Transport operators on the unhappy island...
"The Land Transport Authority says it will work with the public transport operators to see if there is a case for adjusting the concession policy for children. But it adds that concession schemes are decided by the public transport operators, which operate on a commercial basis, and any decision to improve on or grant more concessions is a matter for transport operators to decide." (Parents want height limit raised for free rides on buses, MRT By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia)
If there is one thing that I get rather uncomfortable with, and at times rather piffed abt, is the way the decision of the public transport operators are always justified as them operating on a commercial basis, when in actual fact, to what extent at they purely commercial companies?
Are these companies not operating, and making huge profits, because of monopolies that are granted by the state? Should these profits therefore be considered purely commercial, or is it indirectly financed by the tax-payers? If competition were granted to the sector (and I mean real competition, where there can be competiton on routes, not just some wayang), would their profit margins and prices charged be different? Would the quality of service be different? Would the atttitude of the transport operators be different from the arrogant and snooty approach they have today?
I mean, just think abt it. What real choices do people have? One can complain about price hikes, complain about its impact on people lives, complain about bad services, compain about inconvenient transport routes, but there is very little the man on the street can do. All he can do is pay, and maybe whine a bit, and get on with life. Then he'll slowly forget, and until the next hike come along, which is not very far down the road.
It is absurd to hide these transport operators behind the label of commercial operators, when in actual fact, these operators are granted state monopolies point blank. While there are two operators, they are coordinated on prices and routes, and it is not even a case whereby consumers can choose one operator over the other. There is no choice at all! What is the point of having two operators, when consumers have no choice at all? Are they competing for customers, or are they both trying to see how much more profitable they can be, by maximizing their monopolies to the fullest?
No one is saying that these operations should not make profits, but it should not be the means by which the success of these operators are measured. They operators have public shareholders, but their profits are indirectly the product of the state monopoly; then clearly, the largest stakeholders are the tax-payers, and yet, it is these stakeholders who are gaining the least in this equation.
If there is one thing that I get rather uncomfortable with, and at times rather piffed abt, is the way the decision of the public transport operators are always justified as them operating on a commercial basis, when in actual fact, to what extent at they purely commercial companies?
Are these companies not operating, and making huge profits, because of monopolies that are granted by the state? Should these profits therefore be considered purely commercial, or is it indirectly financed by the tax-payers? If competition were granted to the sector (and I mean real competition, where there can be competiton on routes, not just some wayang), would their profit margins and prices charged be different? Would the quality of service be different? Would the atttitude of the transport operators be different from the arrogant and snooty approach they have today?
I mean, just think abt it. What real choices do people have? One can complain about price hikes, complain about its impact on people lives, complain about bad services, compain about inconvenient transport routes, but there is very little the man on the street can do. All he can do is pay, and maybe whine a bit, and get on with life. Then he'll slowly forget, and until the next hike come along, which is not very far down the road.
It is absurd to hide these transport operators behind the label of commercial operators, when in actual fact, these operators are granted state monopolies point blank. While there are two operators, they are coordinated on prices and routes, and it is not even a case whereby consumers can choose one operator over the other. There is no choice at all! What is the point of having two operators, when consumers have no choice at all? Are they competing for customers, or are they both trying to see how much more profitable they can be, by maximizing their monopolies to the fullest?
No one is saying that these operations should not make profits, but it should not be the means by which the success of these operators are measured. They operators have public shareholders, but their profits are indirectly the product of the state monopoly; then clearly, the largest stakeholders are the tax-payers, and yet, it is these stakeholders who are gaining the least in this equation.
posted by city_walker at 7/15/2006 12:38:00 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home