better service? please pay

if the services of public transports are to be improved, please pay up. i thought the transport operators were talking. when has the transport minister become synonymous with transport operators? anyway he speaks as if he is one. the lesson for all singaporeans is to shut up. do not ask or demand for any improvement in any services, including better govt. you pay. you want anything better, it will be given, real or imagined improvement. but one thing for sure, you will have to pay for it. that is the first principle, or the first thing that the service provider will think of. let me get behind the thinking. so you people think it is so easy to ask for this and that. it is equally easy to reply and comply with your request. no need second thought. what ever you ask it shall be given. you pay for it. brilliant.


Speedwing said...

Of course you have to pay for good services. It is like buying branded stuff, you pay more you get better quality. Nothing comes cheap these days. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Especially in a place like Singapore, if you want quality, then you must be prepared to pay the asking price. If you cannot afford the premium price then better lower your expectation and go for the lower quality stuff.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Market prices are determined by the vigourous interaction of buyer and seller.

Singaporeans need to apply the same attitude in choosing other market goods and services like they do to deciding who makes the best food, and thus stays in business.

Otherwise, they can just shit the fuck up and accept what is dished out to them.

abao said...

Matilah_Singapura, but in Singapore, there's only a near monopoly controlling the transport services...so its either SBS Transit or SMRT. I'm sure you know this...so how to choose other market services?

Anyways, I'm not sure that the equation (money=service) works. If so Singapore would have a GDP growth higher than China, comsidering how much they are paid and how much our ministers are paid...

redbean said...

what is disturbing to me is that all the increases were meant to improve services. but nobody knows how much was improved if any. and now we can expect another round of fare increases to improve services. the problem is that services can be continuously improved just by words. you pay another round of increase in return for what? then the next round.

a forumer wrote in the straits times forum suggesting that the 10% service charge in hotels and restaurants be incorporated into the bill and start from a new slate by tipping.

so the 10% is swallowed, and more tips to be given on top of that. what an idiot.

in the first place, does anyone define what that 10% service charge is meant for? a good evening sir, follows by a smile and a thank you sir and the taking of the order. if that is the case, then the price on the menu is meant only for the food and the facilities.

what i thought would be better is to treat the 10% service charge as service charge. that's what it is. and if the service provider does not provide the service to the satisfaction of the customer, the customer has the right not to pay the service charge.

ok, back to basics. define what that 10% is for. if provided satisfactorily they keep. if not, don't give.

Matilah_Singapura said...


It is true. The Fascist's GLC make monopolies out of anything they can grab.

But monopolies still have to work in market framework - and yes, it makes it more difficult for the consumer because all the choice has been chased away from the market.

So it must be an "all or nothing deal". The most effective way is a TOTAL BOYCOTT of all GLC-owned transport. The likelihood of that occuring is probably about the same as that Jesus will come and save mankind this weekend. ;-)

redbean said...

this is something that i have been criticising. state enterprises with all the resources at their disposal, shal engage in activities where the small businesses are not able to compete.

leave the cheapo businesses to the small guys. what is happening is that many ran out of ideas. so they resort to compete with the small guys. any good ideas from the small guys will be duplicated and bulldozed through by the bigger muscles, or bought over. any business, no matter how small, will be a prize to be seized if it is profitable.

that way, the small business will be domed. the more entrepreneurial small guys have escaped from this stranglehold and went overseas. just like matilah.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Actually my point is to ALWAYS leave the business to the private sector - especially the big businesses.

All wealth and opportunity to create wealth - and to keep it - must remain in the private sector.

Once the uninvited govt-business machine comes into the fray, the market it hampered.

The beauty of the market is this: even when the market is hampered, or interfered with, just that little bit of free market mechanism is enough to level off the playing field.

If you are big, you have a lot of resources, and if you are clever you can win VERY VERY BIG - because of your enormous resources.

HOWEVER, if you make a mistake - as everyone most certainly will at some time or other - your whole BIG, HEAVY and EXPENSIVE house can cause you to "magnify" your losses.

But here again, the govt wins. - If a govt company loses money, it stays in business because it can be "balied out" by the state.

If the private businessman loses, he'll lose his houses and cars, and if the emotional stress is too much probably his wife and kids, and many of his friends too. He will also have to bear the social ostracization of having been a "failure".

OTOH, the govt CEO who lost money will probably be promoted to minister.

Fuck that shit.

redbean said...

yeah, i am waiting for a few great companies that have lost hundreds of millions every year for the last 5 or 6 years to announce or scream loudly that they make $20 million and the management started to pay themselves crazy with bonuses and stock options.

what about the several hundred million dollars lost? who cares.