Category: Rants

Current Affairs – Ministerial Pay Revision

6 comments

The hottest news in the past few days has to be the ministerial pay revision. I had personally expected a cut between 10% ~ 25% which means that the cuts proposed are above my expectations. If anyone were to ask whether I am pleased or happy, it would be the wrong question to ask. I will only talk about what I think about it.

First of all, the ministers will still be the highest paid in the world compared to their foreign peers based on the figures alone. The fanatically and rabidly anti-People’s Action Party [anti-PAP] netizens were quick to point out that PM Lee still earns S$2.2 million (approximately US$1.7 million at current exchange rate) compared to President Obama’s US$400,000.

That said, when President Obama and his family went on vacation to Hawaii recently, it cost the US taxpayers almost US$4 million dollars. So while Obama nominally earns less, he certainly has a lot more perks. I wondered whether the government paid for Prime Minister Lee’s recent vacation (which was cut short as a result of the MRT breakdowns) or did he pay for it out of his own pocket. If our country only paid for the expenses of the PM’s security detail while he paid for the rest of his own expenses from his salary, then how is the comparison with President Obama’s salary fair? Wouldn’t our political leaders actually not be getting much more than the other leaders because the perks are not considered a part of their salaries?

Many would be outraged with what I have just written. I imagined there would be screams of anger and outrage at my words and I shivered. Regardless, I simply had to voice this out because I am ignorant about the matter itself! I want to be absolutely sure when I still lash out at them over the matter of their exorbitant pay, no one could try and argue their way out of it.

Next, the Ministerial Pay Review Committee has almost wiped out the pay increments of 2007 because I estimated that ministerial pay is now almost back to pre-2007 levels. I had originally wanted to show figures but I am confident with my estimations. Here’s the math – If I earn $2000 in 2007 and I get a pay increment of 60%, my new pay would be $3200. And if I get a pay cut of 35% at 2011, my new pay would be $2080. That’s not much of a change from what I was getting before the increment and I have to say it’s quite a substantial cut. (It doesn’t matter whether that pay is $2000 or $1.5 million. The results will give the same conclusions.)

On top of that they are doing away with the pension scheme and from May 21, 2011 onwards, the previous pension scheme is abolished. Even the method of calculating their bonus has been changed. Given that the method would not be tied solely to the economic performance, I wouldn’t really comment on it until they announce their bonus based on this new scheme. What exactly is the point of speculating on how they will make use of this variable to pay themselves handsomely when they haven’t already done it? While it is too late by then… I prefer to stick with what has been done or already occurred.

So that pretty much summarises what I think of the committee’s proposal. I have glanced through some of the political parties’ reaction but I have yet to see the one from the Workers’ Party [WP]. It reminds me why I have liked WP since 2006. This is a party that doesn’t jump the gun and shoot from the hip. They tend to think it over and say the things that makes the most sense. WP appears to be the only party which seems to understand that it is the swing voters and not the rabidly anti-PAP that needs convincing. Consider this, a lot of PAP mistakes aren’t apparent until many years after the decisions are made – from the 2-child policy to opening the floodgates to foreigners. But can anyone actually expect the sentiments in 2016 to be the same as 8 months ago? When a political party is always saying the same things as those who have completely rejected the PAP and disregard whatever the PAP is saying / doing, fat hope in winning a seat in Parliament! They are simply gambling that the PAP will continue to falter and not do anything. Granted, the PAP has become arrogant, elitist and even out of touch. But from 75.2% in 2001 to 60.1% in 2011, does anyone really think the PAP hasn’t felt the danger of losing power already?

Anyway, on the matter of arrogance and elitism (as a result of Grace Fu’s so-called misunderstood comments), I had a discussion with some friends on Whatsapp and one of my friends said this (I paraphrase):

” No one disagrees in paying the ministers an appropriate wage to do the job. The question is, how much is appropriate pay? “

We subsequently agreed that appropriate pay is simply a sum of money which leaves enough to save up for old age (so we have money when we can’t work as hard and earn as much), and also to cover our liabilities (housing loans for e.g.) and expenses (food & utilities etc). Based on that, if Grace Fu still expect the people to believe that even S$1 million is not an appropriate pay, and that it will not be enough to attract talents, then she ought to tell us why. Justifying that they can earn more working elsewhere isn’t going to work for us when we are really earning peanuts and are constantly told to curb our expectation for better wages. In fact, another friend had pointed out that he doubt any of those former navy Rear Admirals or army Generals had commanded a higher pay before becoming a minister. Though certain Permanent Secretaries might actually earn more than the minister himself which makes it hard for the PAP to bring them into politics, that in itself still cannot justify that a minister would earn more outside the government. After all, the PAP has so far very little to show in terms of talents from the private sector.

