Are we actually surprised that this is happening (article by bernama.com, the article has been reproduced below)? It seems that any activity that is not PAP based is considered to have the potential for public disorder and mischief, and may disrupt community life.
And how about this line Ho said the East Coast Park was a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families and not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause. Doesn't this sound familiar? I wonder where I've read it before.
Pink Picnic
It has come to our attention that People Like Us is planning to hold a series of events under the banner of Indignation 2007. Two of the events - a picnic on 9 August 2007 and a 5 km-run on 11 August 2007 - will be held in the Singapore Botanic Gardens.
As the events are advertised, they are considered organised gatherings. Permission from the National Parks Board will be required to hold them in our parks and gardens.
We have considered the matter carefully, and regret to inform you that the Board cannot allow you to hold your events at the Singapore Botanic Gardens. The Singapore Botanic Gardens is a premier botanical institution. We do not want it to be used as a venue for interest groups to politicise their cause. For that matter, it is our policy to keep such activities out of our parks and gardens.
We seek your cooperation in this matter.
Read the full article Picking on a picnic
The Pink Run
He soon went back to the script and said that he had to inform me that the Pink Run would be against the law -- something about the Miscellaneous Offences Act, to which I replied (to the effect of), "Why are you telling me? I am not the organiser."
Read the full article Police declare joggers an "illegal assembly"
It seems we are not the only one that gets the "not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause" treatment.
So people remember PAP based programs and activities "promote social well-being and a sense of community". Non-PAP based programs and activities "are used by political parties/special interest groups to promote their cause" and "have the potential to disrupt community and family life". What was it that George Orwell wrote... 4 legs good, 2 legs bad? As it is known, only the PAP can be non-partisan (as we can see from the 3 examples above) and all others are always partisan (a good example is mr brown's article on "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!" and the PAP's reaction to it)
It is all so clear to me now.
Bernama.com
27 August 2007
Singapore Police Reject Permit For Opposition Party's Cycling Event
By Jackson Sawatan
SINGAPORE, Aug 27 (Bernama) -- Plans by Singapore's main opposition party, the Workers' Party, to hold a cycling event in conjunction with its 50th anniversary, hit a dead end after its application for a police permit was rejected.
The mass cycling event was to be held on Sept 9 at the East Coast Park, a popular beachside park located along the east coast highway here.
Party chairman Sylvia Lim raised a question over the issue in Parliament today and was told that such activities "have the potential for public disorder and mischief, and may disrupt community life."
"Police requirement is that such party activities be held indoors or within stadiums, so that any law and order problems will be contained. This policy applies to all political parties," Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee said in reply to Lim's question.
Ho said the East Coast Park was a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families and not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause.
The Workers' Party was set up in 1957 by David Marshall, the first chief minister of Singapore.
It has two representatives in the Singapore parliament, namely its secretary-general, Low Thia Khiang who is MP for Hougang and Lim as the non-constituency member of parliament (NCMP).
NCMPs are appointed from among the best performing opposition losers in a general election.
-- BERNAMA
28 August 2007
23 August 2007
Laughing Stock
IndigNation has been over for a week and I think it is time for me to get off my lazy chair and write about it.
Well, I wasn't there and what I know is from reports from the organisers and new papers around the world.
IndigNation this year has been a big controversy. There have been things that were banned because they are either "promoting a homosexual lifestyle" (what the fuck is a homosexual lifestyle, can some heterosexual who uses this pharse explain it to me!) or "for having some political agenda".
I wouldn't write much about it because I think yawningbread covers it very well.
My kissing project, part 3
Bark and crumble
Picking on a picnic
Police declare joggers an "illegal assembly"
One thing I'd like to know are these "bannings" because the current gahmen/cabinate wanted it banned or it is the various mindless government agencies censoring it because they "think" (gosh what a funny thing to say, government agencies thinking) the gahmen/Singaporeans want it banned. Or can it be the vocal fundamentalist christian minority who cased the bannings to happen? We would never really know.
