How much are the fare increases?

We know that the fares were raised. We know that it was meant to be a fairer system. We know that 3 out of 4 commuters would benefit from the fare hike and 1 out of 4 would have to pay more. How much more and how much less? We also know that the transport companies would lose $88m in revenue. Really? Let’s look at some numbers. I am using what I know to extrapolate the impact on all the commuters. A senior citizen will save 15c if he travels a short distance of 4/5 stations, (68-53). If he travels longer distance, he would have to pay 18c more(86-68). Before the changes, a senior citizen pays 68c for maybe 24 stations. With the new changes, the transport company would even out the reduction in the first 4/5 stations from commuters who travel the next 4/5 stations. Subsequently the rest of the journey or more than 10 stations will be pure additional profits. Give away 15c for 4/5 stations and collect 18c from the next 4/5 stations is already a profit. The rest of the journey collects 18c. Not bad a formula. How could they lose $88m? And the same principle is applicable to students and normal fare commuters. The percentage increases could be much more in the normal fare category. When you collect more and give out less, I think the profit is enormous rather than losing $88m. I stand to be corrected on the exact numbers as I am just extrapolating from the fares of senior citizens. SMRT are cordially invited to provide the exact numbers here.

The financial industry getting darker

With more big players coming here to operate dark pool electronic trading, the activities in the finance industry will surely get darker. Dark pool operations are against the merits of transparency. Ronald Arculli, chairman of Hong Kong Exchange said that ‘dark pools pose a “systemic risk” to financial markets because of their lack of transparency.’ However, when the industry practice is less then virtuous, playing in the dark side seems to be easier to accept. Many experts in US and Europe have cried out loud against this practice and have told of the dangers it presented. It is also unfair to the rest of the investors for not having such information and trading in the dark. It is no longer a level playing field when information is withheld by some parties. Stock exchanges that see it their responsibility to provide and level playing field and transparency need to re examine themselves and ask if they are violating the very principles and regulations that are supposed to uphold. Will dark pools turn out to be as toxic as toxic notes and mini bonds one day? Welcome to the dark side.

Why are the oldies complaining about fare hike?

The recent fare hike, or to put it better, fare adjustment, was not meant to be a fare hike. Whether commuters, especially the senior citizens, travel longer or shorter distance, need to make a transfer or not, there will be a saving. I am a senior citizen and I am speaking on my first hand experience. I am benefitting by adjusting my pattern of travelling. Before the fare hike, if I travel 1 station or 2 stations, I would have to pay 68c. If I travel 5 stations or 11stations, I would still pay 68c. With the new changes, if I travel 1 station or 2 stations, I will have to pay 53c. If I travel 5 or 11 stations, I will have to pay 86c. My normal route will mean that I will have to pay 18c more one way or 36c more daily. This is a 26% hike every day! Now, how can I benefit from the changes? I figure out that if I get in at station 1 and out at station 2, I will save 15c (68-53). So if I break up my journey into ten trips, in and out of every one station, I could save $1.50 per trip or $3 daily. Wow, I am saving more than the 36c hike daily by changing my travelling pattern! Can make money some more. I am an oldie and my mental faculty may be a little faulty. Please don’t take advantage of oldies. And thank you for helping me to save $3 daily.

The virtuous deaf frogs

The fare hike was meant to benefit the commuters. But it is ok that 1 out of 4 got to pay more. Lily Neo was furious and asked, 'Is the minister aware of the frustration and anger of many...on the ground? Raymond Lim 'acknowledged that some seniors face "significant fare increases". And it was an agonising decision that the Public Transport Council had to make. Then what? Stop whining and move on? Hey, the little money that the seniors have is crucial to their daily lives. Every cent counts. It is not a matter of whether they can take bus, mrt or taxis, it can mean going with one meal less or trying to make ends meet. Many of these seniors did not earn $2m or $3m a year. The few cents may be nonsense and meaningless to people earning millions, but please don't brush it off as just too bad. Do something and not let the poor seniors being robbed of their cup of kopi O.

Vandalism or littering allowed?

Inserting flyers into people’s doors and gates is not vandalism and not littering. Ok, I accept that. Is it trespassing when they are not wanted? It is public nuisance when the owners would have to make the effort to throw them away? Is it a fire hazard when too many are left around and a lighted cigarette could set them ablaze? Is it a security risk to the owners when the flyers are a tell tale sign that the owners are not in for a long duration? Who should be responsible if someone slips on the fliers and get hurt? But it is so complicated and confusing an issue that our top talents in Parliament could not come out with a clear position. The fliers’ owners claimed that they have to do it to generate business. And some jokers even agree to it, saying that they cannot prevent people from doing business. What kind of bullshit is that? Why are the nasi lemak and kalipok boys and girls and small time hawkers not allowed to peddle their wares? Oh they got no licence, never pay protection money is it? Why should flat owners be troubled by the fliers and have to clear them away? What if the owners opened their doors and the fliers drop onto the floor, and left there? Is it littering on the part of the owners? The fliers are litters and will litter the whole corridor. When have littering been allowed? What happen to the $500 fine for littering? This looks like another serious and complex problem, like loan sharks and motor insurance scam, no one is able to solve. It’s not elementary, Watson. So the people should continue to be harassed and bombarded by fliers and they can do nothing about it. And Parliament too cannot do anything about it. It is just doing business. Did I see a big bull somewhere? Shall someone engage a prominent lawyer to clarify the legal position on this? There must be a position, black or white. Of shall it stay grey forever, impossible to solve?