Sep 2, 2010
I WISH to state my displeasure with SingTel's handling of iPhone 4 sales. Like many others, I had to place an order for the phone and wait for up to a month to get it.
I placed my order on Aug 12 at an exclusive retailer at Northpoint, but have yet to receive my phone. After numerous checks with SingTel, I was told that I would need to wait an additional two weeks before I could get my hands on the phone.
Shouldn't SingTel have foreseen the problem of low stocks, given that there were already acute shortages just days after the phone's launch and with a large number of orders still coming in?
StarHub and M1, both of which faced shortages a few weeks ago and also employed a waiting list, have rectified their problems. They have begun selling the phones on the spot.
The unusual waiting period for SingTel iPhones may be due to a lack of a proper system for tracking the waiting list. Some customers have been able to land an iPhone 4 after just four days of waiting, while others have to wait for a month. This discrepancy occurs even if the orders are made at the same location.
A quick check online shows that I am not the only frustrated one. A thread on the issue on Hardwarezone.com is already well past 300 pages of posts. It is evident that this problem could go on for some time unless action is taken.
Bhas Kunju
[The solution is already in his letter. Buy from Starhub or M1.
And which part of Straits Times Forum Page looks like the Singtel Customer Complaint Dept? How is this a matter of national interest that should be published in the national broadsheet? Long waiting list for HDB flats - yes, national issue. Long wait for consumer product - take it up with the retailer. Nothing in the letter speaks to unfair practices. If the writer is concerned with poor service, poor preparation, poor logistics, poor planning, and a callous disregard for customer's satisfaction, then why is he still queueing for a Singtel iPhone, especially when he can get from other providers. if this waiting is a prediction of the service to come, he should switch.]
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
What flier nuisance?
Aug 22, 2010
EDITORIAL
[I wasn't sure whether to put this in this blog "ST Forum" or the Newsclippings blog. I decided to treat this as a letter by the editor.]
Some Housing Board residents are almost in revolt over advertisers and businesses sticking fliers in their door grilles. Promoters have resorted to doing so as a result of anti-junk mail locking devices installed on letter-boxes in HDB estates. A recent letter to The Straits Times complaining about the messy fliers drew a dozen like grouses.
These letter writers wanted a ban placed on junk mail at their doorstep. But the Ministry of National Development, in response to questions on the issue raised in Parliament by Ms Lee Bee Wah, an MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC, said town councils and the HDB had no authority to stop the distributing of leaflets in HDB households.
Are these fliers sent out mainly by real estate agents in a rising market, like now, such a nuisance? The answer is an unequivocal 'no'. Residents do not get these bits of paper every day. If they cannot stand looking at them, toss them in the waste basket. We suspect this is where most hopeful sales pitches end up. What's so hard about throwing unwanted paper in the trash? Those who are away a lot can arrange for neighbours or relatives to remove accumulated junk. The point is to be sensible about the ways of daily commerce.
[I agree. There are more sensible ways of daily commerce. My question is, how successful are these flyers? How many thousands of these litter-to-be must be distributed to get one response? How different are these flyers from cold-call telemarketers? From touts at Newton hawker centre? The point is that for just one response, these flyers inconvenience thousands of other residents indiscriminately. This is commerce? This is marketing? This is a strategy?
What right-thinking person intending to sell his property will pick up a cheap flyer on his door with a cheesy photo and promise of stratospheric prices for his property and call the number on the flyer? The agent obviously has no creative way of drumming up business. What evidence does one have that he will have the required intelligence or ability to sell your property for the best price other than his self-testimony? For a transaction of a lifetime, wouldn't one pick an agent with a reference from trusted friend who has used his services? Flyers are for fast food delivery, where one knows (and presumably trusts) the brand and the quality.]
Residents made a litter problem of these fliers when there were no anti-locking devices on letter boxes. In going through their mail, they would leave behind a carpet of leaflets in the lift lobby area because it was too much trouble to dispose of them in bins close by. The litter was not an uplifting sight for anyone coming home from work. So, who's the culprit? The HDB introduced the anti-locking device in letter boxes in the mid-1990s in new blocks of flats and in upgraded older estates precisely because the indiscriminate tossing of paper in void decks was getting out of hand.
All of which says that excessively cared-for Singaporeans can be a spoilt lot, even among heartlanders.
