SMRT’s bad luck just would not go away

When Khaw Boon Wan mentioned that it was bad luck that caused all the problems in SMRT, or something like that, many took it with a pinch of salt or laughed it away as market talk. How can technical problems be attributed to bad luck?
 
With each passing day, this bad luck thing seems to get more real. Whenever the media quoted Boon Wan or someone in the SMRT management claiming that services had improved, banged, something worst would happen, and the trains would suffer more breakdowns to press the point that it was not so, that the train services were not improving.
 
The point I am making about this bad luck thing is that it is not due to poor management or poor maintenance. Whatever maintenance processes they are doing, using high tech, big data, 3D printing or rocket science, if the breakdowns are due to bad luck, nothing will work. The SMRT staff is working very hard, I am very sure about that. Working hard is not the solution if they did not know what is the real problem. Worse if it is due to bad luck.
 
Perhaps a little divine intervention may help in some cases. From what Boon Wan had done, including inviting the religious leaders to pray to protection, it is still not working. Got blessing and things get even worse. It was just inconvenience, now people are getting hurt. Some said it was so lucky that no crowded train drove into the flood tunnel as the consequences of commuter drowning inside a flooded tunnel is beyond comprehension. So what can be worse than that? Would that be the end of the bad luck?
 
Fat hope. This morning, 15 Nov, one train collided with a stationary train in Joo Koon and 29 commuters were hurt as reported in main media, not fake news. This is first time in Singapore’s history, oops second time, that a train crashed into another train. Talking about bad luck! Sure this kind of accident must be bad luck. There is the train signal system to prevent such a collision. Could you believe it that it was the train signaling system that caused the accident? The train signaling system that was supposed to prevent such accident ‘was inadvertently removed’ when the train passed by a faulty signaling circuit. Holly cow, how can this be? Does anyone know how dangerous this is when trains are moving fast instead of this case when both were stationary and only a few metres apart? And this is a new train signaling system! How can a new train system have this kind of serious flaw embedded? This is totally unacceptable. A safety feature cannot and must not be allowed to be removed by accident or unintentionally even by a faulty circuit.
 
The most important thing now is to find the source of bad luck. Oh, also debug this new train signal software to make sure it is fit for operation. Many lives are put in danger if this bug is not removed completely and the system declared 100% safe for installation. As for the bad luck, if it is due to an individual, then the individual must be removed. This time big data can come in handy. Use big data to correlate the bad luck with some individual and remove the individual to remove the bad luck.
 
For a good start, all the top management staff and Boon Wan must go and bathe with flower water as a precaution.

SGX –No lunch break reinstated

Is this an admission that the no lunch break decision was a failure or an act of farce? Before it was introduced they gave reasons like longer hours meant more business. Such a simplistic view was unbelieveable! Now that six years have elapsed and the business boom that was supposed to come along with no lunch break with longer trading hours failed to materialize and failed miserably, what else is new? Should every laugh or clap at the naiveity?
 
Another reason was to keep the market open for continuous trading across regions and across different stock markets so that the traders, were they funds managing millions and trading across borders or little kuching kurap traders thinking that their two cents worth of trades justified the market to open and to trade without breaks, could capitalize on this great scheme of things or not to lose out because the SGX was closed for lunch and they lost big monies or did not helped themselves with huge profits from the sacrifices of remisiers having to work with no breaks? Was there another stock exchange that thinks this is really necessary? What about the big funds in the USA and Europe and Japan, do they also believe in this myth that they cannot live with if their markets are not open longer, dispensing with lunch breaks, to breach the gap of different time zones?
 
Or were there other reasons that were not told, not spoken that made this no lunch break so bloody important? If it is, then it should not be changed. Or if the big funds or little traders needed the market to be open just in case they missed the golden opportunities or to cut positions when big changes happened in other markets then it is even more important to keep the market open with no lunch break.
 
So, would these funds and traders be complaining now if they made losses because of the market being closed for lunch? Now, would the return of lunch break, ie shortening of trading hours, reduces the trading volume further and reduces the income of remisiers even further?
 