So, what exactly is the point I am trying to make here then while I seem to conditionally accept the pay they are getting, and yet say their justification of that pay to attract talents is bollocks? The point is that I choose the middle ground – i.e. while I won’t accept the PAP’s argument for the pay level, I also do not think the cuts are too little. I also want to point out that there are those who really don’t want to get involve in this argument but simply expect the ministers to get the job done and deal with those matters which most of us considered to be problems. In particular, those of housing, transport, the influx of foreigners, the widening incoming gap, the rise of elitism, health care costs etc. Most of us simply don’t want to listen to bullshit like “once in 50 years occurrences”, or “stealing from the reserves”.

On top of which, I must say that appearing to be doing something is also not enough. One of my ex-supervisors once said this: “You can be doing a lot of things related to an issue and is even very efficient in doing them, but are all those things you do… effective?” I believe everyone knows what (or who) I am driving at and I do not need to draw the innards in stick figures.

Simply put, pay revision (or reduction) is simply cosmetic. What Singaporeans really want is effective measures and not quick fixes (such as raising the ground level at the Orchard / Patterson Road Junction in reaction to the flash floods) which are not entirely effective. Perhaps having the ministers take responsibility for screw ups would be too much to ask for, but at the very least we expect accountability. In Ling How Doong’s words – Don’t Talk Cock, especially when everyone is already pointing out what the problem is.

Before I end, I would like to share a joke. “Now that the annual salary of the Minister of Transportation is lower than Saw Phiak Hwa’s, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with her as she earn millions of dollars because she need not listen to the minister’s ideas and proposals. Perhaps he would need to tell her to go to maintain a bit of dignity.”

Oh, I know the person who said something similarly stupid has apologised for it. But he doesn’t need to be upset over this. After all, he can still retain his dignity when he compares his pay with mine.

Current Affairs – Short Takes

2 comments

The Ministry of Education [MOE] has drafted a revised Sexuality Education Programme [SEP] to boost emphasis on abstinence over contraception, reported The New Paper [TNP].

Emphasizing on abstinence is placing too much faith in a person’s self control, and self control is one thing that we humans rarely possess. Human beings in general are irresponsible, as evident by the multitude of legislations in place to ensure compliance and acceptable behavior from most members of society.

Sex education, in the secular point of view, is not so much about morality but more about the biological / physical aspect (which deals with procreation and a physical need), and the health aspect (taking care of one’s health and body). I don’t really give a damn if a guy wants to be a “breeding pig” or if a girl wants to be “every men’s convenient store”. However, I am quite sure it is necessary to let teenagers know that everyone has only one body and the failure to take care of it and ruining one’s own life in the process – such as a body harming abortion, an unwanted pregnancy, or sexually transmitted infections – are consequences that only they alone will bear.

Contraceptives such as condoms is thus a “necessary evil” when the craving of one’s crotch overwrites the brain’s higher functions and throws abstinence to the four winds. They maybe the only thing that prevent to a large extent the nasties that might come with a rash decision even though it is not absolute in its protection.

In my opinion, sex education should emphasise on the health aspect – i.e. all of us cannot just discard our body and move on to another when it fails. Knowing all the avenues to prevent harm to our health in a moment of passion is of utmost importance, even if that offends certain fundamentalists who believes that too much emphasis is placed on contraceptives.

– * –

Temasek Junior College student Kwek Jian Qiang is in the spotlight for making a controversial comment on the disparity in expenditure of campus facilities between Junior Colleges [JC] and the Institute of Technical Education [ITE]. In a letter to TODAY he wrote that “there are significant disparities in the quality of learning environments”, and that “our brightest students should get the best facilities in order to excel and grow”.

Singapore’s emphasis in this so-called “meritocracy” has clearly breed nothing more than self important elitists. Should we really blame Kwek Jian Qiang for being an elitist little prick when the system promotes such snobbishness?

From what he has written, I must say Kwek clearly didn’t look too bright and if he thinks the facilities in his JC was bad, he certainly got what he deserved (according to his own measure). If he was any brighter he would have realised that the examples he gave were actually self defeating. He might have a point if the facilities at Anderson or Victoria JC were the result of deteriorating academic capabilities of the students there. Unfortunately, nothing of that sort ever happened and it may even be true that many of students in those JCs actually rank higher than Kwek himself. Regardless of what Kwek thinks, it is the duty of the nation to provide the necessary facilities it can afford to all students regardless of their academic performance, and not only to the best or bourgeois bloatpigs like Kwek. That said, it doesn’t mean that everyone will get equal use of those facilities since they will be limited. Not to mention there will always be disparity in the quality of learning environment depending on the age of the facilities, unless someone could advise MOE on how to keep all education facilities in Singapore up to date at the same time.