[Actually, I put the flyers with my stack of newpapers for recycling. As I only buy the Sunday Times, I don't have a lot of newspapers. At times it almost seems like there are more flyers than newspapers. That's how bad it is. My perspective of this is that these people dump litter on my door almost everyday. Why? What if I take all these flyers and drop them in mail boxes? What if I take all these Singpost delivered flyers and put them back in the mailboxes? Returned mail. Not wanted. Return to Sender.]
EDITORIAL
[I wasn't sure whether to put this in this blog "ST Forum" or the Newsclippings blog. I decided to treat this as a letter by the editor.]
Some Housing Board residents are almost in revolt over advertisers and businesses sticking fliers in their door grilles. Promoters have resorted to doing so as a result of anti-junk mail locking devices installed on letter-boxes in HDB estates. A recent letter to The Straits Times complaining about the messy fliers drew a dozen like grouses.
These letter writers wanted a ban placed on junk mail at their doorstep. But the Ministry of National Development, in response to questions on the issue raised in Parliament by Ms Lee Bee Wah, an MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC, said town councils and the HDB had no authority to stop the distributing of leaflets in HDB households.
Are these fliers sent out mainly by real estate agents in a rising market, like now, such a nuisance? The answer is an unequivocal 'no'. Residents do not get these bits of paper every day. If they cannot stand looking at them, toss them in the waste basket. We suspect this is where most hopeful sales pitches end up. What's so hard about throwing unwanted paper in the trash? Those who are away a lot can arrange for neighbours or relatives to remove accumulated junk. The point is to be sensible about the ways of daily commerce.
[I agree. There are more sensible ways of daily commerce. My question is, how successful are these flyers? How many thousands of these litter-to-be must be distributed to get one response? How different are these flyers from cold-call telemarketers? From touts at Newton hawker centre? The point is that for just one response, these flyers inconvenience thousands of other residents indiscriminately. This is commerce? This is marketing? This is a strategy?
What right-thinking person intending to sell his property will pick up a cheap flyer on his door with a cheesy photo and promise of stratospheric prices for his property and call the number on the flyer? The agent obviously has no creative way of drumming up business. What evidence does one have that he will have the required intelligence or ability to sell your property for the best price other than his self-testimony? For a transaction of a lifetime, wouldn't one pick an agent with a reference from trusted friend who has used his services? Flyers are for fast food delivery, where one knows (and presumably trusts) the brand and the quality.]
Residents made a litter problem of these fliers when there were no anti-locking devices on letter boxes. In going through their mail, they would leave behind a carpet of leaflets in the lift lobby area because it was too much trouble to dispose of them in bins close by. The litter was not an uplifting sight for anyone coming home from work. So, who's the culprit? The HDB introduced the anti-locking device in letter boxes in the mid-1990s in new blocks of flats and in upgraded older estates precisely because the indiscriminate tossing of paper in void decks was getting out of hand.
All of which says that excessively cared-for Singaporeans can be a spoilt lot, even among heartlanders.
[Actually, I put the flyers with my stack of newpapers for recycling. As I only buy the Sunday Times, I don't have a lot of newspapers. At times it almost seems like there are more flyers than newspapers. That's how bad it is. My perspective of this is that these people dump litter on my door almost everyday. Why? What if I take all these flyers and drop them in mail boxes? What if I take all these Singpost delivered flyers and put them back in the mailboxes? Returned mail. Not wanted. Return to Sender.]
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Act faster to solve drainage woes
Jul 24, 2010
THURSDAY'S report ("100mm: Expect floods if this much rain falls in an hour") confirms that there was nothing freakish or extraordinary about the recent storms. What was extraordinary were the serious floods that occurred within a span of one month as a result of the storms.
It is clear our current drainage system is failing to cope with the rapid urbanisation of recent years, which took away much water-permeable grounds.
[So, you'd prefer to walk on dirt tracks? Your choice: flood or mud.]
So steps are now being taken to raise roads and improve drains, and works will be expedited where possible. But why are most of the major tenders being called only in October or November, and some even next year?
Singapore prides itself as being able to achieve in record time completion of high-profile projects, such as the Formula One circuit and the two integrated resorts. Why can't we do the same and have the entire drainage system upgraded in record time?