With every banning, international newspapers (e.g. yahoo news and Internation Herald Tribune, I think even the Wall Street Journal picked up on 1 story) picked it up. Not putting Singapore in a good light. This really contrast PM Lee's "we need to have an all inclusive society"
There are two ways for the gahmen to go with this. To totally ban everything GLBT and GLBT related (including all books and shows), which of course will not go down well with other developed nations, making Singapore look more like a nanny/police state and shows that the gahmen is really paying lip service when they say they are not homophobic (and if they can pay lip service to their own citizens what more the rest of the world). The other is to let it be within limits (but what are the limits? I mean judge it this way, if the heterosexuals can do it, then we should be allowed to, that is my "within limits").
What the gahmen is thinking of doing is really anyone's guess but for the GLBT population in Singapore, I really hope that the gahmen really starts opening up and respect it's GLBT members as real human beings and real citizens of a country that they love.
Well, I wasn't there and what I know is from reports from the organisers and new papers around the world.
IndigNation this year has been a big controversy. There have been things that were banned because they are either "promoting a homosexual lifestyle" (what the fuck is a homosexual lifestyle, can some heterosexual who uses this pharse explain it to me!) or "for having some political agenda".
I wouldn't write much about it because I think yawningbread covers it very well.
My kissing project, part 3
Bark and crumble
Picking on a picnic
Police declare joggers an "illegal assembly"
One thing I'd like to know are these "bannings" because the current gahmen/cabinate wanted it banned or it is the various mindless government agencies censoring it because they "think" (gosh what a funny thing to say, government agencies thinking) the gahmen/Singaporeans want it banned. Or can it be the vocal fundamentalist christian minority who cased the bannings to happen? We would never really know.
With every banning, international newspapers (e.g. yahoo news and Internation Herald Tribune, I think even the Wall Street Journal picked up on 1 story) picked it up. Not putting Singapore in a good light. This really contrast PM Lee's "we need to have an all inclusive society"
There are two ways for the gahmen to go with this. To totally ban everything GLBT and GLBT related (including all books and shows), which of course will not go down well with other developed nations, making Singapore look more like a nanny/police state and shows that the gahmen is really paying lip service when they say they are not homophobic (and if they can pay lip service to their own citizens what more the rest of the world). The other is to let it be within limits (but what are the limits? I mean judge it this way, if the heterosexuals can do it, then we should be allowed to, that is my "within limits").
What the gahmen is thinking of doing is really anyone's guess but for the GLBT population in Singapore, I really hope that the gahmen really starts opening up and respect it's GLBT members as real human beings and real citizens of a country that they love.
09 August 2007
Put away the flags
As today is National Day. I put up an article by Howard Zinn, it has as much relevance to us as it does to USA.
Let us remember and rejoice in all the hikes that have happened and the hike that is to come. Let us remember and rejoice that there are people in our population who cannot survive on the the pay they get and our gahmen is not lifting a finger to help them. Let us remember and rejoice in a ruling party that believes it is the best and thus deserve to give itself a huge pay increase.
Most of all, let us remember and rejoice that life in Singapore is getting more and more difficult because it is due to our fault and the ruling party is forever held blameless.
Yes, let us remember and rejoice.
Singapore 42nd National Day Parade
National Day Parade 2007
Put away the flags
by Howard Zinn
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.
Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.
That self-deception started early.
When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession."
When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day."
On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our "Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence." After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: "We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."
It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to war.
We invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate the Cubans, and went to war in the Philippines shortly after, as President McKinley put it, "to civilize and Christianize" the Filipino people.
As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: "The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness."
We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.
Yet they are victims, too, of our government's lies.
How many times have we heard President Bush tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for "liberty," for "democracy"?
One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail in 2004 that God speaks through him.
We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.
We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.
Howard Zinn, a World War II bombardier, is the author of the best-
selling "A People's History of the United States" (Perennial Classics, 2003, latest edition). This piece was distributed by the Progressive Media Project in 2006.
