February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 WTf? What about those private buses that bring factory workers to work? What about those school buses for student? They are essential to reduce the demand on the public system!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scb11980 1st Gear February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 the simple solution nationalise the transport company If it is left to the two operators, they will not be able to gear up at the pace the Government wants. You need intervention to fast- track that process. If the privatised public transport model cannot meet SG's needs, then can they be nationalised? I think obviously not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jp66 5th Gear February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 I am amazed the funding include bus drivers salary Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Turbocharged February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 dont understand y govt must buy the buses for them. they r profit driven, n yet, govt help them to buy buses...with OUR money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bystander50 5th Gear February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 If it is left to the two operators, they will not be able to gear up at the pace the Government wants. You need intervention to fast- track that process. If the privatised public transport model cannot meet SG's needs, then can they be nationalised? I think obviously not. If the gov starts to intervene and pump money in to buy buses and trains, will the transport companies return the amount invested that is taxpayer's money? Remember, there is no free lunch in SG. In exchange, will the gov acquire a certain % stake in these companies? This can be a move towards nationalising the public transport. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bystander50 5th Gear February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 (edited) Costs did not rise just overnight. And so are the problems? The gov is still living in self-denial mode that FTs are not the cause of high property inflation and overloading of our transport networks. I don't remember our MRTs as pack as today 10-20 years ago. Blame locals for this overcrowding? wasn't it mentioned that locals did not procreate enough, so how do these ghost locals sardine packed the trains and push up demands for housing? To me, the line is very clear. I don't even consider a PR a Singaporean, or one that has took up citizenship. Singaporean is one that is truly born here without previously acquiring any other country's passport. Edited February 22, 2012 by Bystander50 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockngbrd Supersonic February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 F***! ! ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom_kkh 1st Gear February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 (edited) This can be a move towards nationalising the public transport. wait long long, the government will have a stake but will not take over. government knows it a tough job, so they need someone to blame while reaping in the profits...they wont stick s--t into their own shirt. if not wrong, SBS used to be fully government until they came up with fancy names like GLC to shy away from any responsibilities and to justify their ever raising cost, to answer to private shareholders. Edited February 22, 2012 by Tom_kkh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARTer 2nd Gear February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 (edited) Costs did not rise just overnight. influx of FT/FW, increase of ridership/passegers DID NOT increase overnite, Transport Commission/Committe and LTA suddenly woke up and realised the overcrowding etc.... what a good nap!! (and long one) Edited February 22, 2012 by KARTer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha78 6th Gear February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 influx of FT/FW, increase of ridership/passegers DID NOT increase overnite, Transport Commission/Committe and LTA suddenly woke up and realised the overcrowding etc.... what a good nap!! (and long one) For a moment I thought that was Gearoil... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARTer 2nd Gear February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 wait long long, the government will have a stake but will not take over. government knows it a tough job, so they need someone to blame while reaping in the profits...they wont stick s--t into their own shirt. if not wrong, SBS used to be fully government until they came up with fancy names like GLC to shy away from any responsibilities and to justify their ever raising cost, to answer to private shareholders. they already s-hit in their pants rong rong ago but still act as if the smell comes from other pple.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustank Hypersonic February 22, 2012 Author Share February 22, 2012 the simple solution nationalise the transport company they cant. once you privtatise an entire industry and even allow them to list on the exchange, nationalising them back will cause a repercussion from foreign investors so big that we can all basically go tng kor. There is no going back. The way i see it is this: the guys on top recognise the inadequacy of the privatisation in infrastrcture investment but cant sit back and do nothing. No choice have to invest $$ to bring in capital investment. the nitty gritty will actually be intersting. eg: how are the investment recorded in the books. Eg: bus accounted for as a loan, a gift, or what in sbs books. if they are public property on loan to pte enterpirse, does sbs need to pay garmen? way too many permutation liao. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kxbc Turbocharged February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 they cant. once you privtatise an entire industry and even allow them to list on the exchange, nationalising them back will cause a repercussion from foreign investors so big that we can all basically go tng kor. There is no going back. The way i see it is this: the guys on top recognise the inadequacy of the privatisation in infrastrcture investment but cant sit back and do nothing. No choice have to invest $$ to bring in capital investment. the nitty gritty will actually be intersting. eg: how are the investment recorded in the books. Eg: bus accounted for as a loan, a gift, or what in sbs books. if they are public property on loan to pte enterpirse, does sbs need to pay garmen? way too many permutation liao. take it in as SH loan and ensure mkt rate interest is charged by govt to transport company. Ensure arm's length transaction and this also increases their OPEX which will flow through to EPS/EVA/etc calculation. These buses should not be free to the co's SH'ers. If not as loan, perhaps a lease option by govt to transport company. Lease exp will hit EBITDA and flow downwards accordingly as well. Good for transport co as some bank ratios will not be impacted so their debt capacity might still remain healthy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scion Turbocharged February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 this is not something new... LTA built the infrastructure using money from the government revenue for SMRT to operate the profits go to SMRT, which in turns go to Temasek who owns about 55% stake in SMRT SMRT and Temasek huat big time when government pushes more people onto this island when things break down, SMRT takes the stick... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relacklabrudder 1st Gear February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 when they list public objectives is to absolve the bus operators from public responsibility so they can suka suka raise the price in the name of bringing value to shareholders. another way is that the $ earned is easily transfered to salaries of top honchos as reasonable remuneration, the profits are then chug into Temasek who are biggest shareholders. yes, what started off with tax payer, the profit never go back to taxpayers. now no choice cos congestions and mrt breakdown affect image. re investment will mean certain temporary losses which major shareholder cannot afford, so garhmen roti prata step in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relacklabrudder 1st Gear February 22, 2012 Share February 22, 2012 is sbs transit in need of a bailout??? ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In NowRelated Discussions
Related Discussions
Public transport business models
Public transport business models
Transport Minister S Iswaran assisting in CPIB investigation
Transport Minister S Iswaran assisting in CPIB investigation
Public Buses of Yesterday
Public Buses of Yesterday
S’pore Airshow - Worst transport experience’
S’pore Airshow - Worst transport experience’
BreadTalk Will Delist Company On 5 Jun After Posting $5.8 Million Loss In 2019
BreadTalk Will Delist Company On 5 Jun After Posting $5.8 Million Loss In 2019
Cars & Kopi
Cars & Kopi
New Lamborghini SUV! Meet the Urus.
New Lamborghini SUV! Meet the Urus.
New stations, line extensions planned for Singapore’s MRT
New stations, line extensions planned for Singapore’s MRT