Lui Tuck Yew spoke against the Worker’s Party proposal to nationalize public transport. To him, the privatization formula works and if it is nationalized, it will become inefficient, non commuters will also have to pay and cost will go up and everyone ended paying more.
Assuming he is right, and I think he is. Look at the housing programme after it was privatized. Look at the medical care services after they are privatized, and transportation of course. All became world class and all so cheap and affordable. Ok, cannot say cheap, but affordable. If they were not privatized, the cost would have gone up even more and everyone paying more. Please be grateful that they are privatized.
And there will be no motivation for a nationalized public service to improve, except maybe the ministries. The ministries are not privatized, and presumingly running well. Or are they, like all non privatized organizations, running inefficiently and incurring more and more cost? In a nutshell, is the govt runnning efficiently without being privatized or it is running badly and incurring higher cost? If it cannot run efficiently without being privatized, then the govt/ministries should also be privatized.
Let’s move away from all these circular arguments that are self serving. Let’s ask a simple question. Can the transport companies continue to run, under the present system and staff, ceteris paribus, and don’t run into the red for another 3 years?
Another question, can the public transport companies operate with the current profit margin or lesser profit margin by ploughing back some profits to commuters and avoid another fare hike in the short term?
How much profit is enough for the privately run companies? Or is it a privately run company in the first place? Why is a minister defending a privately run company and its profits?
In my opinion, any able administrator could run the companies without raising fares for the next three years without making losses, unless fuel cost shot up dramatically.
So why the hurry to raise fare?