Where’s the leadership, Mr. Lee?: The Government’s non-response to tertiary students over the concession fares issue

We are all used to this.

Public transport operators are listed companies and need to earn a profit for their operations. At the urging of the public, they have granted concessions to various groups of people. However the more concessions that are granted, it would mean that other commuters would have to pay higher fares to make up the difference. [Yeo Cheow Tong, 2001]

In Singapore’s case, public transport concessions are provided by the public transport operators based on their commercial considerations.  Any concession that the PTOs grant, such as for senior citizens, is a form of cross-subsidy from other full-paying adults. [Raymond Lim, 2005]

Concessionary travel on basic bus and train services are determined and granted by the public transport operators (PTOs). The cost of concessions is ultimately cross-subsidised by other full-fare paying commuters and the operators have to take this into consideration before extending travel concessions beyond the present arrangement. [Lui Tuck Yew, 2011]

This is a non-answer. It is a non-answer on two basis.

1. The fallacy of that ‘economic burden’ argument 

We are always told that “the cost of concessions is ultimately cross-subsidised by other full-fare paying commuters.” The last I check, the SMRT leases out approximately 28,900 square metres of commercial space within the train network. A total of 33 MRT stations have been refurbished with increased space and rental yields. Average occupancy rate in FY2010 remained high at 99%. SMRT alone achieved rental revenue of $65 million despite economic downturn as reflected in its 2010 financial year report. This was an increase of 13% from the previous year. SMRT expects rental revenue to grow by another $6 million with increased rental space at MRT stations. This is notwithstanding the revenues it made from its taxi business and advertising streams.

SBS on the other hand, made $50.1 million from its outdoor advertising and rental streams. (Bus Advertising, In-Train Advertising, Interchange Advertising, Train Station Advertising, Shop Space, Road Show Space) This was an increase of 32.9% increase in revenue over the past year.

The cost of concessions need not necessarily have to be cross-subsidisied by other full-fare paying commuters. It can be cross subsidised by other revenue streams under the charge of both SMRT and SBS. Besides, it must be noted that even without the increasing the concessions for tertiary students, the fares of adult commuters have increased over the years.

Besides, the junior college students are enjoying a higher rate of subsidies as compared to the tertiary students. Who is paying for their subsidies? That “full-fare paying commuter”?

So the government’s argument is fallacious to say the least and falls completely flat when considered further. It is a non-answer.

2. The Government has much greater influence over the Public Transport Council (PTC) and the public transport operators (PTOs) than it has acknowledged in its public statements.

Transport fares don’t just go down during economic downturns with a simple announcement made by the PTC. The government has a big role in it. Given that the public transport operators are commercial entitles, public transport fares would only go up and not down. The demand for public transport in Singapore is essentially inelastic. The existing model essentially perpetuates the influence of two monopolies operating in different areas and often times, they do not overlap. The incentive factor to improve its productivity and the competitive advantage is non-existent in this context. There is no need to lower fares. In fact, it is a fallacy to think that SBS Transit and SMRT represent genuine competition which will ensures efficiency and good performance, within the context of rigorous market discipline. In fact, upon each request, the Public Transport Council kindly offers the PTOs with a blank cheque to run roughshod over the hard-earned income and savings of ordinary Singaporeans, registering record profits year after year while the real income of ordinary Singaporeans continue to fall.

The same bottom line argument can still be used for refusing to lower fares during economic recessions. However, the government will not allow that. The government’s role on the PTC and the PTOs is and can be significant. The government has to make a political judgement and ultimately it has to be responsible for the judgment made. At the core of it, the government needs to have the will but as seen repeatedly, this government lacks the will to do the right thing on the tertiary concession fares issue. It is disappointing to say the least.

Nonetheless, a non-response is better than a no-answer but that is just not enough. The government can certainly do better than that. The government was elected by the parents of junior college and tertiary students to ensure an affordable standard of living for all. Right now, the government is leaving the elderly, the disabled and tertiary students behind. Action, moral clarity and the will to govern fairly is sorely lacking.

