Tag: SMRT

Afterthoughts – The SMRT Bus Driver Strike

7 comments

The SMRT bus driver strike that went on from Monday to Tuesday was hardly a surprise to me even though the last strike by transport workers at the Hock Lee Bus Depot was in 1955. Furthermore, it’s really not the first time foreign workers stood up to fight for their rights in the past few years. If I am not wrong, some Gurkhas were reported to have been injured over a in 2008, about 100 mainland Chinese [PRC] construction workers also crowded the main entrance of the Ministry of Manpower [MOM] building in Havelock Road in Jan 2009, and a group of Bangladeshi workers staged a sit in earlier this year – all over wage disputes. The only thing that surprised me was that I first read about this strike on Facebook instead of my usual news feeds, and that it involved a Temasek-Linked Company (or TLC) – SMRT.

Regardless how some of us felt about PRC workers in general, they clearly have more courage than any Singaporean. In spite of my protectionists views as far as employment is concerned, I actually welcomed these workers because they do share some similarities with some of our ancestors who left their homeland to seek a living in Singapore. Thus, I would give a Bangladeshi construction worker more respect than that so-called “foreign talent” taking up a managerial position, or even taking up a job which I believe even a properly trained local ITE graduate can do better, and with more dedication.

I have always been in the opinion that Singapore’s continual exploitation of low wage foreign workers cannot continue, and it is inevitable that this matter would come to a head. Companies running essential services must come to realise and accept lower profits in the future, and in fact, its shareholders should stop expecting annual dividends through a two-way exploitation of commuters, and low wage foreign transport workers. I am not asking that we pay more to entice locals to take up these jobs because that would be unrealistic. I am simply saying the nonsense that commuters either accept paying more or accept lower wage drivers (who at times can’t even do the job equally well) must stop when transport operators are already making obscene profits. If we are to continue down this path, then this strike by the PRC drivers will not be the last, but instead be a harbinger of future industrial action to come regardless of what harsh actions the law will take against the ringleaders of this particular incident.

It took two days before the matter “boils over”. It gives me the impression that SMRT didn’t seem to expect it, or at the very least, the government seem to believe that SMRT could keep it contained. Above which, I was certainly floored by the statement from the National Transport Workers’ Union [NTWU], and the wayang of the local main stream media [MSM]. So, let me talk about them one at a time.

First of all, SMRT certainly did a bad job in containing the situation. I doubt the PRC drivers woke up one morning on the wrong side of the bed and suddenly decided collectively to go on strike without having first approach the management in the past to address their grievances, both real or imagined. My opinion is that they must have endured it for some time before they took action. They must have felt their feedback was not taken seriously before deciding on this drastic course of action. In short, the time to contain it was already over when the PRC drivers refused to report for work. If that wasn’t the case, why would the National Trade Union Congress [NTUC] say, “Management must maintain an open line of communication with their workers especially those who are not union members, and workers must recognise that there is a right and proper way to air their grievances”?

The way SMRT handled public relations [PR] in this incident remained atrocious in spite of the experience they gained from the train breakdowns last year. There was no statement coming from the company to inform the public why their drivers are on strike or what actions they were taking to resolve the situation. There was also nothing to inform commuters whether things are under control, which lines are most affected, or what measures are being taken to cushion any possible impact. SMRT seems to be day-dreaming throughout the duration of the strike. It wasn’t until Tan Chuan Jin, the Minister of Manpower, start calling it an illegal strike in a conference that SMRT released a statement about ‘a police report being file over “possible breaches of the law”, and internal investigations conducted to determine whether or not employment terms had been breached.’. By then, speculation is rife on social media and I no longer have any illusion that the new CEO would have been any better than his predecessor, the accursed Saw “Phiak Phiak”.

In any case, shareholders should give the new CEO his baptism of fire and a good grilling at the next Annual General Meeting [AGM]. They should find out what was the estimated loss of revenue and the cost of down time. A friend was saying that it shouldn’t be too difficult to do that because any guy who has barely passed his accounting will be able to extrapolate and work out some numbers on an excel spreadsheet using last year’s annual report. Let us not forget also the cost in terms of man hours needed to contain this PR fiasco, plus the loss of good will as well.

