Quibbling over taxi charges

There were two letters in the ST forum on the various charges that commuters need to pay for taking taxis. With the economic situations getting bad, many are trying to find ways to save a few cents if they could. The two letters made suggestions to the taxi operators to waive these surcharges or that fees to make it less expensive. Strange that these people who can afford to enjoy taking taxis will be bothered with these small charges. I cannot afford to take taxis so I choose to take MRTs. Much cheaper and can save dollars instead of cents. I am sure many of you will agree with me that if cannot afford, one should not take taxis. If want to take taxis, then be prepared to pay the price. If everyone can afford to take taxis, then the roads will be congested again and more ERPs will be up. Let the price mechanism determines who shall have a free ride down the expressways, who shall ride on taxis, who shall take MRT and buses, and who shall ride bicycles or walk. There is a price for everything.

I am convinced

I was not too convinced even with the regular gaffes coming from George Bush that the democratic process of electing leaders is not workable. Now we are seeing another Bush in Taro Aso, making as many gaffes as Bush in a single day. Then in Europe you have Sarkozy that is not cut out to be a President but more a socialite. The other aspects of failed democracies are the less than able leaders being elected for queer reasons all over the world. And democracy, without power and good leaders, will fail badly like what we are seeing in Thailand today. We must thank ourselves for the great political system that we have in throwing the best leaders from a land that is lack of talents. I am now convinced that we should have a one party system, and do away with elections forever. Oh, election within a one party system should still take place, not the multi party democratic election. In that way we can ensure that only the best leaders are kept in power to help run the country for as long as they can. Our model will be the model for the rest of the world to emulate and to reject at their own risk.

A prick on the conscience

Someone just sms me of a news clip saying that ex senior executives of UBS have returned US$58.2m in bonuses and wages to the bank. After posting the heading, I kind of like the punt. What a prick!

How much discount for Pinnacles?

I went to the HDB website to troll for some figures on the much hyped discount given to Pinnacles at Duxton. There were some comparative figures on the average price of a resale flat in the same location. The average price of 4rm resale flats was $508k while the prices of 4rm Pinnacle flats are from $457k to $555k. Taking the average of the two, the average price of 4rm Pinnacle flats is $506k. If there is any subsidy, it is only $2k! (Note: the numbers were taken from HDB's site) Hey, can you call this a subsidy? I thought I read somewhere that the subsidy is about 20% off market prices, which means that if average market price is $508k, then average 4rm Pinnacle flats should be $407k. Now where is the subsidy that we were told? What happens, and it is going to happen, is that market prices are sure to fall given the poor economy. Would the new buyers of Pinnacles feel like instant suckers? MPs please ask this question in Parliament. And if Parliament is in recess, please email to the minister in charge for an answer. Can't believe no one pick this up.

Town Council Funds

After going through Teo Ho Pin's explanation on the investment of Town Council Funds, I got the impression that the investment objective is just to invest for better returns. But the returns will not be translated to direct benefits to the residents. It is just investment for investment's sake. Thought any gains should be returned to the residents in some ways like lower S&C charges. The other point that came through is that the investment is for long term and gains or losses do not mean anything or have no impact on the residents. They will not affect the residents in anyway. Really? Another point I thought Teo Ho Pin should address is the Sinking Fund. How much is enough? The NKF's 20 year reserves came to mind. There must be a limit on how much should be set aside and when enough, the burden of payment by the residents could be proportionately reduced. What we are hearing is that residents shall keep paying regardless of how much is already in the reserve. Collection of public money must be capped at some point. It must not be unlimited and unconditional.