Let us remember and rejoice in all the hikes that have happened and the hike that is to come. Let us remember and rejoice that there are people in our population who cannot survive on the the pay they get and our gahmen is not lifting a finger to help them. Let us remember and rejoice in a ruling party that believes it is the best and thus deserve to give itself a huge pay increase.
Most of all, let us remember and rejoice that life in Singapore is getting more and more difficult because it is due to our fault and the ruling party is forever held blameless.
Yes, let us remember and rejoice.
Singapore 42nd National Day Parade
National Day Parade 2007
Put away the flags
by Howard Zinn
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.
Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.
That self-deception started early.
When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession."
When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day."
On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our "Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence." After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: "We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."
It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to war.
We invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate the Cubans, and went to war in the Philippines shortly after, as President McKinley put it, "to civilize and Christianize" the Filipino people.
As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: "The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness."
We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.
Yet they are victims, too, of our government's lies.
How many times have we heard President Bush tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for "liberty," for "democracy"?
One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail in 2004 that God speaks through him.
We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.
We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.
Howard Zinn, a World War II bombardier, is the author of the best-
selling "A People's History of the United States" (Perennial Classics, 2003, latest edition). This piece was distributed by the Progressive Media Project in 2006.
03 August 2007
Haves and have-nots
I find this article really full of irony (but I'll just pick on one).
Don't you just love this paragraph "Dr Hew also pointed out another economic challenge - the wide income gap between the haves and have-nots in Asean.".
Maybe it is just me? But as my dead maternal grandmother would say, "Tidy up your own home first before you tidy up somebody's home."
Today 02 August 2007
TOUGH CHALLENGES AHEAD FOR S'PORE'S STEWARDSHIP OF ASEAN
--------------------------------------------------------
Nazry Bahrawi
nazry@mediacorp.com.sg
A KEY task for Singapore as Asean's new chairman is to help the grouping meet its deadline of setting up an economic community by 2015.
Singapore's challenge is to ensure that member countries live up to their commitment to implement economic integration initiatives, said Dr Denis Hew of the Institute of South-east Asian Studies (Iseas).
However, the good economic performance of Asean member nations will make it easier for the Republic to push for an economic agenda.
CIMB-GK Research regional economist Song Seng Wun said: "The timing is apt. Singapore may be able to nudge member countries towards reducing trade barriers further or integrating an economic community."
Dr Hew also pointed out another economic challenge - the wide income gap between the haves and have-nots in Asean.
He believes Singapore can help less-developed countries like Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam with their economic reform measures.
While analysts generally agree that Singapore, as Asean chairman, can chart the course in the areas of finance and economy, the Republic may face challenges that are more difficult to overcome on other fronts.
One issue it must tread carefully on is Myanmar, said research fellow Dr Hiro Katsumata from the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).
He said: "If Asean pushes too hard, Myanmar will walk away from the association. It should be noted that Asean needs Myanmar, as much as Myanmar needs Asean. The unity of the association is very important for all the members."
Singapore may also need to tackle a perceived "image problem" to play its role as chairman more effectively.
Mr Song said: "Perhaps, our bureaucrats are seen to be following too much by the book. We are seen as too strict rather than able to take a more flexible approach. To overcome this, we have to hang up the suits and learn to party."
Don't you just love this paragraph "Dr Hew also pointed out another economic challenge - the wide income gap between the haves and have-nots in Asean.".
Maybe it is just me? But as my dead maternal grandmother would say, "Tidy up your own home first before you tidy up somebody's home."
Today 02 August 2007
TOUGH CHALLENGES AHEAD FOR S'PORE'S STEWARDSHIP OF ASEAN
--------------------------------------------------------
Nazry Bahrawi
nazry@mediacorp.com.sg
A KEY task for Singapore as Asean's new chairman is to help the grouping meet its deadline of setting up an economic community by 2015.
Singapore's challenge is to ensure that member countries live up to their commitment to implement economic integration initiatives, said Dr Denis Hew of the Institute of South-east Asian Studies (Iseas).