Next, the NTWU is an utter joke. This sham of a union said that it does not have the legal mandate to represent the PRC drivers as they are not union members. How nice! I didn’t know that a union works like an exclusive club these days. But the most funny part has got to be – “we urge these workers to return to work immediately as public transport is an essential service for the members of the public. They should approach the Ministry of Manpower or Migrant Workers Centre for assistance.” I am not surprised if the PRC drivers respond with a loud “Doh!” to that! Even though those drivers are not their members, my opinion is that the least the NTWU could do was to express concern and if not, just shut the f@#k up. It might even have been the NTWU’s finest hour had they stepped in and help negotiate a mutually beneficial outcome. That would have shown the PRC drivers why a NTWU membership is valuable and it would have enticed them to join. I find it even more amusing when Gerald Tan, a former Industrial Relations Officer with the NTUC, wrote an article to The Online Citizen saying that PRC drivers won’t bother joining because the $9 per month membership would be “too costly” for them and they would prefer to save that money to remit home. But well, while it was merely an opinion that all the trade unions in Singapore are utterly useless and an utter sham in the past, the actions of the NTWU merely affirmed it as a fact. After all, workers that won’t fall in line and dance to the tune of the government controlled unions can always be dealt with the Internal Security Act [ISA]. There is however one thing that Gerald Tan is right about. A union membership these days is only good for getting discounts or points at the NTUC supermarkets, and booking chalets at Downtown East.

The media response is another laughing stock. When it was first reported, the word ‘strike’ was used to describe the incident. Over the next few hours, it morphed into many different things – such as ‘refused to work’, ‘sit in’ etc. In Chinese, it went from 罢工 (strike) on the evening tabloid Shin Ming Daily (新明日报) to 旷工 (absent from work without reason, or failing to inform the employer of absence) on Mediacorp’s Channel 8 evening news at 10pm. After going through all the pains pussyfooting around the matter, it was finally called a ‘strike’ again in less than a day. And that only happened after the official press conference held jointly by the Minister of State for Manpower and the Minister of State for Transport. Clearly, the MSM was more interested in being political correct than keeping the people up to date and informed. As if that isn’t bad enough, I actually saw a picture circulating on Facebook which showed the MSM staking out at the dormitory. I would have expected it to get out at least to Yishun or perhaps even Choa Chu Kang Interchange – where the bulk of SMRT buses operates out of – to find out what the impact was like to the commuters. There was also scant information on about the drivers’ actual grievances, which only went on to fuel the flames of anti-PRC sentiments which certain sites are happy to fan. While an article about what other bus drivers have to say about their PRC colleagues maybe useful, what was really annoying was some clown threatening us with more fare increments so that we can “pay the drivers more fairly”. Oh, really? Was it to pay them more fairly, or just to maintain the profits? Seriously, it would be a joke to even consider this as journalism!

Lastly, the government response. I wouldn’t fault them on the response time, since I grudgingly accept the fact that they need to ascertain the facts before making a decision on what to do about it. However, I still can’t help but feel that had the drivers been Singaporeans, they would probably be enjoying some coffee in the Internal Security Department [ISD] faster than you can spell the name in full. The government can’t however do the same to a bunch of foreigners because it might turn into a diplomatic and foreign affairs fiasco if handled badly. Anyway, that joint press conference gave us very little details other than labeling the strike an illegal one, which thus allow the government to bring the full force of the law on the PRC drivers. That’s of little comfort to me because I still have no idea what was the impact of the strike on commuters. Mrs Josephine Teo told the press that SMRT was able to maintain services at 90% on the first day and then 95% on the next. Since bus ridership is 28,784,000 in the month of October according to SMRT, that means approximately 928500 riders a day. A simplistic view would be that 46,400 ~ 92,850 commuter trips were affected, even though different routes have different traffic profiles and thus the figures cannot be so easily determined. There was no word on the increase in waiting and traveling time as well, and I felt sorry for the chap who ends up being late for work and losing his monthly punctuality bonus as a result. The worst part of it all is that the poor chap has nothing to back him up if he wants to appeal against that.

