11/09/2015

Kishore: Let’s nationalise public transport


Wow, Kishore, what are you saying? Don’t you remember all the clever reasonings to privatise public transport into privatized public transport? Shit what am I saying? Isn’t the private public transport a private company listed in the stock exchange? Or is it a public company owned by the govt and that is why a minister is running the show now?

I can still remember vividly that the main reason to privatise the public transport system is that civil servants are duds, inefficient, and only privatization would make public transport efficient. In other words, the talented people are in the private sector. Even a sales girl is good enough to run a public transport system and made good profit. Now a general also can do. If not a minister should do.  Wait a minute, aren’t a general or a minister a public servant, a kind of civil servants that were originally assumed to be less efficient or inefficient?

The call to return public transport to the hands of civil servants must be horrifying. The govt took so much effort to privatise the public transport, how to justify publicise the public transport system? Have the talents to run private public transport gone back to the civil servants, so civil servants are now efficient enough to run publicise public transport system?

If this is the case, then there is good ground to nationalize the private public transport system to make it public public transport system. In the same reasoning, private public hospitals must also be nationalized to be public public hospitals, to be more efficient and not be run to the ground like the private public transport system.

After writing the above, I am thoroughly confused. What is the difference between a private public transport system and a public public transport system in terms of operational efficiency and not breaking down daily?

Perhaps Kishore could explain and share his wisdom on this call.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

We had been screwed all these while. Policies flip flop from one end to the other and we are none wiser as to why our government which claimed Singapore has the best talent but yet could never had a good policy that lasts.

Anonymous said...

How could they float out the nonsensical myth that civil servants are ineffective and needed to privatise to be efficient, to run like a private company? And no one dares to challenge this stupid notion.

So a new flip flop, return public transport to be run by civil servants to be efficient.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, if SGH had been a real govt public hospital, instead of the bastardised semi-private hospital that it is now, they might have avoided the Hep C contamination outbreak.

FYI, all restructured hospitals have been bastardised semi-private hospitals since 1993.

Anonymous said...

If an intellectual like Rb is confused with 'privatised' public services such as National Transport, Health and Education Systems, then what about the average layman ?

But, privatising public services could be to make it confusing so that more profits could be made.
Or
to better facilitate excuses when things go awry.

It is getting more confusing now.

ℳatilah_$ingapura said...

In a one party system, everything is essentially "nationalised". Just because the public transport companies are listed on the stock exchange doesn't make them IN FACT "private". They are "privatised", which is a funny word which sometimes doesn't actually mean what it supposed to.

A "privatised" state/ govt. enterprise is STILL a govt enterprise.

jjgg said...

Mr RB ..when hounds bay n dogs bark..it means the lure has been caught. Could it be that current transport operators have extracted as much as it could from the government n commuting public..time to return to ah kong to extract more money. What's the difference between GLC n civil service..take away the outer layer and you'll probably find same colour underwear...)))) trust no one especially many hatted governments.

Anonymous said...

/// After writing the above, I am thoroughly confused. What is the difference between a private public transport system and a public public transport system in terms of operational efficiency and not breaking down daily? ///

Uniquely Singapore.
That is why we have the Singlish phrase "double confirm"

Is SMRT a public public transport company?
We have to say "public public" just to double confirm that SMRT is really public.

In Singapore, when we say it is a "public" company ... it is not convincing enough.
Must "double confirm" as "public public" then it is really confirmed as a regular public company.

In the case of SMRT, it is actually a "pubic" company.
Why?
Because everything about it is associated with "lampar".
e.g.
Fucked up
Cheebye
cock-up
and etc.

agongkia said...

Not interested in the above or what kind of so call wisdom can one share especially on khongcum ideas.
I am more concern on the whereabout of my idol Lauchek Virgo here .
You should show more concern on your loyal contributer and cheer uncle Virgo up instead.

Anonymous said...

Agongkia, a khongcum like you should just remain a khongcum and no one will miss you.

The said...

For once, I agree with Kishore.

Anonymous said...

Hilarious!

Anonymous said...

Please lah, sales girl as MRT CEO or not, nationalise public tranport or not, civil servants efficient or not, but the opposition will still not be ready to be govt what.

And since opposition is still not be ready to be govt, WP chief Teochew Ah Hia already said majority voters will be very scared to accidentally vote the PAP out in a general election, tio bo?

And indeed majority (and 70% some more) has already voted for PAP, so if I were Hsien Loong or Boon Wan, what's the fuss all about?

Anonymous said...

Alamak what has he been smoking to suggest this?

Anonymous said...

Did you believe the PAP govt when they said that privatisation leads to greater efficiency even in a monopolistic situation? When 90% or more of the seats in Parliament are occupied by the PAP, they can say and do anything and get away with it. We all know that the actual decision came from a single person, and the rest were/are but yes men. SMRT is private only technically and in accounting for profits to its shareholders. It is a public-private arrangement and really like a half-baked pie with SMRT taking the benefits but not the risk to the detriment of the public. Kishore is not wrong! If something does not work and you can't fix it, reset it. it's a no brainer.