However, the good economic performance of Asean member nations will make it easier for the Republic to push for an economic agenda.
CIMB-GK Research regional economist Song Seng Wun said: "The timing is apt. Singapore may be able to nudge member countries towards reducing trade barriers further or integrating an economic community."
Dr Hew also pointed out another economic challenge - the wide income gap between the haves and have-nots in Asean.
He believes Singapore can help less-developed countries like Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam with their economic reform measures.
While analysts generally agree that Singapore, as Asean chairman, can chart the course in the areas of finance and economy, the Republic may face challenges that are more difficult to overcome on other fronts.
One issue it must tread carefully on is Myanmar, said research fellow Dr Hiro Katsumata from the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).
He said: "If Asean pushes too hard, Myanmar will walk away from the association. It should be noted that Asean needs Myanmar, as much as Myanmar needs Asean. The unity of the association is very important for all the members."
Singapore may also need to tackle a perceived "image problem" to play its role as chairman more effectively.
Mr Song said: "Perhaps, our bureaucrats are seen to be following too much by the book. We are seen as too strict rather than able to take a more flexible approach. To overcome this, we have to hang up the suits and learn to party."
02 August 2007
I don't think we are homophobic
"I don't think we are homophobic" Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said.
The government is not homophobic, the Prime Minister says
Does this statement correlate with the article in the International Herald Tribune?
International Herald Tribune
Singapore bans photo exhibition on gays, lesbians kissing
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
SINGAPORE: Singapore's censors have banned an exhibition of photographs depicting gay men and women kissing, a gay rights activist said Wednesday, calling the move "absurd."
The city-state's Media Development Authority denied the exhibition's organizers a license on the grounds that the photographs "promote a homosexual lifestyle," Alex Au, founder of a Singapore gay rights group, People Like Us, told The Associated Press.
The exhibition, entitled "Kissing," is a selection of 80 posed shots of same-sex kissing between fully clothed models, said Au, who shot the photographs.
"Kissing" was canceled after organizers received a letter from the Media Development Authority on Monday saying it was rejecting their application for a license to hold the exhibition, Au said.
The media regulator confirmed in an e-mailed statement it rejected Au's application for a license to hold the exhibition.
"Presently, homosexual content is allowed in the appropriate context but it should not be of a promotional or exploitative nature," Amy Tsang, deputy director of media content, said in the statement.
"The proposed exhibition ... which focuses mainly on homosexual kissing is deemed to promote a homosexual lifestyle, and cannot be allowed."
Tsang said, however, that authorities have previously allowed "brief same-sex kissing" in stage plays and adult-rated films.
The exhibition was part of "Indignation," a two-week gay pride series of forums, film screenings, lectures and other events that was scheduled to start later Wednesday.
"It's absurd to think that gay people do not also kiss, and that representation of such a reality would be subversive," Au said. "There is a very stereotypical representation of gays and lesbians as deviants and I think it is important to correct the stereotype."
Au added that in place of the canceled exhibition, organizers have planned a talk to be accompanied by a slideshow of the photographs. Indoor gatherings do not require police permits.
Under Singapore law, gay sex is deemed "an act of gross indecency," punishable by a maximum of two years in jail. Authorities have banned gay festivals and censored gay films, saying homosexuality should not be advocated as a lifestyle choice. Despite the official ban on gay sex, there have been few prosecutions.
___
On the Net:
"Indignation," Singapore gay pride series: http://www.plu.sg/indignation/
The government is not homophobic, the Prime Minister says
Does this statement correlate with the article in the International Herald Tribune?
International Herald Tribune
Singapore bans photo exhibition on gays, lesbians kissing
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
SINGAPORE: Singapore's censors have banned an exhibition of photographs depicting gay men and women kissing, a gay rights activist said Wednesday, calling the move "absurd."
