On 5th Dec issue of Today newspaper, a reader, Mr Lim Wui Boon, wrote in to express his views about the transport system in Singapore. He commented that Singapore has one of the world's best transportation infrastructure. He went on to describe his experiences in Adelaide and compared it with Singapore, which made him "appreciate Singapore's transport system more than ever". I must agree with him that Singapore has a top-notched transport system, safe, efficient and clean.
Finally, on the topic of the bus service, which was much debated recently, these were his comments, "I'm overjoyed that I don't have to carry a bus timetable anymore. Waiting 10 minutes is perfectly fine with me: What is 10 minutes when I have waited for more than an hour for a bus?". I think he was comparing to his experiences in Adelaide when he made that comment. However I can't help to think that Mr Lim had missed a point here about the ongoing debate on the bus service. Why are we comparing with other countries?
It is clear that most people are unhappy with the rise in bus fare, when there is little or not improvement in some of the bus services. And not that they are unhappy that Singapore do not have a world class transport system. Should we not compare with our own bus services before the fare rise? It is a matter of whether the increased in price translate to better service for the consumers. And it is not difficult to find out the answer with all the complains. I find that I'm relatively lucky compared to them as the bus services in my area is still satisfactory. Other than occasionally finding cockroaches in the buses, the frequency of the buses is quite high and regular. Most bus drivers also make it a point to greet the commuters when they board the buses. This is highly commendable. However, this may not be the case for some parts of Singapore.
Moreover, with the significant rise in fares, improvements should be significant too. Does it mean that when compared to other countries, our transport system is very good, and therefore there is no need for improvement? If so, why do transport companies still use improvement in services as one of the reason to increase fares? It is perfectly logical that the benchmark should be against our quality of transport service before and after the increase in fares.
And if we should be a little bit more critical, the main objective of the transport services in Singapore should be to serve the public interest better than to make more profit. I agree that if transport companies make higher margin of profit, provided that they share it with their staffs, and upgrade the equipments, it will benefit the public. However, if it is only to benefit the shareholders, while letting public interest take a backseat, it should not be tolerated. How can "since the fares have not been increased for a long time, it is time to do so" be a valid reason? And how can "it is only an increase of a small margin" be justifiable? It was futile to express our comments then and in addition with the sugar coating of reasons of improving the services, we accepted the the fares rise.
And now, some time down the road, shouldn't we expect to see some results? Tell me why should I take another step back and compare with other places, like the example of Adelaide given by Mr Lim, and feel good about it all? I suggest that the authorities do a proper study in the various aspects of the services before and after the fare rise, and point out the parts of the services which still need to be improved. If required form a special steering committee to do that! Or form a special "Singapore Transport System Improvement Goal 2010" initiative! Since it seems that with the amount of grievance, the people on that job ain't really doing it right (ar, I did not mention any names hor! don't anyhow quote me and get me into trouble leh). =p
We should be appreciative of what we have, but I don't think (with the promises made, the increased in fares, and the time passed) waiting for 10mins is the way to go.
Finally, on the topic of the bus service, which was much debated recently, these were his comments, "I'm overjoyed that I don't have to carry a bus timetable anymore. Waiting 10 minutes is perfectly fine with me: What is 10 minutes when I have waited for more than an hour for a bus?". I think he was comparing to his experiences in Adelaide when he made that comment. However I can't help to think that Mr Lim had missed a point here about the ongoing debate on the bus service. Why are we comparing with other countries?
It is clear that most people are unhappy with the rise in bus fare, when there is little or not improvement in some of the bus services. And not that they are unhappy that Singapore do not have a world class transport system. Should we not compare with our own bus services before the fare rise? It is a matter of whether the increased in price translate to better service for the consumers. And it is not difficult to find out the answer with all the complains. I find that I'm relatively lucky compared to them as the bus services in my area is still satisfactory. Other than occasionally finding cockroaches in the buses, the frequency of the buses is quite high and regular. Most bus drivers also make it a point to greet the commuters when they board the buses. This is highly commendable. However, this may not be the case for some parts of Singapore.
Moreover, with the significant rise in fares, improvements should be significant too. Does it mean that when compared to other countries, our transport system is very good, and therefore there is no need for improvement? If so, why do transport companies still use improvement in services as one of the reason to increase fares? It is perfectly logical that the benchmark should be against our quality of transport service before and after the increase in fares.
And if we should be a little bit more critical, the main objective of the transport services in Singapore should be to serve the public interest better than to make more profit. I agree that if transport companies make higher margin of profit, provided that they share it with their staffs, and upgrade the equipments, it will benefit the public. However, if it is only to benefit the shareholders, while letting public interest take a backseat, it should not be tolerated. How can "since the fares have not been increased for a long time, it is time to do so" be a valid reason? And how can "it is only an increase of a small margin" be justifiable? It was futile to express our comments then and in addition with the sugar coating of reasons of improving the services, we accepted the the fares rise.
And now, some time down the road, shouldn't we expect to see some results? Tell me why should I take another step back and compare with other places, like the example of Adelaide given by Mr Lim, and feel good about it all? I suggest that the authorities do a proper study in the various aspects of the services before and after the fare rise, and point out the parts of the services which still need to be improved. If required form a special steering committee to do that! Or form a special "Singapore Transport System Improvement Goal 2010" initiative! Since it seems that with the amount of grievance, the people on that job ain't really doing it right (ar, I did not mention any names hor! don't anyhow quote me and get me into trouble leh). =p
We should be appreciative of what we have, but I don't think (with the promises made, the increased in fares, and the time passed) waiting for 10mins is the way to go.
Comments