Thus, even though this look like a really small strike, the media has failed to look deeper and give us a clearer picture on the impact of this. With only about two-thirds of our population being Singaporeans, the impact of a even larger scale strike would be staggering. A friend jokingly said over dinner that because certain trades are now dominated by certain foreign nationals, any of those groups could now easily paralyze entire departments of a company. If their fellow countrymen in one sector goes on strike and those in another sector decided to do the same in support, it might even paralyze our country. And what can we do about that? We simply don’t have the manpower in our police force to deal with this. Even if we mobilise the entire force of our Operationally Ready National Service force, we would be hard pressed to return things to normality. That’s not forgetting that mobilising a large part of the male population away from work would further hurt our economy. It is laughable that political leaders of the ruling party and our pathetic lapdog media would have us believe that Singapore can’t do without foreign workers when they have now become the Sword of Damocles poised over our heads! Of course it would sound a little paranoid or xenophobic for me to say this:

While threats from the enemy without maybe really low, it is now the threat of the “enemy within” that we should be really worried about.

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.

Commentary – An Open Letter to SMRT CEO

10 comments

“People can board the train – it’s whether they choose to”

– CEO and President of SMRT, Saw Phaik Hwa

Dear Mdm Saw,

The above statement gives me the impression that if you can legally do it, you would have us all pushed in every single train the way wool is stuffed into a pillow.

Well, it is my considered opinion you should (and must) take the trains incognito at least twice a day (especially during peak hours) for at least one full year to experience for yourself the service (or rather the lack of) your company is delivering to the general public. You have clearly no idea what many of us lesser mortals are going through day after day. In fact, you should use it for as long as you are CEO of this company. Take your trains as often as possible, along with members of the Public Transport Council, and Transport Mini$ter Raymond Lemon Lim. After all, all of you clearly have no fxxking clue why at times we choose not to squeeze in.

To be frank with you madam, I understand your predicament. It is not entirely your fault that the trains are packed to the brim. First of all, it is partly the city planners fault and even so, a part of how our little island city is organised is a legacy of our nation’s history and not entirely their fault. I am quite sure it would have made my day had Sir Stamford Raffles landed near Taman Jurong and not the mouth of the Singapore River.

Secondly, you have to keep shareholders happy by maintaining reasonable earnings per share. However, it is clear to all that in spite of the amount of salary the amount of effort (if any) you spent on improving the service is hardly noticeable. I make no apologies feeling that you are yet another elitist square peg in a round hole. Elite you may be, but hardly suitable for the task that is trusted upon you.

Have you ever wondered why we complain over the most insignificant increase in fares no matter how justified and really insignificant the increments maybe? Even though the more fortunate and more intelligent among us purchase SMRT shares and make use of the price differences and dividends to ‘self finance’ the fare increments and more, we are not actually happy with the money we are making out of our very own discomfort and misery. In fact, at times I have to wonder whether you have considered increasing the fare so you can run the trains at even higher frequencies for better commuter comfort. Had you been able to deliver a service above what is delivered now, perhaps commuters may actually love you as if you are Mother Mary or Kuanyin Ma even though they are paying more! Certainly Singaporeans loved our esteemed leaders by paying them more than any other political leaders in the world, yes?

Since I ain’t no elitist square peg, I do not pretend to be capable of counselling you on how to better do you job. Yet from the position of my humble and insignificant existence, I plead to share with you what some of us are experiencing as a result of your insistence on running trains at their current capacity and intervals. It doesn’t really matter how the Stooge Stooge Times report just how greatly Foreign Talents from the Sahara Desert or the Amazon Forest think of your service, you know?

For starters, if by some rare astral arrangement that happens in a million years we are fortunate enough to get a seat (after beating someone to it), it does not necessary mean we have ‘struck gold’. The person beside us could be a ‘commuter from hell’. It is not the commuter with body odour (either from a days hard work or the lack of a morning shower), nor ‘the sleeping guy without a backbone’. It is ‘Homo Scrotum Maximus’ – the one suffers from some kind of testicular disease which causes them intense pain if they don’t sit with their legs wide open. I had the bad experience of encountering one of these the other day and when I refused to budge even while he forcefully pushed his thigh against mine, he ‘blessed me with a barrage of Hokkien vulgarities’ after a long contest of strength. He claimed he has ‘tolerated me for a long time’ though the reverse is true, since I was sleeping quite peacefully within the confines of my puny seat until he decided to push against me halfway on my trip home. Even though I pointed out to the cock-eyed sod the faint line between our seats and how far he has extended beyond, it infuriated him even more. It was to my good fortune the guy next to me got off at the next station and I moved further away to avoid further confrontation.