The city-state's Media Development Authority denied the exhibition's organizers a license on the grounds that the photographs "promote a homosexual lifestyle," Alex Au, founder of a Singapore gay rights group, People Like Us, told The Associated Press.
The exhibition, entitled "Kissing," is a selection of 80 posed shots of same-sex kissing between fully clothed models, said Au, who shot the photographs.
"Kissing" was canceled after organizers received a letter from the Media Development Authority on Monday saying it was rejecting their application for a license to hold the exhibition, Au said.
The media regulator confirmed in an e-mailed statement it rejected Au's application for a license to hold the exhibition.
"Presently, homosexual content is allowed in the appropriate context but it should not be of a promotional or exploitative nature," Amy Tsang, deputy director of media content, said in the statement.
"The proposed exhibition ... which focuses mainly on homosexual kissing is deemed to promote a homosexual lifestyle, and cannot be allowed."
Tsang said, however, that authorities have previously allowed "brief same-sex kissing" in stage plays and adult-rated films.
The exhibition was part of "Indignation," a two-week gay pride series of forums, film screenings, lectures and other events that was scheduled to start later Wednesday.
"It's absurd to think that gay people do not also kiss, and that representation of such a reality would be subversive," Au said. "There is a very stereotypical representation of gays and lesbians as deviants and I think it is important to correct the stereotype."
Au added that in place of the canceled exhibition, organizers have planned a talk to be accompanied by a slideshow of the photographs. Indoor gatherings do not require police permits.
Under Singapore law, gay sex is deemed "an act of gross indecency," punishable by a maximum of two years in jail. Authorities have banned gay festivals and censored gay films, saying homosexuality should not be advocated as a lifestyle choice. Despite the official ban on gay sex, there have been few prosecutions.
___
On the Net:
"Indignation," Singapore gay pride series: http://www.plu.sg/indignation/
The year of plenty...... increases
Can I say I'm really surprised? Can any of us say that? Justification - oil, labour, etc. prices have gone up. Isn't that the same reasons they gave every year that they want to increase the price? Compare this to - "We need to increase the pay of ____ because there have been a wage freeze for xx years", "we need this amount to attract the brightest" (no prizes for guessing who are the ones that said that).
Notice one thing, that whenever there is an increase in something (GST, salary, fares, etc.), the gahmen is always there to justify it with the "justifications" above. Those are the root of the arguments and everything else is based on it.
The only exception from this is wage increase for us peons. Whenever the argument turns to us, the reason why our pay is low is because of market forces, not skilled workforce c.p. "we need to increase the ___ salaries because they 'deserve' it" (wait, where is the market force argument?), "we need it to attract good people" (good in whose eyes? and can't we say we need to attract good people to the workforce too? hmmm...)
The online citizen has a great article about the fare hikes and it seems that for the past 6 (2000 - 2006) years, fares have increased 5 times, with a very big increase in the net profit of the various companies.
I'm not holding my breath for the outcome?
Add this to the list of increases this year
Taken from Today 01 August 2007
TICKET TO HIKE, PLEASE
----------------------
PTC urged to review fare increase proposals critically
Leong Wee Keat
weekeat@mediacorp.com.sg
Come October, a bus or train trip could cost 1 to 3 cents more on average. Both public transport operators have applied to the Public Transport Council (PTC) for a fare increase.
While no details were given of the proposals submitted yesterday, SBS Transit and SMRT must keep the hikes capped at 1.8 per cent of current fares, as dictated by the PTC's formula.
Both operators cite growing costs as the reason for asking for a fare hike (see box) - though SMRT said the maximum allowed adjustment would only partially mitigate increases in energy costs.
At the same time, the operators are proposing that children, student and concession fares remain unchanged. SMRT added, it would not hike cash fares for adult, child and senior citizens on its buses, and may extend senior citizens' travel concessions during weekday evening peak hours.
Still, the proposed fare increases were criticised by commuters Today spoke to. Auditor Lim Wen Yu said: "Besides service reliability, you need low fares to attract people to switch to public transport."