Either way, just because a person is damned good and scoring in tests and examinations does not mean he is very bright. Even less so when he thinks lesser of someone simply because that person isn’t in JC!

– * –

While the total recorded rainfall at Orchard Road was 152.8mm, the Public Utilities Board [PUB] said “there was no flooding at Orchard Road”. “However, water ponded at the open area of Liat Towers, the underpass between Lucky Plaza and Ngee Ann City, and the basement of Lucky Plaza due to the sustained heavy downpour,” it added.

Euphemism is not going to change the facts, PUB. Whether a person has died or passed away doesn’t make a damned difference to the fact. Similarly, whether it was flooding or ponding does not change the fact that the water should not even have been there in the first place. At least for many years this didn’t happen so why did the water now not drain away effectively? How bad is 152.8mm compared to the other two times which has also resulted in flooding? Has Orchard Road not experienced similar rainfall previously? And if it has, why didn’t the rainfall back then cause similar flooding? Keeping the public in the dark about these facts merely gives me the impression that this is deliberately not revealed to us to hide failure or incompetence. Using euphemism makes that even worse. This might be the way to work back in ancient China where officials are the Emperor’s representative to rule the people but there hasn’t been an Emperor over all of China for 100 years. Frankly, not even a person in China would take such shit lying down these days when I look at some of the news coming out of some parts of the Guangdong province recently. That’s not forgetting that this is Singapore and not the People’s Republic of China.

– * –

It took SMRT three train breakdowns and four days to create a social media account on Twitter.

I hope there is no PR company or self-claimed “social media guru” advising SMRT on this. That is because the way SMRT is using Twitter is an utter total fail(ure). SMRT might as well not have done this in the first place as it is no better than having an announcement page on its official website. If SMRT really intend to keep up with the times and wants its Twitter account to succeed, it needs to do better in providing prompt information and in interacting with those it hopes to reach. Otherwise it should just consider this a failed experiment and delete its Twitter account immediately.

Prompt information would mean that the information coming from SMRT’s twitter account would be almost as prompt as those from other Twitter users. While I do not expect SMRT to beat my friends in updating everyone about a breakdown, posting about a breakdown which happened around 6:50pm at 8:10pm is ridiculous. How much time does SMRT need to confirm that a train has stalled long enough to warrant an announcement to the public? The details on why it has broken down can come later but informing the commuters within 10 minutes of the incident would have made known to them that the next few trains will be more crowded than usual once service resumes. They can also make a decision using that information, and even re-tweet it so other commuters who do not follow SMRT’s Twitter account can benefit. It is the quick propagation of information on social media platforms such as Twitter that makes it an effective tool of communication.

To exploit this advantage of social media, whoever manning that account must interact with other users on Twitter. While it is almost certain that SMRT will be getting loads of crap from cursing and swearing commuters, that does not mean avoid interaction completely because of these “trolls”. Helping those who are genuinely seeking more information or clarifying their queries will only help to move information along. Not doing so simply allow speculation to fester and even allow false information which is detrimental to SMRT to propagate.

For e.g. a friend posted a photo on her Facebook profile two days ago. Not long after, I directed a query to SMRT on Twitter to find out whether this has anything to do with opening of the remaining 3 Circle Line (CCL) stations. I received no response at all. While few noticed this, the photo could have been passed on in Twitter with negative information which may not be true. Someone may post the same photo with a comment that “CCL is having a problem again” and under the current circumstances, other users might actually believed it and pick that up. All of a suddenly, people will be talking about a problem which does not exists. Those who are not sure might even avoid using the MRT and it won’t to too far fetched to imagine that there will be income loss for SMRT.

Had SMRT replied, at least some of us would be able to help counter any false information or speculation when we see them. Without anything to back us up, we will simply not comment on the other Tweets since everyone is entitled to their own opinion. SMRT obviously didn’t understand enough of this new media platform to make full use of the account it has created.

– * –

The Online Citizen [TOC] started a shit storm with an article titled “MP Seng Han Thong: SMRT’s unpreparedness also due to Malay and Indian staffs English language inefficiency”.

