Lui Tuck Yew's argument against nationalizing the public transport cannot stand

1. Commuters and taxpayers who do not take public transport do not benefit but these group of people do benefit from a workforce largely dependent on public transport to get to work on time, and worn out with the hassle of getting up packed trains and buses. If workers do not arrive at work late or tired out the negative impact on productivity is minimal. Some in this category of taxpayers are businessmen or executives who already benefit the most compared to their lowly or poorly paid workers. So is this not one way of narrowing the ever widening income gap, albeit in a tiny way.
   
2. Nationalizing means operators work on cost recovery basis? Which is worse, a cost recovery basis or a maximizing of profit basis, which is currently the complaint? If operators take pride in helping build a "First World" public transport system they will not be capitalizing on their positions thinking of means and ways to make big bucks out of ambitious and expensive projects targeting the govt's deep pocket(s), which incidentally then affects all taxpayers' pockets for more.
   
3. An efficient and cost-effective public transport can be maintained by the govt rather than by one run for maximum profits. The latter treats commuters as the golden goose with ever bigger and extravagant MRT stations and architecture. While a nationalized transport system would be in a better position to rein in cost and extras that are good to have but not critical. The former will ensure taxpayers' money is wisely and justifiably spend.
   
4. As it is now the bus and train system operates on the basis of big profits/returns for shareholders, and money making projects paid for by commuter fares which are increased at will to justify big projects that bleeds money; and commuters' needs are an afterthought.

Mr Lui, you are not listening to what WP and the people are saying! It is exactly the poor level of service and increasingly higher fare that bug commuters. When profits and healthy returns to shareholders and capitalizing on the public transport system to make big bucks for those behind the big projects that the govt wants to address. You are merely rejecting these issues by rejecting the reality felt by many. The private operators do not need a govt minister to speak on their behalf. The private operators are cunning businessminded people. Let them justify to the public and speak for themselves.

Basically what you are saying is that the govt does not want any extra responsibility, or do not have the capability to operate a "first class" transport system cost effectively and efficiently, taking into consideration that commuters are at the mercy of those private operators and the govt is complicit in the extravagant projects and excessive profits that they are reaping in. You do not have the political will nor the wisdom to take this issue to heart and think of a way to reform the whole system. You either serve the people wholeheartedly or big businesses is your priority?