Skip to main content

Free Public Transport For All When The Trains Break Down


As a compensation for the loss of money and time, users of public transport should entitle for a free ride whenever the MRT trains or the metro system break down.

More importantly, we must look beyond the financial figures.  When the emergency comes and passengers have to run for their lives, if the SMRT keeps the mindset of ‘pay first before your leave the stations’, then we are expecting more disasters to happen.

It is an issue of life against money, time against money. Not only SMRT did not maintain its metro system well, it also did not evacuate the passengers well in the recent incidents.   These are just breakdowns, what will happen if there is a terror attack, fire, flood or other emergency.   Can we trust SMRT to do a good job and put life as first priority?

So, it is important to be prepared in face of the emergencies as what Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean mentioned on Sunday.  He said it's important to be prepared in the face of emergencies, as there are always unusual aspects within every scenario.  (CNA, 19 Dec 2011).  Not only the SMRT, the government, the people and all users of public service must be prepared.

Preparation of financial loss

These preparations should go beyond physical and emphasize on the mental preparation of financial loss. Since SMRT is a public listed company and of course, it has its financial performance to look after. At the end of the day, the financial reports will decide the bonuses and dividends that the company is going to pay out.

What worry us is if the management is blinded by the money and fail to see the importance of life and the emergencies of getting people out of the trains, the stations and the affected metro system as soon as possible.   If the SMRT management has this ‘money-minded’ mindset as a profit making company; and forget their role of providing safe public transport to the people, then we may have to re-think the Singapore model of public operations.  

We are very proud of our public transport system, giving them the monopoly status, so that we can claim that we are one of the few countries in the world that do not subsidise our public transport system.  What can it be proud of if people’s life is not the first consideration?

We should also think further of the ‘monopoly’ and priority of operating routes to only one single mode of transport, i.e. train only no bus service.  If we have the parallel running of bus services to the train services, then at least, we can have a better and more effective alternative solution if the trains break down.

The soon to be set up Committee of Inquiry should not only look at the causes of the breakdowns.  Its terms of reference should go beyond technical and should include the operating mindset, attitude towards chaotic and panic, willingness to sacrifice financial returns etc - the soft side of operating a metro system.     

Rewarding ministers with public service performance

The fact is it should go beyond the issue of the resignation of CEO of SMRT.  With her departure, will SMRT still maintain ‘profit first, service second’ attitude? And in time of emergency will they put life above money?

Besides economic growth, efficiency of public transport, measures to control floods, happiness, and others should be made as a performance indicator to reward our ministers.  Strange enough, in Singapore, it seems achieving growth rate is easier than preventing MRT train breakdowns and floods.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...