5/27/2008

Subsidies to instal seatbelts

This is a hot issue among the mothers in parliament and they fought with gusto. They wanted to protect the safety of children and wanted seatbelts to be installed immediately. Who pays? The most sensible MP coming from this discussion is Sin Boon Ann. It is only $25, not a big cost to the govt and subsidy is needed. It is so easy to demand that the bus operators pay for it. Huh, how much are they making to ferry the school children? And this is an essential service, a national service. Why must the govt be so careful over issues of $25 or $30 and then talked about million dollar salary not enough? No subsidy. It will distort the market. Come on lah. Just because LKY said so and it becomes an edict? Everything must be seen in its proper context. Must as well cut off all subsidies to HDB flats and medical bills. These are the greatest subsidies that distort the market price mechanism. Anyway, what's the big issue?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, doing NS with the ridiculously low allwance is also like giving a form of subsidy, to the government of course, so get rid of that as well and pay the market rate.

redbean said...

the best joke is that ns men will be there to guard the mrt stations in a crisis. and they even have to pay full fare when taking in mrt but getting a ns allowance that is barely enough for them to get by.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Seatbelts should not be made mandatory. The choice to use or install them should be, and remain voluntary.

This is none of the govts business. It is for the parents, bus operators and schools to work out among themselves. And some input from the kids would be healthy too.

Millions of adults, have grown up going to school on buses which did not have seat belts. Occasionally, a bush will crash and some people will die or be hurt -- but this doesn't happen often. Anyway, seatbelts won't prevent the occupants from being HIT by debris during an accident.

What next publicly funded compulsory crash helmets...perhaps body protection too?

If the amount is small WHY should the govt pay for it? One can understand if people are asking for a few million for disaster relief, if suppose there was an earthquake in Bishan or something like that.

The point here is not "market distortion". It is setting yet another precedent for some arsehole parent (and pathetic role model for his/her children) to make a claim on society for something they can well afford themselves.

Hey, you asshole parents out there -- the ones screaming for govt handout -- your actions are teaching your children to be BEGGARS, demanding beggars at that.

Have you no shame left?

redbean said...

i agree. the most dangerous place are the high rise flats. should make it compulsory for all flats to have grills.

and because all fires are started by people carrying lighters, mine, better have a law to make sure they carry a fire extinguisher with them.

redbean said...

this kind of dictation culture is best reflected by the medisave and cpf life insurance schemes. it all for the good of the people. they need it and it shall be made compulsory. and make them pay for it.

redbean said...

the next thing to make compulsory is that all boys must carry french caps and girls....

it is so dangerous out there.

Matilah_Singapura said...

The only thing which should be "compulsory" is for people to leave each other ALONE. Which means it is the govt's job to STOP one group of people from imposing their "morals" on another group of people. It is not the govts job to take sides.

BTW, this was the fundamental role of govt ala Hume, Locke, Jefferson and even a young Lee Kuan Yew arguing as opposition in parliament long time ago. The govts role is to PROTECT FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, not take it away.

Of course, I believe that Hume, Locke etc were WRONG, although they were well intended. As long as there is govt, they will interfere with the lives of people.