At the end of the day, it is not stating too much to highlight that this inherent unfairness within the concession fare structure is becoming a source of disappointment and disillusionment amongst the student community and their parents. A decisive gesture on the part of the government in tandem with the PTC and PTOs to resolve this inherent conflict in the same spirit of responsible, rational and constructive engagement would be much appreciated.

The government needs to be more responsible to its electorate and lead. This is at the end of it, a leadership problem. Don’t push the responsibility around with a single narrative. Start leading.

The recent Speakers’ Corner event organised by the Young PAP and past petitions and outreaches over the years have at the very least shown our government the meaning of humility and more importantly, the need for leadership, sorely lacking in this issue.

Leadership cannot be demanded. It has to be earned.

Where’s the leadership, Mr. Lee?

Filed under: PAP, Singapore, Junior Colleges, Polytechnics, Student Transportation, Tertiary Concession Fares

Why Singapore need a First World Parliament?: Mr. Inderjit Singh and his magnanimity

Singapore needs a First World Parliament and the case of the Workers’ Party has been buttressed by none other than the People’s Action Party (PAP) itself, more specifically by Mr. Inderjit Singh, member of Parliament for Ang Mo Kio GRC. I am glad to know that Mr. Singh has unconsciously subscribed to the ideas put forth in the Workers’ Party 2011 Election Manifesto.

WP – A Vehicle To Move Towards a First World Parliament

Singapore has come a long way towards First World infrastructure and economic advancement. However, it cannot claim to be a truly First World country until its governance mechanisms of checks and balances match up. The Parliament of Singapore today consists of 82 elected Members from the ruling People’s Action Party (“PAP”) and 2 elected Members from the opposition. If this imbalance is not corrected, we run the risk that Parliament will be seen as a rubber stamp for government agenda.

A First World Parliament is able to balance a strong executive government if there is a credible and responsible opposition with a mandate from the electorate. This will generate a culture of accountability and enable citizens of different political stripes to contribute to nation building and policy formulation in a vital Organ of State. A First World Parliament leaves nothing to chance and prepares for eventualities, including the decline of political parties which are strong today.The higher the number of established players in Parliament, the greater the insurance for the future. [Workers' Party 2011 Manifesto, Page 6 and 7]

In a speech to the party faithful during the 2011 PAP Convention on 27 November 2011, Mr. Singh stated that,

‎”Our policy making, is mainly a top down approach, largely driven by civil-servants, who formulate these policies and then justify them with facts and figures to convince the minister to get the policies approved.”

I guess there is enough credence to say that the PAP leadership have been framing the efforts and policies of our civil servants as their own, so as to discredit the opposition for their own political gain at the expense of robust debate, consultation and discussion. The opposition is as good as the PAP without the civil service. Viewed in this light, the sum paid to our ministers is not only exorbitant and wasteful but more importantly, the Workers’ Party do have more policy substance than the PAP as seen in their 2006 and 2011 manifestoes. Interesting, interesting indeed. The only difference between the PAP and the Workers’ Party is incumbency and the civil service and the many honest and hardworking civil servants in our government.

Mr. Singh went on to state in his speech that, “today when the bills are brought to parliament, they are already fully ‘cooked’ with no intent for further changes. I think we are losing a great opportunity to inject more wisdom and political judgment into bills and policies by not taking into account inputs from the MPs during parliament debates.”

He further said that “So instead of always trying to complete the 2nd and 3rd reading of bills on the same day,  why not allow MPs to form committees to further scrutinize the bills by consulting activists through channels like the policy forum and to suggest changes.”

So the truth is out. Parliament for a very long time has been the rubberstamp for the agenda of the government, whose policies are shaped by our civil service and decided upon by our ministers. In view of the 2011 watershed election, it must be said that our ministers does have really poor political acumen and judgment, a trait that is essential if Singapore as a nation-state is to survive in a turbulent and globalised world. Alas.

The case for a First World Parliament is made even more appropriate and worthwhile in light of Mr. Inderjit Singh’s statement.