What would happen to the future of the SGX when longer trading hours did not help and shorter trading hours too would not work? What is or are the real problems that are driving the stock market to irrelevance, becoming dysfunctional? Dunno leh.

Amos Yee - Freedom of speech in the USA?

‘The Harvard College Open Campus Initiative (HCOCI) announced online that it has cancelled a talk by Singapore’s most infamous teenager Amos Yee.
Our upcoming event with Amos Yee has been cancelled. Our apologies to those who were planning to attend.
— HCOCI (@harvardfree) November 12, 2017
 
This came less than two days after the event was publicised.’ Quoted from the mothership.sg

Many were pleasantly surprised that an esteem top university in the country where freedom of speech and human rights are sacrosanct in their constitution was inviting a young rebel to speak on its sacred ground. The event was scheduled to be held on 13 Nov and with the topic, ‘Jailed for Dissent’. Amos Yee even went to his facebook to invite people to attend. It was something that the Americans should be proud of, could be proud of, till a sudden turn of event.
 
Amos Yee was invited to speak but was disinvited two days later. This kind of flip flop only happened in third world countries and pretentious third world countries trying to pass off as first world countries. But not America, the USA, the Empire ruling the world.
 
Even for a tiny little country like Singapore, our govt pride itself as a country that would not comprise its policies and national interests or be pressurised to do so by outside parties. And it is unbelieveable to even harbour the thought that the American govt or Harvard, the seed of freedom and freedom of expression, is being pressurised to do so, to turn down a young kid from speaking his peace in the land of freedom.
 
No, it cannot be. Harvard or the American govt would not be pressurised to do such a cowardly and shameful thing. It is unimaginable that any country could have such a great influence to change what Harvard decided to do. No way. And there is Donald Trump that believes America is great or he is going to make America great again. He would not tolerate such an act of cowardice that undermines the greatness of the USA and to make America small again. I think if Trump comes to know about this, someone in Harvard or in his govt is going to get grilled.
 
The only reason I can really think of is that it was all a mistake. There was no such invitation. It was fake news.
What do you think?

Singapore promoting a cashless and car less society

This cashless society thing is a new thing the govt is promoting. Actually there is no need to promote this as this has been a reality for quite some time. Singaporeans' pockets are really and genuinely cashless especially those living in public housing. Maybe those in private properties are better off. The cash that Singaporeans have or used to have has been transferred to their properties and in the CPF. The little left over that some may still have would be transferred to the cars they are owning and that effectively made many cashless. So the govt need not have to sweat the small stuff urging the Singaporeans to become cashless. It is a fact that many are not talking about.

What many have forgotten is the govt's campaign to promote a car less society. This is an ongoing process and with the proliferation of bicycles all over the island, in the longkangs and bushes, yes bicycles growing in the bushes and floating in the longkangs as well, it must be a sure sign that bicycles have taken over the existence of cars. Bicycles are everywhere, for everyone, supplemented by e scooters and other personal mobile equipment.

And the main reason or justification for a car less society, other than being too expensive, not enough space as space is needed for more foreigners to come here to create jobs, while some say we need 10m population to sustain economic growth, is that we have an efficient public transport system that is the envy of the world. These are the basic assumption and premise for a car less society.

Well, how things have changed or not really. Boon Wan has been quoted in Parliament to have praise how the train services have improved over the years. Here is something quoted in thestatestimesreview.

Just earlier this week in Parliament, Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan attributed government statistics claiming rail reliability has improved three times:
“For our MRT network, it has improved significantly from 133,000 train-km in 2015 to 425,000 train-km this year. For years, it could not even reach 100,000 train-km. That is how far we have come. The improvement is real and significant and is experienced by all the 5 MRT lines, including the oldest North-South and East-West Lines.”

I dunno if anyone disagrees with him but this was what happened last night, 10 Nov, and reported all over the social media. Below is quoted from thestatestimesreview.

