Search the Community

July 5, 2008 Why extend bike trial when it's a done deal? WHY extend the cycling-on-footpath trial in Tampines? Last Tuesday, the Minister for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan, announced a six-month extension of the trial ('Reckless cyclists in Tampines face penalties'). The trial, which started more than one year ago, allows cyclists to pedal on the town's footpaths, an act which is supposedly forbidden elsewhere in Singapore. Mr Mah added that, while the majority of residents responded well to the trial, it will be extended so more can be done to ensure that cyclists and pedestrians have an easier time on footpaths, for instance, widening footpaths and educating footpath users and cyclists. It is clear that much extra work is being done just to accommodate cyclists on footpaths so as to produce a successful trial. As the conclusion is clearly foregone, I see no merit whatsoever in wasting more time agonising over the trial results six months later. The reality on the ground is that all over Singapore, cyclists are already riding on footpaths, with the authorities taking no enforcement action. Let us not kid ourselves. Why don't we go ahead and spend money widening all the footpaths in Singapore for the benefit of both footpath users and cyclists? Cheang Peng Wah http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Sto...ory_254804.html This feller is guud opposition material...

July 5, 2008 Not a matter of faith, but of rights I REFER to the open letter NTUC Income chief executive officer Tan Suee Chieh sent to me last Wednesday and, presumably, to the rest of Income's policyholders. It is unfortunate that Mr Tan and his new management team have not grasped the fundamental concern of existing policyholders regarding Income's bonus-restructuring exercise. Contrary to what he believes is a question of faith in him and his management team, the bone of contention for most policyholders is about how Income has unilaterally restructured the bonus scheme on not only new insurance plans, but existing ones as well. The key question Mr Tan and his management team should ask is this: If the customer had known that Income would execute an about-turn and change the bonus proportion at its own discretion, would the then-prospective policyholder have signed up? It should be the right of each consumer or policyholder, not the insurer, to determine what is in his best interest. The fact that NTUC Income has unilaterally implemented the change in the bonus scheme without allowing existing policyholders the choice of opting in or out shows a complete disregard for the sanctity of policy agreements and policyholders' rights and freedom to choose. I must therefore question the sincerity of Income's 'guided principles' to protect and enhance the interests of its policyholders. It is like telling a child he is being locked in a cage to prevent him falling down and getting hurt. As society progresses and the financial sector matures, we expect a more balanced approach to consumers' rights. Dennis Liu http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Sto...ory_254808.html

June 30, 2008 ELECTRONIC ROAD PRICING Policies on ERP and COEs seem contradictory I AM puzzled by the recent announcements on the impending Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) rate changes, with effect from July7. I vividly remember reading a Straits Times article in March or April this year on a Land Transport Authority (LTA) report on the benefits of introducing ERP in Orchard Road. The report stated that before ERP was introduced, retailers were worried the measures would drive away customers. However, instead of business going downhill, retailers in Orchard are enjoying record boom. One reason was that ERP deterred motorists who used Orchard Road as a thoroughfare, and genuine shoppers flocked there to shop. The report also stated that car speeds were an optimum 20kmh to 30kmh, and ERP gantries in Orchard succeeded in keeping down traffic. Now, on June 17, the LTA announced that car speeds in Orchard have fallen considerably, ERP charges will go up from $1 to $2 and operating hours on Saturdays will be from 11.30am to 8pm. My question is, who validates and verifies that cars are moving at optimum speed? Who checks these reports? Who decides that, three months ago, the speed was optimum, but now it is no longer so? One possible reason is that there are more cars on the road now. Cars are cheaper, application for car loans is easier, COE prices have dropped considerably, and rebates are given to motorists who switch to CNG cars. The LTA controls the number of COEs issued, and although it says it will control the number of COEs issued because of highly congested roads, many policies are implemented to make car ownership easier. So why does the LTA continue to issue COEs, even though it stated in a report last year that COEs issued are way above the stipulated quota - 9 per cent instead of 3 per cent? And after issuing so many COEs, the LTA introduces ERP gantries everywhere with higher prices and longer operating hours to discourage vehicle use. Why not control the issuing of COEs in the first place? I hope the LTA can shed some light on these apparently contradictory policies. Jennifer Wong (Ms) http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Sto...ory_252977.html

Investor Jim Rogers says Singapore to lose money on US banks INVESTMENT guru Jim Rogers believes that US bank stocks could fall further and predicts that Singapore's state investors will lose money on their multi-billion dollar investments in Citigroup and Merrill Lynch. 'I'm shorting investment banks on Wall Street,' the long-time commodities bull told reporters on Wednesday at a launch event for ABN AMRO certificates linked to commodities. 'It grieves me to see what Singapore is doing. They are going to lose money,' he added, referring to investments by Government of Singapore Investment Corp and Temasek in Citigroup, Switzerland's UBS and Merrill Lynch. Mr Rogers, an American who co-founded the Quantum Fund with billionaire George Soros in the 1970s, now lives in Singapore as he wants to raise his four-year-old daughter in an environment where she can learn Mandarin Chinese. Mr Rogers, who also writes investment books, said Wall Street had to work off 10 years of excesses and predicted that losses linked to risky mortgages will eventually spread to credit card bills, student loans and other debt. -- REUTERS http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2...ry_213576.html looks like 10% GST and more gantry soon...

Jan 23, 2008 Unbecoming behaviour of NTUC Income staff at Sengkang MRT station NTUC Income has set up a permanent booth at the Sengkang MRT station. What started initially as polite soliciting by the NTUC Income agents is now creating a nuisance. The behaviour of the agents is abhorrent. Their antics are amusing. The loud talk, laughter and joking all show a lack of seriousness in their job. They don't walk, they just jump and hop and place themselves in front of you. They block your way by extending their hands in both directions. When you try to bow down to wriggle out, they lower their hand. Even when the person says 'no', the agents keep walking along with him/her for quite a long distance. Thereafter they laugh out loud and signal back to their 'base station'. This kind of ridiculing the public is quite reprehensible. When a single office-going woman is spotted, the agents get excited and harass her no end. I have seen many people expressing disappointment after being accosted by these agents. To avoid the unwanted nuisance, commuters now take a roundabout route to the MRT. I would appreciate it if the NTUC Income management can look into this and restore the prestige of the profession. N. Nageswaran http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Onl...ory_198970.html chey....

Dec 20, 2007 Ugly Singaporeans rear their heads in carpark I WISH to share these experiences with readers. These happened twice over three days at the same carpark next to the Tampines Regional Library. I had noticed at least three Singapore-registered cars lined just before the exit with drivers at the ready. As I approached the exit barrier, two cars immediately dashed out and tailgated my car, supposedly joining the queue to exit. However, I was very perturbed when the drivers revved their engines, trying to inch closer to my bumper and, as I exited, the car immediately behind mine sneaked past the barrier. I tried to slow down and stopped as I exited but was honked at. A similar incident happened again two days later at the same car park exit. My question is: Why do the carpark authorities allow such blatant abuse? The ugly Singaporean surfaces everywhere - not only at the buffet tables. Richard Chan Eng Huat http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Onl...ory_188573.html