However, Mr. Singh has a different proposal, one that is different from that proposed by the Workers’ Party.

I suggest that as much as we can do it, we should bring only ‘half cooked’ bills to into parliament.

Mr. Singh’s purpose for suggesting such an absurd idea is to “allow greater debate on bills and allow inputs beyond what the civil servants already provide to be incorporated.”

That in itself is worrying. Now who’s the one playing politics.

The more important point is this. The entire argument for a checks and balance from within the PAP has fallen completely flat. The ideological relationship between the Party and the people has been render asunder and bankrupt. The problem with the PAP is fundamental one, premised on its inability to understand the hopes and aspirations of ordinary Singaporeans, increasingly highlighted by its inability to resolve the physiological needs of Singaporeans and continually hampered by intellectual stagnation.

Singapore needs a new deal, not a new normal. [I have spoken about A New Deal for Singapore in my earlier posting]

Singapore needs a First World Parliament. The Workers’ Party is right on this point. For that I like to thank Mr. Inderjit Singh for his magnanimous comments at a Convention that was supposed to uplift the spirit of its party faithful. The irony cannot be more pronounced.

Filed under: PAP, Parliament, Politics, Singapore, Workers' Party, 工人党, PAP Convention 2011

Calling for a Student Concession Fares Forum with the Public Transport Council

A Facebook Page has recently been set up to continue the process of addressing the fundamental unfairness between tertiary students and their junior colleges peers and local university students and private universities students.

A description on the Page stated the following:

The fundamental issue of unfairness in concession fares between a JC/ITE student and a tertiary student continues to remain unresolved. The latest fare reduction in 2009, on hindsight looks like a false dawn towards future reforms in the concession fare structure for tertiary students.

In light of the implementation of a distance-based through fare structure in June 2010, a reform of the concession fare structure would be especially essential. What is required here is a transparent fare mechanism to determine all concessionary rates, rather than ad hoc and temporary lowering of fares in response to public pressure.

This Page provides a platform for tertiary students, junior college students, parents and friends to offer their suggestions in working out a feasible concession fare mechanism to determine student transportation fares

This Page calls for a student concession fares public meeting/ forum with the Public Transport Council (PTC) and representatives of SBS, SMRT and Transitlink in a rational, responsible and constructive engagement to work out a sustainable and win-win arrangement for both the students, parents and the relevant authorities. 

A request for a public meeting/ forum will be sent in to the PTC after more than 5,000 likes to this page has been achieved.

Thank you.

Regards,
Taking the Initiative
student.transport.fares@gmail.com

To “Like” the Page, please refer to the following URL - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Call-for-a-Student-Concession-Fares-Forum-with-the-Public-Transport-Council/304483882910320

Filed under: Uncategorized

Missing the Point – That 10-years series answer to tertiary students since 2001

This article traces the development of the single narrative put forth by the government in rationalising the unfair transport concessionary arrangements for polytechnic students vis-à-vis their peers in a junior college.

2001 – Why the unfairness?

On 25 September 2001, Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology why is it that students from the polytechnics pay adult fares for rides on buses and on the MRT whereas those from junior colleges only pay student’s concession rates, when both are of the same age and are students.

In his response to Mr. Chiam, the Minister for Transport, Mr. Yeo Cheow Tong said,

The public transport operators grant concessionary travel to various groups of individuals, such as pre-school children, students and senior citizens, to help lower their cost of travelling. The privileges and types of concession offered differ from group to group.

The public transport operators have a different concessionary travel scheme for students in tertiary institutions compared to those in schools. The polytechnics are considered as tertiary institutions.

For tertiary students, the operators offer two types of concession schemes. The first is the monthly bus concession stamp, which allows the holder to take unlimited number of trips on buses for the month that he or she holds a valid stamp. The other is the monthly MRT concession ticket, which entitles the holder of a valid ticket to travel on the MRT and LRT systems up to 4 trips a day.