'SMRT saw it’s third and fourth breakdown in a week last night (Nov 10) and stopped all East-bound train services on the East-West Line (EWL). From 11.15pm until the end of service at midnight, the disruption happened after the first train fault occurred at Outram Park station.
Shortly after a service train was deployed to push the faulty train, the service train also broke down at Paya Lebar station, and SMRT deployed another service train to push the two faulty trains.'

What is pertinent is the breakdown of a service train that is being used to push the faulty train. A service train is like a backup, like a standby UPS or like the drainage pump in Bishan. The backup train or equipment is supposed to take over or to provide emergency services when needed and must be serviceable at the critical hours, like draining water from the flooded station in Bishan. They must be tested and kept in working condition. Looks like they may want to have a standard SOP to check and maintain these service trains as well.

I digress, didn't I? We are moving towards a car less society and this is only possible if we have an efficient, comfortable and reliable public transport system. It used to be, Boon Wan still believes so. Many commuters are cursing themselves for giving up their cars. One commuter tweeted that he thought he could leave his car at home last night only to be caught in the massive jams due to train faults.

The point is, how is Singapore going to be car less if the public transport system is unreliable and breaking down is the norm? For those heading to catch a flight at Changi and got caught in the jam at Tanah Merah, hope they did manage to get to the airport in time.

What is going on? Oh, they are not issuing more COEs to keep the car population from growing, and there is a reliable alternative public transport for those who could not afford the cars or have given up car ownership.

The sinister agenda of the TPP

What is the purpose of a regional multi party trade pact for? To promote trade among its participating members. That must be the main objective of such a pact, an entity to benefit all parties economically. The key member of the TPP was the USA with 11 other partners.

When Trump came into office at the White House, he smelt a rat and immediately threw out the TPP into the toilet bowl. He did not want to enter into an agreement that is unfavourable to the Americans, economically. As far as money and business is concerned, Trump knows what he is talking about. He is a shrewd businessman.

His predecessors, the neocons, have a different agenda. Their objective is political, the containment of the growth of China by excluding China from the pact. They were prepared to pay some economic price for political gain for the American Empire.

What is China to a trade pact like the TPP? China is becoming the biggest consumer market in the world with 300 million middle class consumers, the size of the American population. And in another 10 years this would be 600 million. Why would a trade pact deliberately exclude the biggest consumer market in the world?

With the American market in the pact, it still makes some sense. Once the American market is out of the pact, the true economic value of such a pact diminishes instantly. Japan cannot replace the loss of the American market even if it wants to. The Japanese market is too small and the Japanese only buy Japanese goods.

The only reason left to continue this TPP is the sinister political agenda, to isolate China, to gang up against China. Who in the remaining 11 members would want this to continue as the raison d'tre of the TPP? Listen to their narrative and you can smell out the little USAs. On their part they have deliberately excluded China from theTPP. On the other hand they are questioning whether China would seek a China centric trade pact or regional order. This is despite the BRI and AIIB, two Chinese creations that have extended an open arm to all countries, excluding no one, two all embracing and inclusive organisations. The few countries left out are those that chose to ie you know who and their hostile intent towards China.

In a normal and genuine economic trade pact free from political motives, it would be reasonable for the remaining partners of this failed pact to recruit a bigger partner to replace the void left by the Americans. The very fact that some would want to continue in the same form, excluding China, speaks for the intent of some of these members, notably Japan and the little USAs. Japan wants to assume the leadership of this pact without asking the consent of the Australians and Canadians nor the other members. It is a convenient vehicle for the rise of Japan as the new Asia Pacific leader, though a declining one. Some former victims of the Japanese aggression in WW2 have forgotten the massacres and atrocities committed by the Japanese in their countries, against their people, and naively wanted to go to bed with the Japanese.

Would the TPP survive under the leadership of Japan to pit itself against China and deprive its other members from the growing and lucrative China market of 600 million middle class hungry consumers? China is negotiating and promoting the RCEP, another regional trade pact that does not exclude anyone.With its 600m middle class consumers and a market of 1.4b people, would the RCEP dwarf the TPP and turn it into oblivion to the disappoint of the anti China gang that talked inclusivity but practised exclusivity and division?