I am not sure if TOC is aware that the title itself is misleading. It gives us the impression that Seng Han Thong made that comment, which isn’t the case when we view the video. For failing to admit that the title is misleading even when it might not be its intention, TOC has shown itself to be no better than the main stream media [MSM] which is often accused to be biased. In fact, the way it reacts to criticism showed that it was hardly any better.

Let me explain. It is hard to assess whether Singapore is matured enough to tackle the issues of racial harmony, but the impression that an MP is “racist” would have been quite a blow to our already fragile racial harmony. The headline made it a matter of racial harmony which should be handled with care. With that title in mind, I was appalled with what was said on my first view of the video, Being biased against the PAP, my initial reaction was: “What a dumb ass PAP man who say things without going through his brains.”

Indeed, I wasn’t even surprised when Halimah Yacob said Seng’s remark was ‘inappropriate and unfair’. I would be surprised if the rest of the non-Chinese PAP MPs remained silent. Seng simply should not have mentioned any race in specific at all. Subsequently, I viewed the same video again several days later when the MSM went full force to present a picture that was some what different from what I understood. I then realized that I had actually ignored what Seng said at the end of those comments: “but I think we accept broken English”. As a result, I have to grudgingly admit Seng was simply pointing out that in that kind of situation (i.e. the MRT breakdown about 2 weeks ago), what really mattered was to communicate information to commuters even if that person does not speak English well. However, I had to disagree that Seng was showing that he strongly disagreed with that comment. To present it that way (as Shammugam did) would be laying it a little thick. It is also meaningless to say that Seng (or the PAP) was trying to deflect the blame to the staff for SMRT’s utterly dismal handling during the breakdown. There is a line to be drawn between speculation or leading the public away from that which has truly transpired.

Anyway, someone must have heard it over the radio when an officer from SMRT said something over the radio which suggested that poor language skills of its drivers were part of the problem in the inadequacy of SMRT’s response. Both the MSM and TOC has not reproduced this in its context for the benefit of the public. Without this piece of evidence it is actually difficult to put this matter to rest. To me, TOC response to Cherian George’s criticism is reminiscent of the petty and childish online squabbles between Xiaxue and Dawn Yang or Steven Lim. Then again, to some celebrity blogger ‘flame wars’ may actually be more entertaining! The saga even reminded me of the fuss made over a packet of food for the YOG volunteers. One photo was all it need to condemn the authorities. No one bothered to check whether all the volunteers were getting equally bad food.

That was exactly the same effect of TOC’s title on Seng. In my opinion, everyone thought Seng is another Choo Wee Khiang, who made a lousy “joke” about Little India in Parliament. Many would have gotten the impression that Seng is a racist while few would have reviewed the video. Thus, Cherian George was right in his criticisms of TOC. If online media such as the TOC wants to be an alternative source of news for the people, its response to Cherian George shows it has a long way to go. While it maybe true all those who oppose the PAP are already biased, failing to even attempt to act objective will only further alienate those with a moderate view. In my view, the TOC page on Facebook (if not the TOC site itself) is going the way of STOMP or that of Temasek Review. It is a noticeable downward slide ever since the Prime Ministers Office [PMO] gazetted TOC as a political organisation.

Current Affairs – North South Line MRT Breakdown

One comment

Water resources and transport have got to be two of the worst ministerial portfolios in the last few months. The former being a tough job because of the flash floods and the number of dead bodies in the Bedok Reservoir and the latter, because of the increasing number of failures of the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT). I personally cannot understand why people can’t use the Bedok Jetty instead of the reservoir for suicide much as I cannot understand how the Circle Line [CCL] – which is in operation for about a year (or maybe less) – suffered more breakdowns this year compared to the older East-West [EWL] and North-South [NSL] Lines (which has operated for some 24 years or so).

I liked the CCL very much. The main reason is I can now head home from Vivocity via Buona Vista to Boon Lay without going to Outram Park, and use it to avoid Raffles Place when I am within 3 stations in either direction of Bishan. Furthermore, if I am travelling from the estates in the north east like Sengkang and Punggol, I can now change to the CCL at Serangoon and then switch to EWL at Paya Lebar which almost certainly guaranteed a seat. Simply put, I now get to travel in better comfort for some distance on the CCL before switching to the always crowded EWL.

But I disliked the CCL trains for its lack of STARiS. Even though the announcements are pretty loud and the name of the next station is displayed in the trains’ LED displays, I find myself checking whether I have over shot my station every now and then. I am also puzzled that the CCL stations are smaller and each train has only 3 cars (compared to the other lines which have 6 cars each). In my opinion, the CCL is more like a crossbreed between the MRT and LRT (Light Rail Transit) and not a full MRT line.

