SMRT Board of Directors Must be Punished

[Hans168]

why only limited to SMRT Board of Directors? how about GIC / Temasek board of directors?

Who dares punish GIC or Temasick?
I heard they operate with mandate from God himself.

Not only cannot punish any wrongdoer but also cannot question them...... NO audit NO open books!

 

[Hans168]

The EVP of SMRT shall be a golden seat answerable only to parliament....... his powers must be equal if not great than the CEO
He must practise hourly, dailky, weekly monthly, quaterly, annually maintenance......... which the German train operators do
For that matter anyone operating big outfit with engineering excellence being an important pillar

 

[Confuseous]

The new enhanced penalties for delays etc only penalise the shareholders, while the Board of Directors and Clown Desmond Kuek continue to keep their pay and bonuses.

Management cock-up, customers pay for the cock-up and govt gets money for other people's cock-up?

What a farking cock-up!

Truly uniquely Singapore.

 

[rotiprata]

Sorry to side-track. The task of getting Smrt back in shape is definitely not easy. After 1 over year, DK has proven beyond doubt that he is not able to turn Smrt around. Suddenly the guy by the name of liew mun Leon pop up in my mind. He is well like by lky since his pwd days and is well known for being a terror to staff who are sloppy He has also been very successful in his career after pwd. Why not put him as chairman of Smrt. Maybe he is the guy needed to knock some sense into the top management of Smrt.

sorry, also side-track...."if everyone chooses to travel on the train at the same time; how can the smrt not break down"...

 

[Kuailan]

SMRT – A pledge by Transport Minister Yeo Ning Hong ` quickly forgotten?? is this guy PAP??

February 23rd, 2014

http://www.tremeritus.org/wp-conten...-Transport-Minister-Yeo-Ning-Hong-in-1986.jpg

Straits Times, 9 July 1986

Someone took the trouble to sieve through the old newspaper and came up with a copy of the ST dated 9 Jul 86 with Yeo Ning Hong announcing the opening of the MRT. He said:

One thing is certain… Because the Government will be paying for the construction of the stations and lines, fares on our MRT will be lower than fares in other MRT countries where commuters will have to repay the capital cost and financing of the construction of their systems… The private company which will be set up to operate the MRT will not be allowed to profit at the expense of the public. The principle for fare setting is clear. Fares will be kept as low as possible, consistent with collecting enough revenue to meet the running cost of the MRT, replace parts and equipment regularly and provide company shareholders with a reasonable return.

How far have the govt and the SMRT deviated from this original pledge with their new formula for fare increases? The cost of building the MRT was borne by public fund, not from the shareholders. The principles of lower fares, enough to repay capital cost and financing of construction should be fairly clear. The part about replacement cost for parts and equipment is also not difficult to understand. Only the last part, provide company shareholders with a reasonable return can be subject to different interpretations. What is reasonable? From whose perspective?

What is interesting to note is that the current formula to adjust fare hikes which is directly linked to returns to shareholders does not include parts and equipment replacement cost and financing cost. The formula has been changing over the years with no reference to the original position and pledge.

Is the pledge another nice to have aspiration not meant to mean anything? What were the factors in the latest formula? The 2012 formula which was also used for the 2014 fare hike includes the consumer price index, wage index and productivity gains. There was no direct reference to replacement cost of parts and equipment or profits for shareholders.

Obviously the 1986 pledge was not in the radar of the Fare Review Mechanism Committee. The 1986 pledge and the principle of lower fares were no longer factors for consideration. Forgotten, not important any more, dumped into the waste bin?

Does it matter if the pledge by the former Transport Minister and the original principle are disregarded and ignored or discarded? Or they are actually following closely to those principles pledged by a past minister?

 

[chonburifc]

SMRT – A pledge by Transport Minister Yeo Ning Hong ` quickly forgotten?? is this guy PAP??

February 23rd, 2014

http://www.tremeritus.org/wp-conten...-Transport-Minister-Yeo-Ning-Hong-in-1986.jpg

Straits Times, 9 July 1986

Someone took the trouble to sieve through the old newspaper and came up with a copy of the ST dated 9 Jul 86 with Yeo Ning Hong announcing the opening of the MRT. He said:

One thing is certain… Because the Government will be paying for the construction of the stations and lines, fares on our MRT will be lower than fares in other MRT countries where commuters will have to repay the capital cost and financing of the construction of their systems… The private company which will be set up to operate the MRT will not be allowed to profit at the expense of the public. The principle for fare setting is clear. Fares will be kept as low as possible, consistent with collecting enough revenue to meet the running cost of the MRT, replace parts and equipment regularly and provide company shareholders with a reasonable return.

How far have the govt and the SMRT deviated from this original pledge with their new formula for fare increases? The cost of building the MRT was borne by public fund, not from the shareholders. The principles of lower fares, enough to repay capital cost and financing of construction should be fairly clear. The part about replacement cost for parts and equipment is also not difficult to understand. Only the last part, provide company shareholders with a reasonable return can be subject to different interpretations. What is reasonable? From whose perspective?

What is interesting to note is that the current formula to adjust fare hikes which is directly linked to returns to shareholders does not include parts and equipment replacement cost and financing cost. The formula has been changing over the years with no reference to the original position and pledge.

Is the pledge another nice to have aspiration not meant to mean anything? What were the factors in the latest formula? The 2012 formula which was also used for the 2014 fare hike includes the consumer price index, wage index and productivity gains. There was no direct reference to replacement cost of parts and equipment or profits for shareholders.

Obviously the 1986 pledge was not in the radar of the Fare Review Mechanism Committee. The 1986 pledge and the principle of lower fares were no longer factors for consideration. Forgotten, not important any more, dumped into the waste bin?

Does it matter if the pledge by the former Transport Minister and the original principle are disregarded and ignored or discarded? Or they are actually following closely to those principles pledged by a past minister?

Well, It's a known fact sinkees are extremely forgetful. Especially before erections when some sweets are given to them.