Still, occupying more space than they are entitled is not the worst. Some shake the leg that rubs against another commuter. If it is not leg shaking as the source of constant irritation, it is the young lady who can’t stop fidgeting. She will be taking out her make-up, mobile phone, purse or music player out of her handbag more than just once. Any attempt to catch a short rest on your trains becomes an exercise in futility.

Well, I suspect you would say that SMRT is only responsible for the transit and the service does not guarantee a seat and a good rest. In fact, it wouldn’t really surprise me if you suggest that we just stand for our trip if sitting down is so bad. I’ll excuse you for your ignorance because having never use your own service frequently, you have probably never meet the ‘backpack guy’ who keeps backing into another person. Nor have you met those who seemingly like the close proximity, and to rub off some of themselves on other people. Are you aware that there is only enough room for 2 people standing almost back to back in the open space between the seats, but some end up standing in the middle while struggling to hold on to the vertical pole to keep their balance? It leaves no room for an alighting passenger, and when your ‘bee-you-ti-fool’ trains suddenly brakes or goes over a rough spot, some of them will be tumbling onto someone and everyone.

Clearly by now you wonder what is my point since the behavior of commuters and their predicament have the least to do with you? I do not really expect you to understand how often we run into more of these unpleasant individuals is indirectly a result of how your company runs the service. In your position, simply mathematics like having more commuters per train, simply means more assholes unpleasant individuals on it and a higher chance of others running into them is none of your concern. Your own concern is merely the bottom line, isn’t it?

Still, while running more trains might not put an end to the mad rush for seats, a lot of us do think it will still do the bottom line of your company some good when you remove the need for all that constant announcements to give way to alighting passengers. You do not need to be reminded that you may need to update those announcements in the future if future technological advances requires it, right? Take for example, the day where SMRT will be using holographic projections to remind commuters to be considerate.

Anyway, do your company some justice and specify what exactly are peak hours because I am seriously infuriated with the trains coming at intervals of 4 ~ 5 mins between 7pm ~ 730pm while a lot of people are still just getting off work. While statistically one train coming at 4 ~ 5 mins and another coming at 2 mins gives you an average interval of 3.5 minutes a train, that is not the same as trains coming at a constant interval 3.5 mins. Running some of your trains at higher load than another is creating uneven wear and tear on your trains and the tracks and it definitely hurts your bottom line.

It is baffling how such intervals are acceptable to you when Hong Kong is running theirs at half the time. What good is it for the government gahmen to encourage companies to stagger their working hours when some people are coming off work and your trains are still running at well… peak hour load and coming at such atrocious intervals? Do you even know I never ceased to be bewildered whenever a SMRT train pulls into station even in the late hours of the evening, packed as if it was peak hour? I doubt you will ever know because you are having a comfortable time at home enjoying the finer things in life during those hours.

Now that we are on the matter of the finer things in life, I want to know why there seems to be an increase in cases where the air-conditioners do not seem to be working properly. Did you recently require SMRT to go the extra mile in providing commuters the suana experience on a hot day? Perhaps your technicians and staff were too busy adjusting the air-conditioners that they failed to notice the Swiss guy giving you a hand in decorating the trains.

That aside, your trains also have a knack in amplifying the rainy weather conditions and provide everyone the Antarctic experience. Perhaps you want to encourage some of us to go explore the South Pole but it would be much appreciated if you would just keep everything within the comfortable range all the time.

Yours sincerely,
A Lesser Mortal Commuter

Recommended Read:
tauhuayboy: SMRT trains are not packed, according to it’s CEO

Commentary – SMRT To Reinforce No Drinking / Eating On Trains

9 comments

Some friends were discussing on Twitter the recent decision by SMRT to reinforce no drinking / eating regulation on their trains. I believe this is enforced not just on the trains, but also the station platforms, and all of the ‘restricted area’ – i.e. the area leading to the platform after you tap your card.

What is interesting, is that some commuters readily embrace this, and go so far to even suggest that people sucking on a sweet (or lozenges) or drinking plain water should be punished as well.