If having just 3 cars a train isn’t bad enough, the CCL is not scalable. If it wasn’t a case where the city planners lacked foresight, it simply reinforced my opinion that everything in our city state is only built with an eye to profitability – which takes precedence over necessity. The lack of scalability of the EWL & NSL – since we can’t lengthen the stations and the trains to deal with the increased load – is a serious flaw. Even the NorthEast Line [NEL] which is built later suffered from the same problem. Had the stations been scalable, the operators could just increase every train by 1 car length and it would have increased capacity by a theoretical 16% per train. Frequency can even be kept constant during off peak hours by running a shorter train. In fact, I suspect the operators don’t even need to crack their heads much or worry about the signal systems since they are technically still running the same number of trains. A friend of mine had joked that the failure to take scalability into consideration for the NSL, EWL and NEL can simply be dismissed as “myopia” [近視眼] (cannot see far), but to build the CCL with even lower capacity is serious “presbyopia” [老花眼] (cannot see clearly).

While I can’t help with the premonition that the CCL will come from behind to beat the Bukit Panjang LRT as SMRT’s biggest fiasco, I do hope things with the CCL will get better while the service at the older lines will not get worse. The recent failures on the venerable NSL which has broken down for almost the entire duration of the evening of 15th Dec, and the morning of 17th Dec until almost 2pm in the afternoon are rather alarming. That’s 2 breakdowns on the same line within 3 days. They happened in such quick succession that it has now impact commuter confidence. If I have to use this line everyday, I would be concerned that there is a possibility I might end up trapped in the tunnels or being late for work.

Personally speaking, I am surprised that SMRT didn’t see this coming with the increasing number of minor disruptions and delays – for e.g. the ever regular train faults that slow trains down to a crawl. I wondered whether anyone is concerned that all of these minor faults may actually be symptoms indicating something more serious maybe on the way. I doubt so because SMRT CEO Saw Phiak Hwa even said she did not see ‘anything significant’ in the number of disruptions and delays just slightly more than 10 days ago. I am sorry I must say (without any offense meant to the affected commuters), this breakdown is a “well-deserved reckoning” for her. In fact, it is one that has been long in coming since a year and a half ago when she said ‘People can board the train – it’s whether they choose to.’ Her callous and uncaring replies suggest a complete lack of understanding of SMRT’s very operations, and reveal her utter disdain of those who used the service. Indeed, it even suggests that she is completely uninterested in her job even though she is the best paid CEO in Singapore (S$1.85 million per annum or S$5,000 per day – 3 times more than Barack Obama). It will be of no surprise if Saw Phiak Hwa is the most hated CEO among Singaporeans who are generally moderate and forgiving in nature. (Then again, she might tie with the CEO of HDB in that.)


MRT window broken for ventilation

For those who might disagree that Singaporeans are moderate and forgiving, get off the Internet and social media feeds and talk to real people. By that, I don’t mean talk with the Twitter or Facebook friends in real life. The reason is that when I brought this matter up at work the day after the first NSL breakdown, 3 of my colleagues (who are not active on social media) unanimously pointed out that SMRT only had a very small window for maintenance – around 1am after the last train moves into depot, and until about 530am before the first train has to leave depot. Some other friends I spoke with are also sympathetic to the station staff caught in the situation and are thankful to those who ensure that the trains will still work while we sleep at night. The matter of the constant fare “adjustments” amidst record profits did not come up at all. Thus, it is logical to say that what we really couldn’t tolerate is simply the uncaring and callous attitude of Saw Phiak Hwa. It is of no wonder why she has become a lightning rod for all the anger and resentment towards SMRT.

While I would still have suggested that she find a katana and use the Padang for her final atonement, I can live with her immediate resignation – when she chooses to do so – because we are Singaporeans and not Japanese. Really, it is high time someone who has a better understanding of train operations be appointed in her place instead. At the very least, appoint someone who is responsive to commuter complaints or feedback, or at least make the effort to appear caring. Even better if the new SMRT CEO would make rides completely free on certain days as a goodwill gesture to commuters when the company make record profits.

