| I am beginning to view the local authorities in a rather unflattering light-- mostly as them being overtly mechanical when dealing with complaints amongst others. They being their own masters tend to execute their "masterplans" before subjecting it to public scrutiny. More so that they are springing a surprise on us than asking for our humble opinions. The relevant organisations introduced televisions on buses to allow the tv-crazy nation to bring their passion everywhere they go, the inventors thinking they have done us all a great favour. Same goes with the ERP and the recent uproar with the Ez-link card. Inventors who proudly presented their brainchild to the countless boards of directors and then arrogantly unleashed their inventions to the public, only to be met with dismal performance and heavy backlash. Firstly, the TV-Mobile. Every single grouse I have regarding this system might have already been aired by countless others who have to take the public transport like I do. All the grouses and complaints printed on the Straits Times Forum page (a local fav section for the public to scream and rant about their unhappiness) have been responded to, promptly by the local authorities but if you noticed, none of the letters actually included apologies of any sorts. Often, we get the official statement which resembles more of a shrug and an attitude of the "accept-it-or-get-a-car" sort. Unapologetic corporations we have here in Singapore. And believe me, the TV Mobile will find itself onto the list of the Top 5 Worthless Local Inventions, easily. Sounds emitted and pictures shown are often of the poorest quality and possibly irks the hell out of many morning commuters who are trying to catch that extra last wink, but get their beautiful morning interrupted by the damn TV. It's the last thing anyone would want on a bus. Of course, one might try sending it to the TV Mobile company and complain about the nuisance its causing and plead for it to be stopped. Chances are, not only will you NOT get what you want (no matter how many signatures you collect), but they will send you a letter citing statistics, both relevant and irrelevant ones. These will include the stats to show that 80% of the population who take buses watch TV Mobile (maybe cos they were forced to?!), and that the quality of the TV screens are only not working properly 8.59% in a week while sounds are interrupted 11.6% of the time as the bus driver does an emergency break while 5.283% of the time is due to the satalites being covered by a moving rock in the skies or something. None of the letters sent back to you will be addressed to the focal point which is to uninstall the damn system. * * * The ERP is yet another one of those passe topics which most of us have just given up complaining about. Not because we realised the merits of it, but because we can't do anything about it. We practically have no avenues to air our grouses about this yet-another-screwed-up-project. Even an energiser bunny will run out of battery and steam to complain one day and the system will yet again sit comfortably in place. Now if we think in this light, maybe passivity isn't innate in Singaporeans--it has been forced into place and we have been forced to swallow it wholesale. Admittedly, the ERP helps the government with revenues to boost the relevant sectors of the economy. But, placing it everywhere will only incur the wrath of the people and make locals less patriotic and loving towards the current government. This friend of mine actually has to pay $6 each time he drives from his house to work in the CBD area and apparently, from what I have experienced, drivers have to drive past two gantries on a straight road on the CTE to enter town ie they have to pay double to get to the city centre and pay yet another time to go into the city. These gantries are springing up like wild mushrooms because the gardener has agreed to let it run amok. The gardener is even thinking of imposing a gantry on the opposite side of the CTE (ie the route everyone takes to go home from town) to curb the evening jam. Taking taxpayers' monies because of their own planning errors? Why the hell are we paying so much each year to get incompetent architects to come build and plan the roads when a layman with no building knowledge would be able to tell you that the expressway plan won't work? Why did we get some smart alec to design and build Cavenagh bridge which caused the Merlion not to sprout again, which some say therefore cut off Singapore's fortunes? And the government had to spend $ again to shift the national symbol to another place. Don't even get me started on the Esplande on the bay which looks like a fly's eye no matter which angle I look at it from or try to look at it unbiasedly. * * * Finally the mother of all grouses (at least up till the time this article was written)- the EZ-link card. This is another un-fool proof plan thought up by yet another inventor wannabe who decides to save the local bus company some money and build a system where people can't cheat on the fares. I understand the rationale behind the implementation of the card, if one look at it from a company's point of view, which ultimately is to profit maximise. However it is beyond comprehension why the company would implement this system when the kinks obviously have not been ironed out. If something screws up and the reader can't read, the burden is on the consumer to seek a refund for the machine deducts the maximum fare from your fare card each time you board the bus. Where do you go to get your refund? Take a trip all the way down to the designated centres, queue up and wait for your 60 cents or even less. Not at all worth it you say? What about the poor man on the street? No matter how "unworthy" it is to go through all the trouble just to get a few cents back, money is still money to people like them who ache at the thought of losing a few cents. As for the white collared worker, it sure isn't worth it, lining up for 2 hours on a weekday, taking leave from the office just to get that few cents back. The opportunity cost is just too great to be worth it. Perhaps the hidden motive behind this is to allow the company to reap 10-fold or even more. After all, if the customer doesn't claim for a refund, they'll get an even higher profit margin or recoup the capital spent in devising this system. Yet, if you look at the law of economic torts, the underlying principle is that the master always has the deepest pockets so the poor servant shouldn't be the one you are claiming against if you want a noteworthy settlement. Same rule should apply here. I can go on for days and nights about the demerits of this system but there really isn't any point doing so since ultimately, I am just a man on the streets and if the officials decide that what I have written above is damaging, they'll sue me for defamation. Damn. |
| Continue (part II) |
 |
| 'Tis saddening... issues that rock a nation |