Before I talk about these people, I would like to say the sudden decision to reinforce this regulation is the result of several conditions. First of all, SMRT has lowered fares recently and need to make up for their ‘income loss’. While they had attempted to adjust their usual ‘elastic schedule’ to try and squeeze more commuters (and thus, income) per train, this had led to an outcry from commuters. There is now a group called ‘I don’t like to squeeze on the MRT’ on Facebook.

Next, the inconsiderate commuters, such as the one who ate an apple in the station daily, and then leave the core on the platform benches, must have pissed off some SMRT staff to no end. On top of that, all the photos posted to STOMP now gave SMRT the perfect excuse / pretext for reinforcement. Of course, they need to pay also for all that advertisement with Phua Chu Kang tell people to give way to alighting passengers and to give up their seats to more needy passengers.

Thanks to these sheep, as my friend Ridzuan called them in a comment to my mei Nicole, there is now yet another thing to make our already hardly enjoyable MRT rides even worse. Though personally speaking, with the trains being so packed I would like to see how SMRT can get their staff to patrol the trains to enforce this regulation!

Anyway, Ridzuan is clearly too kind. I would have called them monkeys, because these Singaporeans reminded me of a ‘monkey experiment’ I read about a long time ago. It goes like this. Three monkeys were put in a cage, and a passage will lead to another section in which there is some food – peanuts or bananas. Whenever a monkey moves through the passage to grab the food on the other side, water will spray onto the section where the other two monkeys remained – to their immense annoyance. After awhile, the monkeys that were repeatedly sprayed, figured out that this has something to do with the other monkey’s actions. And they forcefully restrained the other monkey from doing so, at times even resorting to violence. These monkeys knew and understood why this law in place.

The scientists then removed a monkey and put in a new one, and now turned off the water spray. Without an prior experience of the situation, this new monkey quickly tried to cross the passage to grab the food, which the other two remaining monkeys promptly beat the new one up, even though no water now sprays on them. When all three monkeys stopped attempting to grab the food on the other end of the passage, yet another one of the old monkeys are removed, and again the situation repeated itself. Surprisingly, the monkey that hit the hardest is always the new joiner – which had exactly no clue why it was beaten. The experiment thus repeated itself until none of the monkeys has any idea why there’s this law in place. Now, anyone who tried to cross the passage to grab the food is simply beaten up promptly.

What is my point on talking about this experiment? The point is that there is something called the Spirit of the Law – where you understand why it is enforced, and the Word of the Law – where you understand what it says, but not necessarily the reason or the rational behind it. Neither do you give a damn why it is there and you probably enjoyed it when you see a person punished by it.

In my opinion, the spirit of the no-eating and drinking regulation was meant to keep the trains clean. SMRT will spend a lot to clean up the crumbs of food or stains from colored drinks, to prevent an infestation of ants and cockroaches. The idiots who are the usual whining STOMPERS probably have no clue about this, since I recall seeing some complaints about someone drinking a bottle of… plain water! These monkeys just whined about anyone eating or drinking on the trains – even when these people have not dirtied the trains. Granted, people will take it for granted if the regulation is not enforced, and we might soon find ourselves with a huge pest infestation on our trains, but my point is that some moderation is required when enforcing it – with the spirit of the law in mind. For example, people sucking on a lozenge because of a sore throat / cough, or a mother pacifying the baby with a bottle of milk is excusable.

Talking about wailing babies, my personal advice is that one should bring earplugs in the future, since you probably get more of them on the trains in the future, as a result of mothers not allowed to feed their babies on the trains / platform. Keep a look out for news of babies rushed to hospital because mothers tried to force them to drink more milk than necessary before they rushed onto the trains too.

By the way, since eating on trains is an offense and it deserved a fine, will there soon be an award the good Samaritan who gives up his seat for an old man or a pregnant lady, for example?

Funny Picture of the Day:

Daily Discourse – SMRT… again.

6 comments

My friend SanNiang sent me an sms message telling me the ridiculous justification SMRT gave to remove seats on the trains. So, I checked with Aaron who mentioned once to me whether I had read the article. He was kind enough to send me the forum letter (see below).

