4/28/2014

Is SMRT a private or public company?

‘(Reuters) - Singapore's SMRT Corp Ltd , the operator of the city-state's main rail network, asked the government on Wednesday about a financing framework which would reduce its capital expenditure, The Straits Times reported….25 Apr 14
 

SMRT has previously expressed interest in changing to a financing framework that was introduced by the government in 2010. Under this system, the government would own the assets, and be responsible for replacing them. This would free SMRT from having to incur huge capital expenditures on asset replacement.’
 

I dunno what to make out of this latest call from SMRT. The SMRT was built using public fund. It then went private, got listed and run as a profit making business. In the meantime, the money spent on the infrastructure, the land, did not become part of the computation of cost. And SMRT has been making millions annually and paying its management staff handsomely because of the great profits.
 

With this new development, with the govt bearing the cost of assets and asset replacement, SMRT could run an operation without huge capital expenditures and thus can register huge profits. How real is this profit? Is there anything wrong with this new formula? Where on earth can one run a private profit oriented business with the major part of the cost taken out of the equation, to be paid by the govt?
 

Who eventually have to pay for the cost and who will be benefitting from the profit without capital expenditure and asset replacement? Should SMRT be returned and run as a public service, a stats board?

21 comments:

Eddie Leong said...

Of course this is getting absurd. If taxpayers' money are used to fund SMRT, the train fares should not be that high...it is funded by taxpayers anyway.

And we do not Cleopatras carried on the shoulders of half-naked males to justify their obscene pay.

Anonymous said...

"Where on earth can one run a private profit oriented business with the major part of the cost taken out of the equation, to be paid by the govt?"
RB

But how many SMRTs are there? Do commuters have a better alternative?

How many Sinkie political parties are ready to be govt? Do majority voters have a better choice?

Anonymous said...

Expect answer along this line:

"To a question by opposition MP
Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) on whether the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) uses funds from the CPF funds to invest,

Dr Ng said: "The answer is no."

"Later he rose to add: "The relationship is not so simple".

Anonymous said...

Similarly, this "financing model" is applicable to hospital operators in Singapore, thereby allowing our government hospitals either to make a huge profit or patients paying a lower medical fee.

What do you think?

Anonymous said...

Can patients pay lower fee?

Can commuters pay lower fares?

Can the strongest opposition ready to be govt?

Can PAP be voted out?

Matilah_Singapura said...

Here's the facts, so call it what it is:

SMRT is a publicly listed company where the govt is the biggest shareholder, which essentially makes it their private company.

This is the new banana republic type state corporatism: first you nationalise, then you privatise and then you list publicly.

So it is formless. Academics scratch heads trying to "define" what the fuck it is, and they cannot, because it is PURE FICTION made reality by government "magic".

This "magic" allows you to use public funds for private capital purchases -- all perfectly legal, but ethically questionable.

Got "magic"?

Anonymous said...

Can smart Sinkies make more money?

Can smart Sinkies be the majority of voters?

Matilah_Singapura said...

P.S. I am wondering ho i can convert my business to this kind of "magic" model. Lose money? No problem. "Magic" will fix it.

Wanna raise? Put your mind at ease. By "magic" you can pay yourself millions.

Anonymous said...

"This "magic" allows you to use public funds for private capital purchases..."
Matilah 12:28 pm

That's why must be the govt in order to use public funds what, tio bo?

So why is Sinkie opposition not ready to be govt? Don't they want to use public funds?

Matilah_Singapura said...

@1235

All large human groups of power are corrupt, including govt.

They only vary by matter of degree -- some more, some less. That's all.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Please lah Matilah. Singapore is corruption free, especially the govt. Don't anyhow say corrupt corrupt ok.

Anonymous said...

RB. Can you wake up from your dreams!

Anonymous said...

well, not just SMRT.
What about Mediacorp and SBS?

patriot said...

Rb is echoing the self claim of a political party and Matilah Singapura is stating a FACT.
One up to Matilah though Rb is not wrong.

patriot

POOLITICALLY UNDEFINED? said...

@ 12.28pm "Professor" MS:

// Academics scratch heads trying to "define" what the fuck it is, and they cannot, because it is PURE FICTION made reality by government "magic". //



It is not only the tpt coy model that "cannot be defined" .....

There are MANY THINGS in sinkieland that cannot be defined ..... For example, what is the poolitical model of sinkieland? Can anyone define it?

Is it a communist country? No! ( sinkieland have "erection" about every 5 years )

Is it a true democracy like US and many Western countries? No! ( Yew only have a SINGLE government approved mouth piece, oops, press and many other features that should not exist in a true democracy )

Is it a monarchy? No! ( there is no king, queen or emperor or dowager in the system as YEW and LOONG chong other people no need kowtow to the head of state. To some, the head of state is "non-existent" or "invisible" like air, cannot see but some people presumably is still there ??? How do YEW define it? YEW tell me lah? )

YEW go back history YEW try read and read but YEW can't find a "form" to define the POOLITICAL system here? What is it?

Maybe historians one day can coin some terms for this strange "animal" .....

For now, maybe we can make do with terms like:

1) Monarcracy?

2) Demo-narchy?

3) Communcracy?

4) 管YouCracy?

5) 管YouNarchy?

6) 管YouNism?

7) YEWcracyNism?

8) CommuNarchyCracy?


So?

If the "poolity" cannot be defined, any wonder many things cannot be defined?

YEW tell me lar?

Anonymous said...

The last fare increase for SMRT.
Who was publicly fighting very hard for the price increase?
The PAP Minister (Lui Tuck Yew) or the SMRT CEO (Desmond Kuek)?

Eddie Leong said...

Spore public transport needs top management skills:

- Bus routes running parallel to train routes.

- Bus routes overlapping too much.

- Trains running every 6 to 8 mins off-peak.

- Too many breakdowns.

Absurd. We pay high salaries but performance is still lacking.

b said...

This is a clear example of Karl Marx " Control of the state by the wealthy, the effect of which is passage of laws favoring themselves." - Nationalising the costs but privatising the profits. This is nothing new.

Anonymous said...

wanna the fucking answer

check with fox mulder ...

knnccb .... long live kuan yew, long enuff to c the outcum of your descedant

The said...

When it is making profits, it is a private company. When it is making losses, it is a pubic, oops, public company.

In other words, privatization of profits and socialization of losses.

In other other words, either way the public is screwed.

Anonymous said...

SMRT is a public company when it comes to buying of trains, which means commuters/taxpayers' foot the bill. It is a private company when it comes to raising fares, which mean commuters/taxpayers' also have to foot the bill.

Heads they win, tails you lose. You can never win and argument with people in power, who have two mouths. One for talking shit and one for letting go of shit.