Road to a better transport system

Without fail, whenever there is a fare hike, the message is always about an improvement in the service and quality of the transport system. If every time it becomes better, we would have been better by 10 or 20 times over the years. This time the good thing is that the message is only about a better transport system and not about a world class transport system. What's the difference? A better transport system means you have to pay a bit better to get the better system. A world class transport system means you would have to pay world class fare. I hope it will be kept that way. A better system should be good enough. Hong Lim Park should be busy this evening with The Online Citizen making an appearance to talk about our transport system. I hope they will do a comparison of the quality and service of the transport system 20 years ago and what it is now and look at the difference in the fare over the same period. Are the increases in fare deserving of the improvement in service and quality? Another area they may want to look into is the land and infrastructure cost of the train system. How much land were given to SMRT and at what cost, and how much were invested in the infrastructure? And were these returned to the state or people or did they just become the asset of the current shareholders? The issue of public transport as a national service and not just a private business to generate profit to shareholders must be the key issue to be thrashed out. Why should an essential service that can cripple the whole economy be privatised just for profit? Or would it be better to operate under a different premise, to facilitate freer and cheaper movement of people which will benefit the whole economy? Should the system be returned to the state as a statutory board and the bull concept that only privatisation can make it more efficient and effective be dismissed? Would the activities at Hong Lim Park resulted in more revelations of what our transport system is all about or would it be another roadside selling 'koyote' session?

Laurentia Tan got us two medals

Paralympics: Singapore's Laurentia Tan wins second Equestrian bronze By Ryan Huang, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 11 September 2008 2116 hrs HONG KONG: Singapore's Laurentia Tan has won a second bronze medal in an Equestrian event on Thursday, giving the country its second medal at the 2008 Beijing Paralympic Games. Overcoming the odds in the Individual Freestyle Grade 1A event in Hong Kong, Tan performed to music, despite being born with profound deafness. Tan also has cerebral palsy. She made history on Tuesday by becoming the nation's first and currently only paralympic medallist. - CNA /ls Now I am wondering who sponsored her training and how much did it cost to get us the two medals. It may be the Paralympics, but still an international event. Should put more money to train our Paralympians. Chances of medals are better.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul

Bus and train fares up on 1 October Posted: 12 September 2008 1032 hrs in CNA online SINGAPORE - Most bus and train journeys except those for children, students and national servicemen, will see fare changes from 1 October 2008. The Public Transport Council (PTC) has given the green light for an overall net fare adjustment that will result in fare changes that will range from a 7-cent reduction to a 4-cent increase per journey. Adult EZ-Link fares on buses and trains and the senior citizen concession EZ-Link fare, will see a flat increase of 4 cents per ride. However, this will be offset by the 15-cent increase in transfer rebate from the current 25 cents to 40 cents. Public transport operators have also decided that they will bear 10 cents out of the 15-cent increase in the transfer rebate. ... Anyone did not see this coming? Anyway the amounts are small and affordable. And please just accept the increases and don't ever complain. We would not want the suggestion to raise road tax for motorists to subsidise these increases do we? It is a good and useful suggestion no doubt and the input comes from the people. More acceptable to implement such a suggestion.

TOC - A false start

Sep 11, 2008 The Straits Times Transport suggestions put forth By Maria Almenoar and Yeo Ghim Lay IF THE Transport Ministry were run by the people behind the socio-political blog The Online Citizen (TOC), car owners would be one unhappy lot. The band of 15 say that, instead of giving road tax rebates to motorists, the Government should up the tax - and use the revenue to subsidise public transport.... This is the gist of what TOC's stand is all about in its maiden public forum at the Hong Lim Park. I call it a false start simply because the high cost of public transportation is mainly due to the high profit the transport companies are making. They do not need to rip the motorists of more money to subsidise public transport. What is needed is to repriortise the mission of public transportation and change the profit motive to providing an efficient and cheaper public transport system. TOC's call to make the motorists pay even more is unnecessary.

Can professionals get their terms right?

Goh Eng Yeow from ST reported that David Loh and Han Eng Juan were 'executive directors of UOB Kay Hian. The heading of his article screamed, ' 'Dream Team' remisiers fined by MAS. Anyone reading the headline will quickly form the impression that remisiers got fined. And remisiers are always in trouble with their practices and in trouble with the law. Some times back there was another director that was sent to IMH. He too was called a 'remisier.' According to my professional knowledge of this industry, remisiers are independent sub contractors working in broking houses. They are never directors of broking houses. Directors of broking houses, eg executive directors, are normally company employees. They are not remisiers. I stand corrected if some broking houses actually give titles like directors or executive directors to their remisiers. Can professionals get this simple terminology and distinction right? Would the Remisier Society correct this impression that remisiers are not always infringing the laws and got fined?