I refer to the press releases of the Public Transport Council (PTC) and the Ministry of Transport (MOT) on the fare increase.
1m pay less, 4m pay more?
What it essentially means may be that most commuters will have to pay more, in order for some to pay less.
In other words, an estimated 1 million may benefit against 4.4 million who may end uo paying more.
So many will buy passes?
Looking at the breakdown of passes – we may be making rather optimistic projections of the number who may buy the new concession passes, in the projections on the number who will benefit.
Can spend $1.1b to help operators, but not $53m to not increase fares?
In this connection, don’t you find it rather strange and out of proportion – when we can spend more than $1.1 billion to help the transport operators – and yet increase fares to give an estimated increase in annual revenue of just $53 million to the operators?
No concession for low wage workers below age 35 or over 59?
Why is that the the concession for low wage workers (LWW) is defined as Workfare (WIS) receipients below age 60?
What about LWW below age 35 who are not eligible for WIS and those age 60 and above?
It says that the 3.2% increase in fares is less than half the national mean wage increase in 2013.
No mean wage increase?
I find it strange that the “national mean wage increase” is not given.
Since the 2013 wage statistics have not been released yet – does the PTC know something that nobody else knows yet?
Why use mean and not median?
Also, why use the mean wage increase, instead of the median wage increase?
5.5% fare increase?
For the shortest distance fare – the increase of 4 cents from 73 to 77 cents, is an increase of a whopping 5.5%.
This may affect the poor most, as they may generally try to take the cheapest ride to do their chores.
Leong Sze Hian