Public relations consultant Lionnel Lim wondered why fare hikes were being mooted when both operators have been posting profits. "Even a 1-cent increase would hurt the pockets of the lower income," he said.
SBS Transit said it would consider schemes to help this group offset the hike, while SMRT will extend help through the Public Transport Fund.
In the first quarter of this year, SBS Transit posted operating profits of $16.4 million and SMRT Group's bus and rail businesses recorded operating profits of $32.4 million.
While the company remains profitable, SBS Transit said: "A fare adjustment is necessary to ensure that it continues to earn sufficient money to be able to invest in its business, so as to improve its services to serve commuters better."
Mr Cedric Foo, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for transport, urged the PTC to look at the proposed adjustments "critically" - especially at both operators' returns on capital employed and productivity.
Mr Foo told Today: "It is clear that fuel and manpower costs have gone up. But have they gone up to such an extent to dilute the return on capital, as to warrant an increase at this point?"
"If they are found to be affecting returns to a great extent, then the operators would have reasonable cause (to apply for a proposed fare hike)."
Results of the PTC's deliberations may be out next month.
Notice one thing, that whenever there is an increase in something (GST, salary, fares, etc.), the gahmen is always there to justify it with the "justifications" above. Those are the root of the arguments and everything else is based on it.
The only exception from this is wage increase for us peons. Whenever the argument turns to us, the reason why our pay is low is because of market forces, not skilled workforce c.p. "we need to increase the ___ salaries because they 'deserve' it" (wait, where is the market force argument?), "we need it to attract good people" (good in whose eyes? and can't we say we need to attract good people to the workforce too? hmmm...)
The online citizen has a great article about the fare hikes and it seems that for the past 6 (2000 - 2006) years, fares have increased 5 times, with a very big increase in the net profit of the various companies.
I'm not holding my breath for the outcome?
Add this to the list of increases this year
Taken from Today 01 August 2007
TICKET TO HIKE, PLEASE
----------------------
PTC urged to review fare increase proposals critically
Leong Wee Keat
weekeat@mediacorp.com.sg
Come October, a bus or train trip could cost 1 to 3 cents more on average. Both public transport operators have applied to the Public Transport Council (PTC) for a fare increase.
While no details were given of the proposals submitted yesterday, SBS Transit and SMRT must keep the hikes capped at 1.8 per cent of current fares, as dictated by the PTC's formula.
Both operators cite growing costs as the reason for asking for a fare hike (see box) - though SMRT said the maximum allowed adjustment would only partially mitigate increases in energy costs.
At the same time, the operators are proposing that children, student and concession fares remain unchanged. SMRT added, it would not hike cash fares for adult, child and senior citizens on its buses, and may extend senior citizens' travel concessions during weekday evening peak hours.
Still, the proposed fare increases were criticised by commuters Today spoke to. Auditor Lim Wen Yu said: "Besides service reliability, you need low fares to attract people to switch to public transport."
Public relations consultant Lionnel Lim wondered why fare hikes were being mooted when both operators have been posting profits. "Even a 1-cent increase would hurt the pockets of the lower income," he said.
SBS Transit said it would consider schemes to help this group offset the hike, while SMRT will extend help through the Public Transport Fund.
In the first quarter of this year, SBS Transit posted operating profits of $16.4 million and SMRT Group's bus and rail businesses recorded operating profits of $32.4 million.
While the company remains profitable, SBS Transit said: "A fare adjustment is necessary to ensure that it continues to earn sufficient money to be able to invest in its business, so as to improve its services to serve commuters better."
Mr Cedric Foo, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for transport, urged the PTC to look at the proposed adjustments "critically" - especially at both operators' returns on capital employed and productivity.
Mr Foo told Today: "It is clear that fuel and manpower costs have gone up. But have they gone up to such an extent to dilute the return on capital, as to warrant an increase at this point?"
"If they are found to be affecting returns to a great extent, then the operators would have reasonable cause (to apply for a proposed fare hike)."
Results of the PTC's deliberations may be out next month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
