SINGAPORE - The committee will spend the additional months following up on issues brought up during two focus group sessions held earlier this year. These sessions had involved voluntary welfare organisations for the disabled, grassroots leaders and activists, tertiary students, union leaders and public transport operators.
Get the full story from The Straits Times.
Update by the Chairman of the Fare Review Mechanism Committee (FRMC), Mr Richard Magnus, on the FRMC blog:
Hello, I thought I should update you on the continuing work of the FRMC. We have been busy and work is in progress.
You will remember that, in February this year, Minister Lui Tuck Yew expanded the FRMC's remit to review the existing public transport concession framework. We welcomed this additional work.
An expanded and enlightened concessions framework should benefit a broader segment of our commuters, especially commuters who earn lower incomes; those who are physically challenged; tertiary students and children who now seem to be much taller, beyond 0.9 metres, before starting primary school.
The FRMC resolved, quite promptly, to consult in frank face to face discussions through several Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). We held these FGDs in the evenings to facilitate wider participation. Voluntary Welfare Organisations for the disabled, grassroots leaders and activists, tertiary students, union leaders and public transport operators gave their views. Several useful suggestions were made at these FGDs. We considered them and took some on board in our overall reviews.
Overall, we would need to look at our public transport system holistically. We need to carefully balance the social aspects and the economic considerations of our public transport system. The three parties in our public transport system: the Government, the public transport operators and the commuters have a shared responsibility for a good, sustainable and viable transport system.
Our public transport system meets a social need. Our commuters are 'social shareholders' of the system. Public transport is for them. The bottom line therefore is that affordability is a key concern for our commuters.
And the bottom line for the public transport operators (PTOs) is about keeping a balance between cost and revenue, to stay financially viable. They have to deal with rising costs of energy and manpower, including giving their workers fair wages and reasonable wage increases. Our commuters know that running a public transport system costs money, and that significant money needs to be spent to keep our system well-maintained and able to provide the expected levels of service and reliability. The PTOs also have to meet the return on investment expectations of their shareholders. Yet we think there is a case for the public transport operators to 'share their gains' with commuters.
The Government lays the foundation for an equitable, affordable, accessible and sustainably high quality public transport system. It has a consistent desire for the collective well being and social harmony of the country. It ensures that the environment in which our public transport system operates in is safe. It has to provide the essential infrastructure, set and enforce high regulatory and service standards.
The three parties are shareholders in our public transport system. The outcome can be a framework which assures that commuters have the ability to pay and then provides a safety net if they are constrained and a framework of rules to align PTOs' incentives that encourages the best service at the best price.
These are hard issues. There are difficult trade-offs to be made on a number of key issues.
I think it would be helpful to gather quantitative feedback on these issues. For instance, we know that giving more concessions would surely be welcomed, but how do we prioritise the granting of more concessions that would address the competing interests of the different commuter groups? How should concessions be funded in a sustainable manner? Would full-fare paying commuters be prepared to pay slightly more to help with more generous concession schemes? What about the Government chipping in, and if so, what would be some useful guiding principles that we can put forward for consideration? What about some principles for PTOs to "share their gains" with commuters in a meaningful and impactful manner?
And whatever fare formula that is eventually recommended and adopted, how do we balance the interests of the PTOs, in an environment where all signs point to ever-rising manpower costs, especially with energy costs increasingly becoming a very significant cost driver, and yet try to safeguard commuters' interests by giving the PTC sufficient tools to ensure fare affordability?
Quantitative feedback will also ensure that our Report is unbiased and objective. The FRMC is already in the process of gathering such quantitative feedback. This will tie the loose questions to our overall remit and final Report to the Minister. Minister Lui concurs that this reality testing step is critical and he is agreeable to give us the necessary time, the additional months, to complete our work and finalise the Report.
I appreciate your patience and understanding.
Update from Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew on his Facebook page:
Chairman of the Fare Review Mechanism Committee (FRMC) Mr Richard Magnus shared with me that the FRMC is not quite ready to finalise its report as his Committee would like to gather more quantitative feedback.
The review of our public transport fare review mechanism is an important one as its outcome is one that will affect many.
I therefore fully support Mr Magnus’ request to take the time that he and his Committee will need before finalising the report.
Certainly, from what he has updated me thus far on his Committee’s views and thinking on fares and concessions, I have every expectation that it will be a thorough and thoughtful report.