This post is getting a lengthy so I’ll round it up soon. First of all, the breakdown pointed out a serious flaw in our transport system. When a major system such as the MRT breaks down, it inevitably causes a strain on the other available modes of transport. Worst of it all, there is no ready alternative available when such an incident occurs. Commuters have to wait for the operators to scramble their feeder buses to deal with the breakdown. That goes to say operators have a fleet of buses on standby for such an eventuality which in effect is a waste of resources since they cannot be deployed for other more profitable purposes. That’s not mentioning the lead time required to get the entire fleet of buses into operation. Yet, it is puzzling that the government often justify the removal of buses running alongside the MRT route because it is a waste of resources. Shouldn’t the priority of the Public Transport Council [PTC] or Land Transport Authority [LTA] be to ensure that commuters arrive at their destination with relative ease at reasonable cost within a reasonable time and not whether transport operators are profitable or not? For the government – which should act in the interest of the people – to argue for operator profitability while government-linked entities (such as Temasek Holdings or the Singapore Labour Foundation [SLF]) are major shareholders in them is a major conflict of interests. More ominously, the people cannot help but felt their interests are sacrificed and left high and dry by those who should represent them!

It would be better to consider a bus service plying the same route as a ready backup in the event of MRT service disruption instead of a waste of resources. In fact, a bus service running alongside the MRT compliments it, since it also served as a built-in mechanism which ‘punishes’ the operator which did not uphold its service standards. It almost ensure that fining an operator for bad service is meaningless since what greater punishment can compare with a competitor benefiting from the breakdown? While I understand the purpose of the law is to ensure that there is a legal framework to punish misbehaving or even rogue operators, its main purpose should be to compensate the aggrieved and aggravated commuters and not into the government’s coffers.

Current Affairs – Taxi Fare “Revision”

Leave a comment

Well, well, well. Taxi fares are “adjusted” again. Just call it what it is – a fare hike – alright?

So what if it hasn’t been done for four years since 2007? I hadn’t had a pay increment for almost as long! As if that wasn’t bad enough, all but one of the operators also revised their taxi fares after the shameless National Taxi Association [NTA] urges them to do the same. The lame duck Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) might say otherwise, but in reality this is simply cartel price fixing in any other country. The best part of this revision is that now taxi drivers can take a full 8 hour of rest, because the rest of the 16 hours are all cover with surcharges! Sadly, Singaporeans will just complain, and then demand for taxis goes down for a week or two. It won’t be long before everyone forget about it.

The excuse given by Comfort Delgro (which took the lead in the revision) is that the revision will better meet the increased demand for taxis. Oh really? According to Wikipedia, there are a total of 25,176 taxis in Singapore. That means roughly 1 taxi serving 206 people (according to the population figure of 5,183,700 by the Department of Statistics) on our island. Compare this to Hong Kong (population 7,122,508 according to indexmundi.com) with only 18,183 taxis whereby the ratio is approximately 1 taxi serving 392 people. That’s not mentioning the fact that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [S.A.R. for short] (including Lantau Island, Kowloon and the New Territories), has a larger area than Singapore. While it is unlikely that everyone will demand a taxi, it is simply logical to deduce that we would see a bigger problem with taxi supply in Hong Kong. Instead, we have an “issue” with taxi supply in Singapore while none of us would have experienced the same in Hong Kong. This is where I would like to share several observations I made.

I was on leave one weekday but was awaken rather early by some inconsiderate school bus driver’s incessant honking at the foot of my block. After trying for half an hour and not being able to go back to sleep, I washed up and decided to take in some fresh air at the window. Bad choice, since it is overlooking the road outside and the air would hardly be fresh even though it is not foul smelling. It was about 7:30am and a small congestion has built up along the road leading the Jalan Boon Lay – the main thoroughfare that leads to Jurong Island and the Ayer Rajah Expressway [AYE]. I could see a number of empty taxi with the other cars queuing before the traffic light to make a turn into Jalan Boon Lay, while some lucky ones are picking up passengers along the same road. I also see a number of cabs with ‘On Call’ signs rushing around to pick up the callers and I observed that for a good 20 mins while sipping my coffee. (On the other hand, most cabs will be ‘On Call’ if it is a rainy morning. Few likes to be waiting in the rain for a taxi. On top of which, the call booking lines of the taxi operators will be so busy to the point no one can get through when it is raining heavily.)

When I came back to the window again after 9:30am, traffic on the road is scarce and I noticed a mother carrying her child in her arms trying to flag down the occasional taxi (many of them were already hired). It was a good 10 ~ 15 mins before she managed to flag one down in the hot sun. Poor mother and child. But it also reminded me that there was once where I needed to take a taxi at around 10am because I was late for an appointment at SunTec City. I end up queuing a good 10 mins at the taxi stand at Jurong Point because the normally long queue of taxis was missing. The reason I am at Jurong Point was that I had already waited a good 20 mins at the same road with no luck!