Thus, a tertiary student who makes extensive use of the public transport system can cut down his or her transport expenditure by making use of the available concession schemes.

Public transport operators are listed companies and need to earn a profit for their operations. At the urging of the public, they have granted concessions to various groups of people. However the more concessions that are granted, it would mean that other commuters would have to pay higher fares to make up the difference.

A similar answer was given by Mr. Yeo Cheow Tong to Mr. Ong Kian Min (Tampines) to his speech in 2006.

Sir, Mr Ong [Kian Min] lamented about the reluctance of the PTOs to widen the use of travel concessions and season tickets. These are granted by the PTOs to various groups of individuals, such as pre-school children, students and senior citizens, to help lower their cost of travelling. These concessions remain the prerogative of the PTOs, and they are actually cross-subsidised by the majority of full-fare-paying commuters. The PTOs have, therefore, been very prudent about extending the travel concessions beyond the present groups, as it would ultimately result in other commuters paying higher fares.

2005 – What is the role of the Government?

During the Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Transport on 3 March 2005, then Marine Parade GRC Member of Parliament, Mr. Andy Gan argued, “subsidies or rebates on fares for senior citizens and students should be forthcoming from transport operators instead of from the Government only.” He went on to say that the public transport operators could demonstrate their active community involvement through transport fare subsidies for senior citizens and students.

Mr. Andy Gan went on to suggest that the Government can plays its part by “giving tax concessions to transport operators for every dollar of subsidy contributed as an incentive for their contribution to society. Thus, with a combination of efforts from the Government and the private sector and a transparent approach to setting public transport fares, future adjustments to the public transport fares could be less controversial.”

It seems that Mr. Raymond, Minister of Transport in 2008 had an answer to Mr. Gan’s suggestion in 2005. He said in the Committee of Supply debate for his ministry in that year (6 March 2008). On the idea that that the state comes in directly and subvents across the board, Mr. Lim said, “I do not think this is advisable. When the state comes in, it should be targeted to those who really need help.”

He went on to explain to the House and Singaporeans the rationale for not extending greater transport concessions to the elderly, low-income and the young by reiterating an argument that Singaporeans have gotten all too familiar with.

In Singapore’s case, public transport concessions are provided by the public transport operators based on their commercial considerations. Any concession that the PTOs grant, such as for senior citizens, is a form of cross-subsidy from other full-paying adults.

On that point alone, Ms. Eunice Olsen, Nominated Member of Parliament deemed it as “unacceptable”

2009 – Fares lowered in the midst of economic downturns, Unfairness remains

The unfairness in transport concessionary fares between Junior Colleges and Polytechnic students was especially pertinent during times of severe economic downturns. In the 2009 Budget debate, many members of Parliament raised this issue again.

“There is a sharp difference of fares that are paid by junior college students and Polytechnic students. Students purchase the same concession passes which have the symptoms of use. I urge the Government to overlook and to establish a fairer system of charging concession passes for all students by adjusting the prices for concession passes for Polytechnic students and we will be able to relieve the heavy financial burden of families, of all middle-income with at least one child in Polytechnic. Relieving costs at a time of belt-tightening in expenditure.” [Chiam See Tong, Potong Pasir]

I would like to plead on behalf of the polytechnic students. Unlike the junior college students, polytechnic students do not enjoy concessionary bus and MRT fares. I believe that this economic recession is the best time to correct this anomaly. [Er Lee Bee Wah, Ang Mo Kio GRC]

The transport operators’ explanation that to give our polytechnic students cheaper fare would mean higher charges for public fare is not acceptable. There is no need for this direct relationship. It is an expense item, but there are also many forms of revenue as well. URA and LTA over last few years have allowed more and more retail space in the MRT stations, and this space provides added revenue. Can MOT and the Transport Council be more persuasive and effective on this matter? [Cynthia Phua, Aljunied GRC]

On the point of unfairness, the minister gave a terse, feeble and illogical response, “The operators decide on concessions. However, I would encourage them to see how best they can help in these difficult times. Polytechnic students are a large and diverse group – there are students from wealthy families and students from less well-off families. We should not ask taxpayers to subsidise the fares of polytechnic students who could well afford it.”

