THEME: Transport Fare hikes

Fares that go up when oil prices come down. Higher and higher COEs, recurring train service disruptions, bus delays and hard-to-get taxis, proliferation of ERP gantries, transport fare hikes, traffic jams and over-packed trains and buses. These issues continue to surface at the elections and the voices are getting louder each time. Let's take a look at fare hikes.

Fare hikes for buses and trains are subject to approval by the Public Transport Council ("PTC") which has a review mechanism that recently won an international award at the 61st UITP World Congrezz & Exhibition in Milan for providing a fair and transparent fare formula to cap the quantum of fare adjustment. This mechanism is meant to ensure that commercial operators cannot simply pass on their costs increases to commuters.  Whilst this ought to provide some assurance that every fare hike approved by the PTC was carefully reviewed before being approved, it does little to calm negative public sentiments. And the problem seems to be a matter of faith.

There are many who do not see the PTC as an impartial body because its council members are appointed by the government and the government is seen as the ultimate owner of the bus and train operators which are earning huge profits each year. This belief was reinforced recently when a fare hike was approved on the basis or rising operating costs in the midst of falling oil prices and the CEO of SMRT appointed by the government in 2012 was paid millions in his remuneration package despite continuing disruptions in train services.

How can we restore the public's faith in the PTC? Perhaps, members of the PTC could be appointed by an independent commission and members of the PTC should include substantial representation from VWOs and commuters. At the same time, any application for fare hikes should not be allowed if the non-technical costs exceed a certain percentage of the total operating costs incurred in the provision of transport services. This idea is somewhat akin to the concept behind the existing 30/70 efficiency ratio in fund raising by charities and institutions of public character in order to qualify for tax exemption on their funds raised.

Efforts directed at maintaining the public's faith in a fair and equitable system for allowing and determining price hikes are necessary. Afterall, there is a strong social element in the provision of public transport services unlike other businesses. The paramount interest of the public transport operators must not be to maximise profits but to provide public transportation at what the public accepts as reasonable and affordable.

You're never too early for politics

Although the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee ("EBRC") was formed 2 months ago, its formation was not disclosed until questions were posed by 2 MPs in Parliament on Monday, 13 July 2015. 

Once the EBRC report is published, parliament may be dissolved anytime soon. The EBRC is chaired by the Secretary to Prime Minister and will consider the population shifts and housing developments since the last boundary delineation exercise. 

The re-drawing of boundaries for every election has become part of the rules of political contest in Singapore. This has been the subject of much political debate. The main accusation is that it tilts the playing field in favour of the ruling party. Being a sports nation, perhaps a sports analogy will be useful. With the EBRC, we are seeing a sportsman who is competing with his team and unilaterally laying out the playing fields. He also decides on the timing of the competition and how many players for each field. 

Now that the EBRC has been formed, the task to redraw the electoral boundaries have begun. Based on past elections, the completion of this task may take up to four months and the re-drawing will have an impact on where and how potential candidates will contest in the elections. 

Once the report is published, parliament may be dissolved and a writ of election issued even within a day. All these uncertainties which favour the ruling party do stand in the way of healthy and constructive politics and it is hoped that there would be changes to improve the electoral system to make it a more level playing field that is imbued with both the spirit of sportsmanship and fair-play.

Politics has the power to close one's minds instead of opening them. For politics to continue to serve the purpose of the larger good and not become a tool of unsavoury politics, participation especially from those who are truly concerned about social justice and equality, is instrumental. Age is no barrier. You're never too early for politics. Only too late. 

Come join me in my journey to make Singapore a better place. Email to me at happylivingsg@gmail.com with your name, age and contact number, so that I can keep you posted on my upcoming walkabout at Whampoa SMC and if you are free, just join me and serve the residents together. 

My Choice - Whampoa SMC

Today 14 July 2015, marks my last day as a member of NSP. Early in the morning, I sent a text to the party's President to bid him farewell and to wish him and the party well. He responded cordially with his good wishes.

Since stepping down as Secretary-General of NSP, I have been invited by other political parties to join them. Unfortunately, I had to politely decline each of their kind offer. At the breaking-of-fast dinner held at the Islamic Restaurant this evening, attended by representatives of the various alternative parties, I was interviewed by the media and press, and they were interested to know my plans.

I have already made up my mind to go independent and informed the reporters of my intention to contest in Whampoa, one of the places where I have been regularly visiting to do volunteer work in the past years. To some my friends in politics, both the idea of going independent and disclosing my choice of ward to contest in the next election so soon were against conventional political wisdom. But, why should that always be the case? If they earnestly wish to improve the electoral system, they must be ready to challenge conventional wisdom and think out of the box. 

 

I was asked if I was concerned about three-corner fights. This seems to be a common worry for potential candidates and the voters. Again, my thoughts are quite different. I feel that voters are entitled to make their choices and to decide who to vote for without interference. With closed-door negotiations to avoid multi-corner fights, the voters' choices become limited to only those who are allowed to contest by private treaty. That seems to run against the very idea of an open democratic system.

In any event, for a maturing democracy, voters should not be afraid of making choices. If the voters' objective is not to dilute the votes for the alternative party candidates by them agreeing not to engage in three-corner fights, the voters themselves will unwittingly stifle the development of a truly multi-party political system. The voters need to find the courage to face the ballot box just as much as the candidates themselves.

Ultimately, it will be the voters who will decide the outcomes in every election. May the voters not only have the courage to choose but also the wisdom to know how.