[Because the F1 is sponsored by private capital, and the govt taxes hotels to recover costs. IRs were built with private capital. So who's going to pay for accelerated construction of drains? In any case, to improve drainage, works will probably mean diverting or even reducing drainage capacity temporarily in order to upgrade it. That means if it rains heavily, it would cause more floods. Must wait for drier season.]
Given the widespread disruption to lives and severe losses already suffered in the recent floods, and the high chance that more is to come (with possible loss of lives), wouldn't it be justified that we accord the greatest urgency to tackle the problem?
[PUB has already stated that they would bring forward their drainage improvement plans. Threatening the possibility of loss of lives is an appeal to emotions. And hyperbole. It would be irony if there is a drought after the completion of the drainage improvement works.]
Francis Kwek
THURSDAY'S report ("100mm: Expect floods if this much rain falls in an hour") confirms that there was nothing freakish or extraordinary about the recent storms. What was extraordinary were the serious floods that occurred within a span of one month as a result of the storms.
It is clear our current drainage system is failing to cope with the rapid urbanisation of recent years, which took away much water-permeable grounds.
[So, you'd prefer to walk on dirt tracks? Your choice: flood or mud.]
So steps are now being taken to raise roads and improve drains, and works will be expedited where possible. But why are most of the major tenders being called only in October or November, and some even next year?
Singapore prides itself as being able to achieve in record time completion of high-profile projects, such as the Formula One circuit and the two integrated resorts. Why can't we do the same and have the entire drainage system upgraded in record time?
[Because the F1 is sponsored by private capital, and the govt taxes hotels to recover costs. IRs were built with private capital. So who's going to pay for accelerated construction of drains? In any case, to improve drainage, works will probably mean diverting or even reducing drainage capacity temporarily in order to upgrade it. That means if it rains heavily, it would cause more floods. Must wait for drier season.]
Given the widespread disruption to lives and severe losses already suffered in the recent floods, and the high chance that more is to come (with possible loss of lives), wouldn't it be justified that we accord the greatest urgency to tackle the problem?
[PUB has already stated that they would bring forward their drainage improvement plans. Threatening the possibility of loss of lives is an appeal to emotions. And hyperbole. It would be irony if there is a drought after the completion of the drainage improvement works.]
Francis Kwek
Sunday, July 25, 2010
COLONIAL HISTORY
Jul 26, 2010
Apathy? Far from it
I WAS impressed by Europe correspondent Jonathan Eyal's insightful comments ('History as it should be taught'; July 17) on the crossroads of teaching history in British schools, only to be disconcerted by his assertions about 'citizens of the old colonies'.
After suggesting the pitfalls of choosing between neglecting and engaging with the history of the British Empire, Mr Eyal concludes that the only 'consolation' is that formerly colonised citizens 'no longer care, one way or another'. He presents this ignorance as a post-colonial triumph. But why should apathy be considered a 'consolation', and for whom?
To say that the seduction of 'globalisation and economic growth' leads directly to such historical indifference is reductive.
Instead of being 'content to retain their Victoria streets', as Mr Eyal suggests, the Mumbai authorities bowed to pressure from Hindu right-wingers to rename Victoria Terminus in 1996. Replacing colonial names with names of local origin has continued since independence from British rule, pursued with growing enthusiasm in countries such as Myanmar.
Even if Mr Eyal was referring primarily to Singapore, with its seemingly superficial attachment to all names colonial, the reality is far more complex.
Rather than offer superficial, symbolic associations, the book, Singapore Through 19th Century Photographs, by Mr Jason Toh actively engages with colonial architecture and city planning.
Last year, a National Museum of Singapore exhibition featured public lectures, which interpreted the physical environment of colonial Singapore, while a tour of the landscape of 19th century Singapore through visual records was sold out.
Apart from such academic efforts, colonial history resounds in current affairs. The fact that the British administered Pedra Branca for 100 years heavily influenced the International Court of Justice case between Singapore and Malaysia in 2008.
More recently, it was revealed that the KTM railway land, originally thought to be Malaysian property, had in fact been leased from the British Straits Settlements from 1918. Such imperial developments reverberate strongly today.
Still, Mr Eyal surprisingly concludes that 'coming to terms' with the largest empire in history is, just 13 years after the return of Hong Kong, 'now a problem for the British alone'. I am one of these 'citizens of the old colonies' who Mr Eyal claims no longer cares how the history of the empire is approached. As a Singaporean undergraduate studying history in Britain, I could not disagree more.