In light of the economic situation in 2009, the Public Transport Council after consultation with the student campaign and many other stakeholders, tertiary students concession fares were reduced.

Below is a transcript on Gerald Ee’s reply to a journalist, when asked on how the reduction in tertiary student concession fares will help the polytechnic students. Gerald Ee is the Chairman of the Public Transport Council

Journalist:

[How does] the reduction in tertiary student concession fares helps the polytechnic students?

Gerard Ee:

I am not sure whether you are aware but there has been a meeting between the representatives of the polytechnic students, the operators and PTC representatives and they discussed at length to understand the concerns of the polytechnic students. Let me first start by emphasising that; I think many members of the public are sympathetic as well but perhaps they may not realise that polytechnic students are not left out in the cold. Right now they are treated at par with tertiary students so they do enjoy concessions like tertiary students. The polytechnic students want it possible for the operators to treat them as a different class on its own, somewhere between a JC and a tertiary, to enjoy better concessions than a tertiary but maybe not as much as a JC student, that is something on their wish list. I think the operators will look at it

But don’t forget next year, when come to the middle of next year, 1st of June , when we move through to a through fare system, the whole fare structure is going to change anyway. And probably that’s the best time really for the operators, and for everyone to sit down and relook at the structure and see what can be done. Because right now, what is critical and not to be distracted from is how do we take these rebates from the operators and adjust it in such as a way that every single commuter can get some benefit from it. So you don’t really want to distract that.

On top of it, even at the status quo, don’t forget, as I said polytechnic students are treated like tertiary students, enjoying the same concessions and all the students from primary, secondary and tertiary are enjoying extra reductions; $1 to $4 so they are getting something, even those on concessions are getting something from this reduction.

2010 and beyond – Fares restored, Unfairness persisted

Fares were restored in 2010, a year later and the issue of unfairness between the Polytechnic students and the Junior College students in terms of their concession fares persisted. Little wonder that Er Lee Bee Wah brought it up again in Parliament.

Another group of students are the polytechnic students. Now, they have to pay $50 for their monthly ticket. And for the junior college students, they are paying $27.50. It is a big difference. So for the monthly concession for polytechnic students, it is $45 and for the junior college students who are of the same age, they are paying only $25. There is a difference of 80%. But for the consolidated concession that can be used for buses and trains, it is from $97 and $57 – it is a big difference. I urge the Public Transport Council to review the tickets for the polytechnic students.

What do you think was the response from the Minister, Mr. Raymond Lim? Yes, more of the same.

Ms Sylvia Lim and Er Lee have also asked for fare concessions to be extended to the disabled and polytechnic students, and more concessions for senior citizens. I understand the difficulties of the disabled. I understand that the request by the polytechnic students has been recurring. Mr Chairman, Sir, public transport concessions are determined and granted by the public transport operators. The costs of such concessions are cross-subsidised by other full-fare paying commuters. The operators will have to take this into account when considering any changes to the concessionary schemes. Nevertheless, we strongly encourage the operators to consider these requests. And they have in the past responded to such requests, by extending senior citizens concessionary hours to all hours except before 9.00 am on weekdays. So if you have any requests, do put it up to the operators. I believe that through engaging them, they can better understand your needs and maybe a resolution can be reached. As to whether the Government should intervene to provide concessionary travel, I think it is better to focus on providing targeted help or assistance to those who really need it.

Er Lee Bee Wah’s response to the Minister’s explanation summed up the frustrations of many polytechnic students, “Actually I am very disappointed with the response. It seems that we adopt a very hands-off approach, ie, leave it totally to the bus operators.”

The Minister in his attempts to put up a logical argument retorted, “As I mentioned just now, the critical question is do we help polytechnic students from low-income needy families? The answer is yes. As a Government, we help. So I am not quite sure where the disappointment is. The Government actually helps quite a fair bit.”

