Contributed by: Cheong Wing Lee
Housing
- Diary of A Singaporean Mind: Affordability in Singapore..
- ~eternalhap~: Preliminary Thoughts on Public Housing in Singapore
- The Temasek Review: A letter from Ng Kok Lim: HDB’s affordability benchmark is not reasonable
- The Temasek Review: A letter from Ng Kok Lim: Home ownership becoming a liability rather than an asset
- The Star: Fears of a property bubble spur buying spree [Thanks Mike]
Singapore’s Newest News Hub: SingaNews
- The Kent Ridge Common: Why a pro-family program should rise above sexual
- TOC: Thio Li-Ann’s speech at New Media Breakfast forum
Twilight in Paradise. CPF Life
- flaneurose: On CPF Life [Thanks twasher]
- The Temasek Reivew: CPF Life – A Critical Analysis
Strangers in a Strange Land
- TOC: Lessen dependence on foreign labour
- Singapore Social and Political Thoughts: What is the PAP thinking?
Healthcare & Healthcare Providers
- Gerald Giam’s Blog: Govt considers covering congenital illnesses under MediShield
Daily Discourse
- The Temasek Review: The facade of meritocracy in Singapore
- 光でも闇でも: Singapore: a totalitarian state?
- The Grand Moofti Speaks: Singaporean Behaviour – Not So Bizarre After All
Life, the universe and everything
- Bernard Leong: Why and How Facebook should come to Southeast Asia
- Rambling Librarian: Stuttering: some resources and related links
- Singapore Fountain Pen: Beyond The Run – Yellow Ribbon Prison Run 2009 [Thnaks Major]
- Irreligious: Defending Ho Yeow Sun [Thanks Terence]
ERPains, Trains & Automobiles
- A response to Case’s concern addressed, says EZ-Link
Dear Mr Danker
Given that your previous responses are lacking, kindly answer my queries:
In the first place, I am not convinced that it was necessary to change the EZ-link card system at all. As someone who uses the public transport system in Singapore (incidentally, Mr Danker, do you rely on the public transport system solely? Or do you drive?), the new EZ-link system appears more expensive to implement, and seems to only profit the public transport companies and EZ-link. It does not benefit me in any additional way as a public transport user. All I need, is a simple and affordable card that I can use for public transport. I don’t want an expensive card for multiple purposes. I am therefore extremely disappointed with the authorities for allowing the public transport companies and EZ-link to implement the new EZ-link card without good justification. I would rather the public transport companies pass on the savings to commuters by reducing the fares if these companies made so much money from us over the years. Mr Danker, do you realise that we have no practical alternatives for transport because the public transport companies have a monopoly in Singapore? So, Mr Danker, please justify to me why it is absolutely necessary and beneficial to public transport users for SBS, SMRT, EZ-link etc to incur the very expensive costs of overhauling the previous system to implement a completely new system?
Secondly, Mr Danker, why is it that the previous EZ-link card system was able to do auto-GIRO top-ups without charging extra costs, but the new system incurs extra costs? As a commuter, I do not want something that is more expensive. I would rather have an old system that costs less, instead of a new system that costs more, especially when the new system has no other additional benefit to me as a commuter. Besides, aren’t the top-ups all computerised and automatic? If so, that should be an efficient and cost-saving system. Pray don’t tell me that you are now manually doing the top-ups and that is why it is so expensive now.
Thirdly, Mr Danker, I am tired of public transport companies reaping huge profits from public commuters year after year. It results in trying to squeeze your commuters in 2 ways: (a) for more money and (b) in over-crowded trains and buses. Do you think it is possible for the public transport companies to spare a thought for the commuters and to stop trying to squeeze them? I would like to see the companies either (a) revert to a government-run public service or (b) become not-for-profit organisations. After all, public transport is an essential service to the public, not a luxury good. Don’t you agree?
I look forward to your replies.
matchger
No direct link to this, so we reproduce it here. [Thanks Lyndon]