Ashish Ravinran
[This letter doesn't really belong here because it is rather well-written and the author does have a point - that apathy should not be a consolation prize. But then again, I don't believe Eyal was presenting this as a "consolation prize". Rather, he was making a comment, perhaps cynical, that how the British represents themselves to their populace is not going to be very controversial as opposed to say the Japanese rewriting their history text to gloss over the events of World War II.
So Eyal is not wrong to say that citizens of old colonies (or ex-colonies) would not care one way or another how the British engage (or don't engage) their citizens. A a Singaporean undergrad studying history in Britain, the writer disagrees. Of course he would. He's a history student. Specialising in British History. But I think we can safely assume that he is the exception that proves the rule.
As for the cases of imperial rule reverberating to contemporary issues, they make an interesting footnote but are irrelevant to the issue which is how Britain will engage their citizens on their history. It is not about whether there are influences for the ex-colonies, but rather how to teach British history to the British. And on that most citizens of ex-colonies would not care how it is done. So Eyal is right, and the writer is confused about the point Eyal is making.]
Apathy? Far from it
I WAS impressed by Europe correspondent Jonathan Eyal's insightful comments ('History as it should be taught'; July 17) on the crossroads of teaching history in British schools, only to be disconcerted by his assertions about 'citizens of the old colonies'.
After suggesting the pitfalls of choosing between neglecting and engaging with the history of the British Empire, Mr Eyal concludes that the only 'consolation' is that formerly colonised citizens 'no longer care, one way or another'. He presents this ignorance as a post-colonial triumph. But why should apathy be considered a 'consolation', and for whom?
To say that the seduction of 'globalisation and economic growth' leads directly to such historical indifference is reductive.
Instead of being 'content to retain their Victoria streets', as Mr Eyal suggests, the Mumbai authorities bowed to pressure from Hindu right-wingers to rename Victoria Terminus in 1996. Replacing colonial names with names of local origin has continued since independence from British rule, pursued with growing enthusiasm in countries such as Myanmar.
Even if Mr Eyal was referring primarily to Singapore, with its seemingly superficial attachment to all names colonial, the reality is far more complex.
Rather than offer superficial, symbolic associations, the book, Singapore Through 19th Century Photographs, by Mr Jason Toh actively engages with colonial architecture and city planning.
Last year, a National Museum of Singapore exhibition featured public lectures, which interpreted the physical environment of colonial Singapore, while a tour of the landscape of 19th century Singapore through visual records was sold out.
Apart from such academic efforts, colonial history resounds in current affairs. The fact that the British administered Pedra Branca for 100 years heavily influenced the International Court of Justice case between Singapore and Malaysia in 2008.
More recently, it was revealed that the KTM railway land, originally thought to be Malaysian property, had in fact been leased from the British Straits Settlements from 1918. Such imperial developments reverberate strongly today.
Still, Mr Eyal surprisingly concludes that 'coming to terms' with the largest empire in history is, just 13 years after the return of Hong Kong, 'now a problem for the British alone'. I am one of these 'citizens of the old colonies' who Mr Eyal claims no longer cares how the history of the empire is approached. As a Singaporean undergraduate studying history in Britain, I could not disagree more.
Ashish Ravinran
[This letter doesn't really belong here because it is rather well-written and the author does have a point - that apathy should not be a consolation prize. But then again, I don't believe Eyal was presenting this as a "consolation prize". Rather, he was making a comment, perhaps cynical, that how the British represents themselves to their populace is not going to be very controversial as opposed to say the Japanese rewriting their history text to gloss over the events of World War II.
So Eyal is not wrong to say that citizens of old colonies (or ex-colonies) would not care one way or another how the British engage (or don't engage) their citizens. A a Singaporean undergrad studying history in Britain, the writer disagrees. Of course he would. He's a history student. Specialising in British History. But I think we can safely assume that he is the exception that proves the rule.
As for the cases of imperial rule reverberating to contemporary issues, they make an interesting footnote but are irrelevant to the issue which is how Britain will engage their citizens on their history. It is not about whether there are influences for the ex-colonies, but rather how to teach British history to the British. And on that most citizens of ex-colonies would not care how it is done. So Eyal is right, and the writer is confused about the point Eyal is making.]