Now, I didn’t make the above observations just once to make a point. The situation described above happens on any weekday morning. The conclusion from these observations is simple: the morning rush hours would ‘suck’ the supply of taxis into the CBD area (or perhaps even the industrial parks) and by 10am there are few remaining taxis in the housing estates. When I am in town, I often find taxis either queuing at taxi stands in the CBD or outside a hotel lobby after the morning rush hours because once people are already in the office, the demand for taxis will drop drastically.

This situation is then reversed in the evening where home going passengers (after shopping or dinner) would ‘suck’ the supply of taxis out of the CBD area into the estates. Many taxi drivers felt that going to the estates at night is not worth their while since it will most likely be a one way trip out to an area where demand is low. So, they “play cheat” by ignoring passengers at taxi stands or those frantically flagging for one by the roadside. The idea is to force passengers to book for a taxi so they can earn a little more from the call charges. Coupled with the CBD surcharges that runs all the way to 11:59pm, the fare will be at least $8.30 ($2.80 flag down + $3 CDB charges + $2.50 call booking) depending on what taxi is booked.

This very attitude indicates a clear and simple fact – that there is an uneven distribution of both supply and demand. As a commuter, I am only interested in how this attitude impacts the availability of the supply. While it might be skewed to say there is no real increase in demand, the truth of the matter is merely using the supply and demand situation to justify a fare revision has no leg to stand on. After all, it is a more complex issue which involves the attitude of taxi drivers, and also that of our city design (as per my observation above) which seriously impact the distribution of taxis and directly affecting availability. This is clearly not an issue with insufficient supply of taxis!

In my opinion, the primarily driving force behind the unavailability of taxi supply is the attitude of the taxi drivers. A taxi driver would have us believe that they are ripped off by the rentals. The fact that Comfort Delgro recently posted a 12.5% rise in profit in the third quarter reinforces that perception, but it remained to be seen how much of that profit comes from operating taxis in Singapore. Unfortunately, I am just too lazy to dig further into Comfort Delgro’s quarterly reports to get the details.

In spite of that, I still believe it is logical to assume the bulk of the record profits of Comfort Delgro did not come from operating taxis in Singapore. That is the reason I don’t necessary agree that taxi companies should lower the rental as long as taxi drivers continues to use that as an excuse to justify their “cherry picking”. The reason is that either a fare revision or reduction of rentals will create the same effect – i.e. taxi drivers will be getting more money for the same job without working harder.

When taxi drivers are the ones directly passing this so-called “hardships” to commuters, I wouldn’t focus my anger on taxi companies alone. In fact, I simply consider taxi drivers and taxi companies to be in symbiotic relationship which made it difficult to consider them complete, separate entities. Only a reduction in rental which goes hand in hand with a complete revision of the taxi fare system will bring about an overall improvement in service. Unfortunately, unless the government does something to reduce the Certificate of Entitlement [COE] on new taxis, asking taxi operators to lower rentals is about as easy as forcing an elephant to submit.

That leaves the evil system of surcharges which allow taxi drivers to go about their “cherry picking”. And this system must go. Raise the flag down to $6 and do away with all the surcharges except those for Sentosa, the airports and also for driving after midnight. Surcharges for call booking should be nominal, enough to pay the taxi operators for operating the service. We should not pay more to tell the taxi driver where his business is. Other than industrial parks like Tuas or SingTel’s complex in Kim Chuan, taxi drivers should not be paid anything more than their flag down charges to answer a call booking.

If anyone were to say that this will drive some taxi drivers out of business and a job, they should be reminded that no one owes taxi drivers a living. After all, why the hell should we buy this sorry excuse from taxi drivers when they take us for fools so they can fleece us even more? Everyone of us are also having a hard time coping with higher costs of living and inflation, why are we making special allowances for taxi drivers?

Stop ripping us off. Do away with the damned surcharges. NOW!

Current Affairs – Slutwalk

12 comments

I haven’t been blogging for almost a month. Not that there isn’t anything to blog about, but rather I am keeping my comments to myself. Even though I have a really insignificant readership, I do not want to dignify certain events with “free” publicity – such as Slutwalk in Singapore. But now that it’s over, I am free to talk about it.

First of all, I was quite amuse that it is written at the end of the Slutwalk ‘About Page’ (screenshot here) that they “demand respect”. The organisers of SlutWalk should get it into their head that respect can only be earned. People might observe the proper decorum before a person in a position of power to avoid trouble but that is not respect. For e.g. During our National Service, we still have to salute an officer because of his rank even when we scoff at his personal character. Outside the army, we generally do not shout at our Cabinet Ministers when they are doing their rounds at the hawker center or market even when we might dislike certain government policies. Maintaining proper decorum has nothing to do with respect to the other person. It is simply self respect. Perhaps, what Slutwalk meant is that men should maintain proper decorum in the face of women who dressed in a certain way?

