Many people may not realise that public transport is subsidised in Singapore. The government pays for the huge cost of the infrastructure for the MRT system. The public is free from this high cost and has to pay for the operating cost plus the operator's profit margin. I was told that the bus opeators received quite significant subsidy (but details are not available to me). This is why train and bus fares are much cheaper than in some cities, such as London.
I feel that taxis should also be considered as public transport and should receive some subsidy, although not to the same extent as for buses and trains. This will make taxi fares less costly and encourage more people to take taxis, rather than to drive private cars.
A taxi can be used several times a day, and can replace 5 to 10 private cars. It create employment for taxi drivers and allows the commuter to relax, read or communicate on the mobile phone. This improves the productivity. There is less need to build more parking spaces for the private cars.
There may be a fear that lower taxi fares will entice people to use taxis instead of buses and trains. The impact is likely to be small, as taxis will still cost 3 to 5 times of the other modes of transport. The real impact wil be to reduce the demand for private cars.
I hope that the policy makers will review their thinking and consider taxis as another form of public transport and be eligible for some subsidy or be relieved from some taxes or levies, such as ERP.
Tan Kin Lian
Saturday, April 24, 2010
ST Forum: Should MAS act?
MANY claims have been made by aggrieved investors in Singapore and other countries of malpractices in the creation and sale of collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) by investment banks.
It was also reported that the United States authorities may investigate other banks that pushed similar CDO products. This is expected, given the copious structures of CDO products prevalent then.
On April 16, Goldman Sachs was charged by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with fraud in the structuring and marketing of a debt product tied to sub-prime mortgages.
The SEC alleged that Goldman structured and marketed a synthetic CDO that hinged on the performance of sub-prime residential mortgage-backed securities, and which cost investors more than US$1 billion (S$1.4 billion).
This latest revelation sheds a new light on the debacle and has created widespread public outcry in the US.
But in Singapore, there has been silence from the authorities, although the stakes in Singapore alone are huge, exceeding $100 million of investors' money.
This turn of events prompts at least two questions.
First, should the Monetary Authority of Singapore not open its own investigation into troubled CDOs sold here? In the meantime, should the Government at least stop channelling public deals and business to investment banks that concocted the products, as it suspended local distributors from derivatives sales, until they agree to open their books for scrutiny?
Second, how will the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (Fidrec) take this into consideration in cases under its judgment in which investors claim mis-selling and malpractice by local distributor-agents and the originator-banks they represent?
How should Fidrec factor this circumstantial evidence into its final decisions pending the outcome of the charges in the US and potential investigations here? Should decisions be deferred or at least be conditional?
Investors, I am sure, look to a constructive and supportive response from the two authorities. For many, this could be the answer to their prayers on what remains a personal dilemma.
Quek Soo Beng
It was also reported that the United States authorities may investigate other banks that pushed similar CDO products. This is expected, given the copious structures of CDO products prevalent then.
On April 16, Goldman Sachs was charged by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with fraud in the structuring and marketing of a debt product tied to sub-prime mortgages.
The SEC alleged that Goldman structured and marketed a synthetic CDO that hinged on the performance of sub-prime residential mortgage-backed securities, and which cost investors more than US$1 billion (S$1.4 billion).
This latest revelation sheds a new light on the debacle and has created widespread public outcry in the US.
But in Singapore, there has been silence from the authorities, although the stakes in Singapore alone are huge, exceeding $100 million of investors' money.
This turn of events prompts at least two questions.
First, should the Monetary Authority of Singapore not open its own investigation into troubled CDOs sold here? In the meantime, should the Government at least stop channelling public deals and business to investment banks that concocted the products, as it suspended local distributors from derivatives sales, until they agree to open their books for scrutiny?
Second, how will the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (Fidrec) take this into consideration in cases under its judgment in which investors claim mis-selling and malpractice by local distributor-agents and the originator-banks they represent?
How should Fidrec factor this circumstantial evidence into its final decisions pending the outcome of the charges in the US and potential investigations here? Should decisions be deferred or at least be conditional?
Investors, I am sure, look to a constructive and supportive response from the two authorities. For many, this could be the answer to their prayers on what remains a personal dilemma.
Quek Soo Beng
Foreign ownership of Australian property
Dear Mr Tan,
I just read on bloomberg that Australia is going to toughen rules on non-citizen ownership of australian property. The boom in commodities and natural resources, plus lots of liquidity coming from rich Chinese have escalated their property prices over the last year or so.
Seems like the australian govt is pretty sensitive to local concerns and high property prices, even though some statistics indicated only less than 1% are foreigner buyers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZMzrVOOWWow
My comments
An important duty of any government is to make sure that housing is affordable to the population. The government should prevent property prices from being inflated by foreign buying, especially if prices are pushed up and the profit is taken away by the foreigners.
I just read on bloomberg that Australia is going to toughen rules on non-citizen ownership of australian property. The boom in commodities and natural resources, plus lots of liquidity coming from rich Chinese have escalated their property prices over the last year or so.
Seems like the australian govt is pretty sensitive to local concerns and high property prices, even though some statistics indicated only less than 1% are foreigner buyers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZMzrVOOWWow
My comments
An important duty of any government is to make sure that housing is affordable to the population. The government should prevent property prices from being inflated by foreign buying, especially if prices are pushed up and the profit is taken away by the foreigners.
Goldman Sach's Prosecution
Goldman Sach's Prosecution threaten to open the floodgates on Wall Street. Read this article.
HDB dwellers can try RTM1 for World Cup
EXTRACT FROM ST ONLINE
FOOTBALL fans, good news if you are among the 80 per cent of the population living in public housing. Leonard Lim, Chan U Gene & Jeff Ang.
FOOTBALL fans, good news if you are among the 80 per cent of the population living in public housing.
Chances are, you will be able to catch 20 World Cup games live and another 11 delayed on a free-to-air Malaysian channel - if the unthinkable happens and Singapore fails to secure the broadcast rights to the football extravaganza.
And some HDB dwellers who can receive Indonesian channels such as RCTI and Global TV may even be able to watch all 64 matches live.
Cashew Nut
FOOTBALL fans, good news if you are among the 80 per cent of the population living in public housing. Leonard Lim, Chan U Gene & Jeff Ang.
FOOTBALL fans, good news if you are among the 80 per cent of the population living in public housing.
Chances are, you will be able to catch 20 World Cup games live and another 11 delayed on a free-to-air Malaysian channel - if the unthinkable happens and Singapore fails to secure the broadcast rights to the football extravaganza.
And some HDB dwellers who can receive Indonesian channels such as RCTI and Global TV may even be able to watch all 64 matches live.
Cashew Nut
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)