Public Transport Council should have consulted the public

	I am disappointed that the Public Transport Council (PTC) did not see fit
to open the fare-hike proposals to public scrutiny before it approved them.
While the secretiveness of the public transport operators is
understandable, if reprehensible, that of the PTC is indefensible.
	The PTC should fall in line with Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's declared
commitment to a consultative form of government. Public interest would have
been better served by a free and fully informed discussion on the merits of
the fare-hike proposals than a decision taken by a small group of
individuals meeting in secret. Instead, the public, who have the greatest
interest in the matter, were ignored and fed only scraps of unconfirmed
information by the press.
	The PTC could have enhanced its credibility by consulting the public. It
would not then have been lambasted as a ërubber-stamp'. It could also have
avoided ridicule for accepting arguments such as the taxi operators' plea
that they need to raise fares because demand exceeded supply. That argument
is analogous to a hawker claiming that he is ëforced' to raise prices to
chase away ëexcess' customers by pricing his food beyond their means.
	Even now, after the fait accompli by the PTC and public transport
operators, full information is still not forthcoming. The public are told
that the bus-fare increase is necessary because the bus operators lost
money on bus operations last year. However, lack of information about the
projected increase in revenue means that the public are unable to judge
whether the scope and magnitude of the increase is justified.
	Furthermore, red-ink on the bus operators' books in 1996 should be placed
in the context of profits in previous years. SBS claimed to have lost $9.6m
in bus operations last year. However, its annual reports showed that,
between 1990 and 1995, SBS's operating profit from its bus service were as
follows:

YEAR					1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995
Operating Profit
(Bus Service, $million)		16.748	36.049	39.031	39.274	37.406	39.550

If SBS has a right to recoup losses in a bad year by raising fares, does it
not have the responsibility to reduce fares in a good year? Does the
Singaporean emphasis on social responsibility over individual rights not
extend to corporate entities? Incidentally, the 115% increase in profit
between 1990 and 1991 coincided with the last major revision in bus fares
in 1990. How much will the latest fare increase bring for SBS?
	This may be the opportune time to re-think our approach to funding public
transport. Although public transport operators have a legitimate interest
in profitability, the public interest in cheap public transport may be more
compelling. The two interests are not mutually exclusive. There may be a
pragmatic case for using public revenues, perhaps from sales of
Certificates of Entitlement, to subsidise the cost of bus operations. After
all, the $9.6m and $5.6m losses by SBS and TIBS in 1996 are tiny compared
to the huge income from COE sales. In discussing such matters, it is to be
hoped that the PTC will abandon its hitherto secretive approach in favour
of full consultation with the public.

======================================



30 Bridport Avenue
Singapore 559320
Tel:	280-5706
email:[email protected]

1 October


The Forum Editor
The Straits Times
390 Kim Seng Road
Singapore 239495


Dear Editor

A PROFITABLE SBS SHOULD REDUCE FARES

	Congratulations to Singapore Bus Service (SBS) for reporting pre-tax
profits of $19.4 million in the transport sector for the half-year ended
June 30 (ëProperty gains help drive SBS interim profit up 35%', Straits
Times, 30 September 1997). This is a big improvement over its $9.6 million
loss in bus operations last year.

	SBS's return to profitability voids the main justification for the fare
increase, which was that it would be unfair to expect the bus operators to
lose money (ëInterests of all were balanced: John Chen', Straits Times, 24
April 1997). As SBS clearly does not need the fare increase to be
profitable, the Public Transport Council should instruct SBS to reduce its
fares immediately.




Yours sincerely

 
_____________________
Chong Fu Shin Francis



========================================

SBS Group's pre-tax profit is not solely from SBS Bus

Straits Times, 10 October, 1997

I refer to the letter "Being profitable, SBS should lower its bus fares" by
Mr Francis Chong Fu Shin (ST, Oct 2).

We would like to explain to Mr Chong that the pre-tax profit of $19.4
million for the SBS Group in the transportation sector for the first half
of 1997 is not derived solely from SBS Bus Services Pte Ltd (SBS Bus).

Besides SBS Bus, contributions also came from other transport-related
subsidiaries, such as CityCab Pte Ltd and CityLimo Auto Services Group.

The $9.6-million loss figure in bus operations last year, as mentioned by
Mr Chong, refers strictly to the bus operations of SBS Bus.

In fact, for the first half of this year, Mr Chong may wish to know that
bus operations continued to make a loss as the fare increase took effect
only on June 1, this year.

SBS Bus was in the black only because of the contributions from bus panel
advertisements.

Like any other company, SBS is also accountable to its shareholders, who
expect fair returns for their investment. They would not invest in
companies which, at the slightest hint of profit, reduce the price of their
products.

Indeed, like any responsible company, we constantly plough back our profits
to improve our product.

These enhancements, such as our annual fleet renewal, are to ensure that
Singaporeans enjoy a world class public bus service.

We believe this goal is achievable and we look forward to the continued
support of our passengers and other road users in helping us attain it.


VINCENT LIM
Senior Executive
Corporate Communications
SBS Bus Services Pte Ltd

========================================

10 October 1997


The Forum Editor
The Straits Times
390 Kim Seng Road
Singapore 239495


Dear Editor

SBS Bus profitable from 1990-1995

	I refer to the letter "SBS Group's pre-tax profit is not solely from SBS Bus"
by its Senior Executive, Mr Vincent Lim (ST, Oct 10).
	I have difficulty reconciling Mr Lim's struggling SBS Bus with the healthy
picture in SBS's annual reports from 1990-1995:

YEAR	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995
Operating Profits ($mil)	52.949	84.401	82.55	112.948	113.043	112.202
Bus service	16.748	36.049	39.031	39.274	37.406	39.55
Leisure Transport	-	-	-	-	0.705	0.157	Bus-related leasing	-	-	-	2.369	15.545	19.242
Taxi	2.923	3.682	6.621	7.553	9.09	13.257
Advertisement	8.776	9.843	9.693	9.004	10.282	10.144
Engineering services	0.019	0.037	0.056	0.185	0.005	0.013
Investments and other	24.483	34.79	27.149	54.563	40.01	29.839

According to the above table, Bus Service turned in operating profits every 
year from 1990 to 1995, regardless of the contributions of Leisure Transport, 
Taxi and Advertisement.
	It appears that 1996 was an anomalous year for SBS Bus. The loss 
registered for that year therefore does not justify the recent fare increase. Instead, 
SBS should explain why it made a loss in bus operations in 1996 when its own 
figures show that Bus Service Operating Profits increased from $16.748 million 
in 1990 to an steady average of $38 million between 1991 and 1995.
	Mr Lim rightly says that shareholders have a right to expect fair returns on 
their investments. However, the public has a right to expect no fare increases, if not f
are reductions, from a near-monopoly that registered multi-million-dollar profits for 
six straight years. The question is: What is a "fair" return? That is for the Public 
Transport Council, from whom we have yet to hear, to decide.




Yours sincerely

_____________________
Chong Fu Shin Francis