The Minister is totally missing the point. Sadly.

When the distance-base fare mechanism kicked in in the middle of 2010, the Minister reported, “For students, 76% saw weekly savings and 24% saw an increase.”

Fast-forward to the 12th Parliament convened after the watershed election in May 2011, this fundamental issue of unfairness was brought again and the same old terse response was regurgitated.

Sir, for years, I have been appealing to the Minister to grant polytechnic students the same transport concession benefits as the junior college students. As more youths are turning to polytechnic as an alternative route to higher education, the transport concession can lighten the financial load of the parents. [Er Lee Bee Wah, 19 October 2011]

Sir, there is one point that I feel passionately about. Whenever folks ask me about polytechnic student fares for MRT and buses, why they do not enjoy the same fares as their peers in Junior Colleges and ITEs? Frankly, I cannot look them in the eye and say something that I myself am convinced about. So, I would like the Minister to consider aligning this as fast as he can because there are really no grounds to say that you are both of the same age, but just because I classify you as polytechnic students, you pay more than your peers. This can be done anytime. We do not have to wait for the formula to be reviewed. [Cedric Foo, 17 October 2011]

During the last sitting of Parliament on 22 November 2011, Mr. Baey Yam Keng asked the following question (accompanied by the response by the new Transport Minister).

Mr Baey Yam Keng: To ask the Minister for Transport if he will clarify (i) the role of the Government versus the Public Transport Council and public transport operators in determining transport fare concessions for different commuter groups, eg senior citizens, students; and (ii) the basis for categorising diploma students with undergraduates under the tertiary student concession and not with junior college students under the school smartcard concession which applies to students under 21 years old.

The following is Minister for Transport Lui Tuck Yew’s response:

Concessionary travel on basic bus and train services are determined and granted by the public transport operators (PTOs). The cost of concessions is ultimately cross-subsidised by other full-fare paying commuters and the operators have to take this into consideration before extending travel concessions beyond the present arrangement.

The operators currently grant student travel concessions based on their level of academic pursuit and the institution of enrolment. Polytechnic students and university students are considered tertiary students because both polytechnics and universities are institutions of higher learning unlike junior colleges. The public transport operators currently provide concessions to polytechnic students via the monthly concession pass scheme.

The Public Transport Council is aware of the requests for more concessions and will work with the operators to see how best these requests for more concessions for the disabled and the polytechnic students could be considered in future review of fares for the different commuter groups. For instance, for this year, the senior citizen concession hours have been extended to full-day throughout the week to benefit elderly commuters.

As for the Government’s role, our focus continues to be on providing help alongside fare revisions to help the needy adjust. We will continue to provide targeted assistance such as through the Public Transport vouchers and the ComCare Fund, as well as through various work support schemes. This approach ensures that those who are really in need of assistance will receive it, and also makes the best use of public fundss.

While Lui Tuck Yew is the third minister of transport since 2001, nothing much has changed on the part of the government, using and re-using a feeble argument to justify an obvious and oft-quoted unfairness in mainstream discourse.

For 10 years, the fundamental issue of unfairness in concession fares between a JC/ITE student and a tertiary student continues to remain unresolved. The latest fare reduction in 2009, on hindsight looks like a false dawn towards future reforms in the concession fare structure for tertiary students.

In light of the implementation of a distance-based through fare structure in June 2010, a reform of the concession fare structure would be especially essential. What is required here is a transparent fare mechanism to determine all concessionary rates, rather than ad hoc and temporary lowering of fares in response to public pressure.

At the end of the day, it is not stating too much to highlight that this inherent unfairness within the concession fare structure is becoming a source of disappointment and disillusionment amongst the student community. A decisive gesture on by the PTC and PTOs to resolve this inherent conflict in the same spirit of responsible, rational and constructive engagement would be much appreciated.

At least, stop giving students that 10-years series answer.

For that, students would certainly be very grateful indeed.

Thank you very much

Filed under: Politics, Singapore, Junior Colleges, Polytechnics, Public Transport