Anyway, I wondered what this Slutwalk is all about when I first heard about it. So I asked my best friend Google and discovered that it is a protest march “against explaining or excusing rape by referring to any aspect of a woman’s appearance” which originated in Toronto, Canada. The reason was because an unfortunate police constable by the name of Michael Sanguinetti suggested to a class of university students there that for a woman to remain safe, she should avoid “dressing like sluts”.

I felt sorry for the poor constable. From the way I see it, he was merely pointing out that every person have the responsibility of crime prevention. He even suggested that the best way to prevent being a victim of sexual predation is not to dress in a certain manner. Would it have been better if he said the following?

“While it might be true that not all men gets sexually aroused by every sexily dressed woman, it is one of the main ways most men gets sexually aroused. There is simply the risk of attracting the attention of sexual predators when dressed in a certain way. You can ignore this advice at your own risk.”

Bah, what a mouthful! I wouldn’t be surprised if the constable is accused of trying to make his job easier if he said that!

Interestingly, the Ministry of Law planned to repeal Section 157(d) of the Evidence Act even before Slutwalk. That must have energised and inspired the organisers of Slutwalk. After all, even the government is agreeing with that and saying that a woman’s sexual history should not be examined during a rape trial. It certainly goes some way to “raise awareness against victim-blaming and slut-shaming” as well. Even so, no one asked how is Slutwalk going to prevent more women from coming to harm from sexual predators. Sure, it maybe helpful to the victims by not accusing them of having brought misfortune upon themselves, but is Slutwalk teaching women how to protect themselves at all? It would appear to me that it had completely ignored the risks of behaving or dressing in a certain way. That is utterly irresponsible. Are the organisers of Slutwalk even aware of the undesirable impression that they now appeared to be nothing more than just a bunch of people who simply refused to act responsibly, even to themselves?

Then again, no one likes to be told about responsibilities. I suspect if Slutwalk supporters could have put it any other way, opposing Slutwalk would be equal to committing rape. However, even though Slutwalk can subject most people to agree that a victim of sexual predation is not at fault, great help it does in changing the impression of people of women who dressed anyway she likes! After all, ignoring the risks and dressing irresponsibly has absolutely nothing to do with morality. It is equal to acting foolishly – much like the fool who walks through a dark and deserted back alley counting the number of thousand-dollar notes in his wallet. (And no, even smart people can act foolishly. I am not calling women who dressed irresponsibly a fool. But why do I care anyway? They can spawn a IrresponsibleWalk or FoolWalk for all I cared. It’s cheap comedy.)

And by the way, what’s with all that nose rings?

~ * ~

【Addendum 08-Dec-2011】As I have always said, there are some people who believed very much in the freedom of expression – just their own. First of all, someone without a sense of humor called me “a shame to all men” for posting the picture above even though he / she grudgingly admitted I had a right to criticise. That’s not mentioning I had female friends who looked at it and shared a chuckle or two. Next, someone complained to Facebook and had this picture removed after I uploaded it to one of my albums. And finally, I had someone accusing me of having “anti-female rights and pro-rape attitudes” and attempting to put up a comment with an address to a company purported to be my employer. The intention is probably to pressure my employer into terminating my employment. What the f@$% ?!

The ‘tolerance’ of these few people are an eye opener. I wouldn’t be surprised that these are the very same people screaming loudly about inclusiveness and so-called tolerance. Figures why there are no takers! After all, they aren’t even living what they ‘preached’. I wouldn’t bother going down to Hong Lim Park to throw rotten eggs and tomatoes (or even to boo / heckle those there), and yet these people have the gall to come to here and even gone so far with an attempt to threaten my livelihood. For those who know me very well in person, I have always been a strong proponent of castrating rapists and child molesters, and in fact I personally would prefer to extend capital punishment to those who rape their own daughters or sisters. On top of that, I believe in universal suffrage, equal employment, educational and health care rights for women. I am simply not for the methods used by the likes of Slutwalk (and in extension, AWARE) to promote the kind of “female rights” they believed in. So, try “try harder” for those who want to stick that “pro-rape” and “anti-female rights” label on me. Frankly, none of you know me, and to label and persecute me over this one article is similar to calling a woman a slut over how she dressed. Somewhere, I recalled Slutwalk calling that an act of violence. How ironic!

1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 99