The wonderful PTC has once again done its usual rubber stamping to approve the fare hike by ComfortDelgro, ostensibly to ‘assist’ cabbies in defraying the increase in cost they are bearing as a result of the rise in diesel prices… by passing the cost to us. According to the People’s Daily Straits Stooge Times, that would be a 10% to 49% (!!) more in overall fares.

Well, it wasn’t that long ago that it was 10 cents very 225m (i.e. 20cents every 450m) before they reduced it to 210m, right? Now you only get 385m out of that almost the same 20cts. Impressive. However, I ain’t so unhappy about that since comparatively, our metered fares are actually quite competitive when you compare it with that of other cities.

In fact, I have always been for a drastic increase in flag down rate and also a more competitive metered rate without the jumble of freaking surcharges as a first level attempt to deal with the demand. After all, a low flag down rate in itself creates a unnatural demand on cabs. That would say a lot about what I think of the change of the peak hour surcharge from $2 to 35% of metered fare, so let’s move on from there.

Next, to addressed commuters’ concern on the difficulty in getting a cab in the city in the evening, it reduced call bookings to ‘better match the demand and supply of taxis’ by 50cts. Now that’s really ‘great news’. Are you on your knees weeping in gratitude yet?

I have said this before and I will say it again. LAN CHEOW!!! (Sorry for the vulgarities. It was simply the most direct way for me to express my feelings right now.)

If you are wondering why I am actually outraged about something that has gone down, let me explain. It’s simply because reducing call booking would have done nothing to affect the bottom line of the cab companies at all, since they still get their cut per call. Above which, we still have a cab per capita figure higher than Hong Kong so just why is there even a need to call a cab? Anyone calling the cab company to inform the cabbie where his business is, when logically the cabbie should be out to ‘cari his own makan’ (i.e. find his own ‘food’), is actually doing the cabbie a favor, isn’t he? And here you have to pay when you do someone a favor!

Wow, that must be another first for Singapore!!

You might scream and say that it isn’t easy for cabbies to make a living but hey… was it any easier for a whole lot of us to make ours? So why in the world should we be going out of our way to make it easier for them? How often is your pay adjusted when living costs go against you, huh?

Anyway, enough on that. Let’s look at the one ‘pro-driver’ move: For drivers who are afraid of paying ERP charges to enter the city and risk not getting a passenger, ComfortDelgro says it will even pay an ‘ERP rebate’ to cabbies who cannot land a passenger within 15 minutes of entering an ERP zone.

What a wonder cost-free PR gesture!! I wonder which guy with a world class pay came up with this ‘for show’ idea because realistically, how the hell is that even possible when on one hand you have long queues at the taxi stands, and then people who can’t stand the wait calling for a cab?! Just do away with the freaking ERP on cabs, for goodness sake, and just make sure we have no problems flagging a cab. If we have problems flagging one and the reason is cabbies not wanting to enter the CBD, then the problem is either the ERP or the cabbies so fix either one of them!

I am not for denouncing this hike and calling it useless straight away, but I am looking forward to seeing the blog postings talking about just how much the situation has not changed. And if the situation is the same old story again, then let’s revisit this issue with a vengeance. At that time, I would suggest that the heads of a particular CEO, whoever who did this so-called ‘in-depth review’, and members of the PTC roll to pay for this.

After all, we are running a meritocracy, yes? So, with world class pay, I will expect world class performance and not world class excuses or failures coming from these mofos.

Our useless gover-min which believes that everything can be solved by raising the costs and passing it to the people who use the service is at it again. This time round, it is raising taxi fares. (Read about it here.)

There will be an adjustment of the flag down rate by 30cts – i.e. normal cabs will now start at $2.70 and the so-called green cabs will start at $3.00. It is said that the distance and time-based charges will be adjusted too and the surcharges will be streamlined as well.

Will that be any good to us commuters when the only real change is that people are going to hurt more in their pockets? And whether they continue to use if they think they can still afford it, or take the MRT, it probably will have no effect on the transport companies’ bottom line. And that maybe the real reason for the hike and what this money faced gover-min cared about, isn’t it?

It is said this is done to help cabbies. But will the lot of our cabbies improve or get worse? We can only tell when cabbies start fighting over a passenger flagging on the road side that life has become really tough for them. Other wise, I am really not surprised if it more stories start flooding this site. The problem with disappearing or loitering cabs, or bad attitude cabbies is unlikely to go away any time soon, and meantime we will be forced to continue to award some of the bastards as if our money comes any easier.

TOWN councils tempted to play the stock market to increase the returns on their sinking funds will now have to meet a new rule that caps how much they can put into higher-risk investments.

Councils, which have had some leeway when investing their cash, must limit their investments in non-government stocks, funds or securities to 35 per cent of the sinking fund.

This new rule, which kicked in yesterday, applies to more than $1 billion in sinking funds managed by the 16 town councils in Singapore.

The money is collected through monthly service and conservancy charges and government grants and is used for cyclical repairs, such as re-painting or re-roofing.

The Ministry of National Development brought the rule in to strike a balance between councils trying to get good returns on their funds and not taking undue risks with residents’ money.

Some council cash has been going into shares and corporate bonds, which are considered riskier than government ones.

The president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals Leong Sze Hian said: ‘Corporate bonds are only as good as the company can pay. The risk of a company running out of money is higher than that of the Government.’

Before the new rule, council investments were governed by the Trustees Act, which placed restrictions on some instruments. The new 35 per cent cap is seen as stricter, but no council contacted by The Sunday Times said it would have trouble complying.

The Hong Kah Town Council has about $150 million in its sinking fund, with one-third invested in government bonds returning 2 to 3 per cent. Another third is in short-term fixed deposits with returns of 1.5 to 3 per cent, with the rest handled by fund managers.

The investments can include corporate bonds and stocks, which are riskier. But this portion, handled by fund managers, nets about 8 to 10 per cent in returns a year, said council chairman Ang Mong Seng.

Sinking funds are typically parked in safe investment instruments, such as government bonds and fixed deposits. But a few years ago, many councils felt that they could do better by investing in other instruments, such as shares.

Many then let fund managers invest a bigger portion of their cash and reap better returns.