Hazel Poa
The author is the Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party (NSP). This article is a press release that defends the position of the National Solidarity Party on the ongoing public debate on Public Transport against the Minister of Transport’s remark that “cherry-picking” of the profitable routes among transport operators might not benefit commuters.
Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew argues that the National Solidarity Party’s proposal for more competition in bus services would lead to “cherry-picking” of lucrative routes by multiple operators and hence be negative for commuters.
Lucrative routes are lucrative because demand is high, and more commuters are packed into each bus. “Cherry-picking” by multiple operators would mean more buses along these routes leading to shorter waiting times, less congestion in the buses and hence more comfortable rides, and more competitive pricing. With greater supply, these “lucrative” routes would become less lucrative.
The “cherry” could swiftly turn into a “lemon”, forcing inefficient players out, and slowly turn into the common “apple”. Such is the magical fruit kingdom that boring people like me call the free market. Meanwhile, the licence fee for the “lucrative” routes can be used to subsidize the operation of non-profitable routes, to ensure the continuation of these services.
Greater competition can lead to more differentiated services coming into the market to serve different levels of expectations. Only by better meeting the needs of the commuters can we persuade more of them to forego private cars and opt instead for public transport, thereby relieving the growing congestion on our roads. Public transport, with its higher passenger density, is a more energy efficient and hence greener mode of transport compared to private cars. Let us encourage its development in all the ways that we can.
It is disappointing to hear the same old reply from a different Minister. The political renewal that Singaporeans want to see is not just a younger Cabinet, but newer ideas and innovative approaches to problem solving.
It is sad to see such comments from the opposition. It is one thing to talk about new thinking and another to throw away simple economic reality/logic. “Cherry picking” will probably improve the service/pricing for the popular routes. But this will incur huge increases to less popular routes. This is the same case with Postal services. If we deregulate the postal service… people living in far out places may never get their mails delivered, or they may have to pay alot more for mails to be delivered to them.
Hi Tan Ah Beng,
I think you need to look at the broader picture.
Please refer to this: http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=30687
I did look at the broader picture.
And I came to the conclusion that the 2 possible solutions
are either:
1) Status Quo with modifications (PAP), or
2) Nationalisation (WP)
Actually the more I read WP’s position on various issues, the more
I agree with SOME of their positions. One important issue would be
the case of NO Minimum Wage (which is a different topic altogether).
Just that I do not blindly agree with everything they said or sing
them praises
“Cherry picking” is a REAL issue when one tries to privatise public
service. And simply liberalising transport service will cause much
pain and suffering for a section of the population which happens
to live in a “non-profitable route” part of the country.
New thinkings are good… but not all creative ideas are valid.
“Creative Accounting” caused the downfall of Enron