MRT seats removed after public feedback

WE THANK readers for their feedback on Wednesday on modifications to SMRT trains to allow more standing room by having some seats removed.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and SMRT jointly developed the initiative to remove some seats on some trains based on feedback from commuters about increased crowding during peak periods. We agree wholeheartedly with suggestions to explore adding more carriages or increase train frequencies. We wish to assure readers that this has been fully exploited. Currently, the number of cars per train is already at the maximum of six. Since February, SMRT has added nearly 900 additional train trips a week.

To put the initiative in context, of the more than 100 trains in service on the North-South and East-West lines, only 10 trains will have 84 out of their 300 seats each or about 30 per cent removed. These modified trains are deployed mostly during peak periods. The objective is to create more standing room in train cabins, so doorways will be less congested, and commuters will find it easier to board and alight.

LTA and SMRT have monitored the situation and gathered feedback. In a survey of over 700 commuters conducted after deployment of the modified trains on Oct 31, nine in 10 commuters on platforms and seven in 10 in trains preferred being able to board a train quickly to having a seat. Most commuters also felt it was important to have more standing space in the cabins. And six in 10 felt that LTA and SMRT have modified the correct proportion of trains.

We fully understand that the removal of seats may be an issue for commuters with special needs, such as the elderly, parents with young children, pregnant mothers and the mobility-impaired. Hence, LTA and SMRT have ensured that all train cabins will continue to have seats; even modified train cabins will still have 36 seats each. As far as possible, these modified trains will not run consecutively at any station platform, so commuters with special needs who prefer the unmodified trains can still have adequate access to seats.

Aside from seats, other initiatives to better manage crowding have been put in place. SMRT has deployed service ambassadors to encourage commuters to move to the ends of the platform and the centre of trains, an initiative which seven in 10 commuters found effective.

Geoffrey Lim
Deputy Director Media Relations
Land Transport Authority

Bernadette Low (Ms)
Manager, Corporate Marketing and Communications, SMRT Corporation

I get a little annoyed with SMRT’s and LTA’s incessant justification that everything is done on feedback. First of all, for odd reasons I have had no indication of a survey being conducted. I suspect the results would be very much different if they conduct the survey at Pasir Ris, Boon Lay or Woodlands, only on the eastbound, westbound and northbound train respectively, especially after work during peak hours. And is 700 participants good enough for this survey?

Next, is it really true that the participants of the survey really reflect the sentiments of most commuters? Everyday I see people rush in without waiting for people to alight and most of the time these kiasus aim straight for the few available seats in sight. And if commuters really just want to board the train quickly as the survey claims, how is it that I regularly meet commuters who after boarding, stops to decide whether to go left and right regardless of the horde of commuters still waiting to board from behind? Face it, SMRT, if that was truly what is wanted by the commuters, why is there an uproar now that requires this explanation?

Furthermore, wanting more standing space in the cabin would indicate that the trains are too packed and an appeal by commuters for more trains during peak hour – not create more space to pack in even more commuters! The fact is, trains in Hong Kong runs at intervals of 2 – 2.5 mins during peak hours. Over here, we get trains between 3 – 4 mins.

Now, comparing our population density with that of Hong Kong, that 0.5 – 1.5 mins shouldn’t mean much. But when we look at our town design, we will realise that commuters travel almost the entirety of the MRT line (in any direction) before they alight. That simply means there’s always a net gain in commuters at most of the stations – except certain key ones like the interchange stations, the ones along Orchard Road and Bugis for e.g. – contributing to the trains being even more packed as it goes along. That’s very different from the subways of Hong Kong or Shanghai, as I noticed a large turn over of passengers every few stations.

The fact is, without an efficient alternative system to complement the MRT, the problem cannot be solved. I once tried looking for an bus equivalent to the MRT to travel from Raffles Place to Boon Lay and I found none that could match it in terms of travelling time.

In short, SMRT can remove all the seats on all of their trains and commuters will still be complaining about them being packed. And it might not be a bad idea after all… because commuters may now actually queue up nicely, wait for everyone to alight without rushing in. After all, there’s nothing for them to rush for anymore!

Just too bad for the old folks, the sick folks and the pregnant ladies!

Comics:

Recommended Reads:
Kaishun: On National Anthems
Endoh’s Dungeon: BRAND’S Blogger Challenge – Singapore emerged victorious!

1 2