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
LATEST FLOODS - It's time to start a proper investigation
Jul 20, 2010
AS A concerned citizen watching the physical transformation of Singapore over the last 50 years, I have often wondered whether there are any downside risks that come with such development.
Our land mass has grown by an amazing 25 per cent in almost half a century to 775.5 sq km. In fact, the entire shape of Singapore has changed along with our ethnography, transportation and management of water resources, down to the way we work and play.
[I always get wary when writers used big words that don't mean what they think it means. "Ethnography" does not mean ethnic composition.]
According to a study, Singapore's coastline has been strikingly transformed not solely by territorial expansion through land filling or reclamation, but also by the closure of the estuaries of the main rivers draining the interior of the island.
To what extent has such a closure and relentless construction contributed to the floods in recent years?
To what extent, too, has the loss of 40 per cent of our natural forests, from 37.8 sq km to 22.6 sq km between 1960 and 2006, affected the island's ability to absorb torrential downpours?
It would be unfair to pick on the PUB or hold drainage as the culprit for the flooding. Neither should we cite Typhoon Conson as being a possible cause for our floods. It is simply too convenient.
[Ah! So you want an Inconvenient Truth? A conspiracy theory perhaps? So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it might well be a talented chicken who can swim and speak a second language? Or maybe... IT'S A DUCK!]
The Government should start a Commission of Inquiry to examine why the recent floods have been concentrated mainly in the central and southern parts of the island, whereas the northern, north-western and north-eastern parts have been largely spared.
[Let's see, could it be because the storm came from the Southeast and by the time it passed the central region, it had dumped most of the rain? Or that really, if the rain fell in the forest and there was no one around to see it, did it flood?]
Has this to do with the closing of the river estuaries and the massive construction and urbanisation in the city and the surrounding suburbs?
Until we arrive at a more multi-dimensional root cause for the problem, we will, at best, get only a piecemeal solution.
[Or maybe it's the fact that 100 mm of rain fell within 2 hours which is 60% of the entire month's average rainfall (June), and 180 mm of rain fell in 2 hours which was MORE than the ENTIRE month's average rainfall (July). The wettest month in Singapore is Dec with an average of 300 mm in total for the whole month. So 180mm in 2 hours is FREAKING unusual for ANY month. This is a "convenient" excuse? As a comparison, Typhoon Ketsana in 2009 dumped over 400 mm of rain on the worst hit region of the Philippines over 6 t0 12 hours. In other regions, the same amount of rain, 180 mm, fell over 6 to 12 hours.
But yes, there is more to it than, "it rained a lot" or "it was as wet as a typhoon". The question we should be asking is, whether the past can be used to predict the future. Whether past averages are a valid baseline for measurement. Or whether the 3 floods within the period of 1 month is going to be a freak occurrence. It is not impossible that 2 freak incidents (Sumatran squall and typhoons) occurs one after another. Just as it is not impossible to roll 6 on a dice 3, 4, 5, or even 6 times in a row. The point is, it could well be coincidence, aided by a confluence of factors. La Nina could be a cause, and if it is, then we might expect this to repeat every three years. Or if this is due to a long term or permanent trend in Singapore weather, then definitely we should upgrade our drainage to meet the new storm patterns. But, if this is only a freak confluence of "the perfect storm" conditions, then upgrading the drainage would be unnecessary.]
As a world-class city, we cannot afford to sink like Venice or swim like New Orleans.
Patrick Low
AS A concerned citizen watching the physical transformation of Singapore over the last 50 years, I have often wondered whether there are any downside risks that come with such development.
Our land mass has grown by an amazing 25 per cent in almost half a century to 775.5 sq km. In fact, the entire shape of Singapore has changed along with our ethnography, transportation and management of water resources, down to the way we work and play.
[I always get wary when writers used big words that don't mean what they think it means. "Ethnography" does not mean ethnic composition.]
According to a study, Singapore's coastline has been strikingly transformed not solely by territorial expansion through land filling or reclamation, but also by the closure of the estuaries of the main rivers draining the interior of the island.
To what extent has such a closure and relentless construction contributed to the floods in recent years?
To what extent, too, has the loss of 40 per cent of our natural forests, from 37.8 sq km to 22.6 sq km between 1960 and 2006, affected the island's ability to absorb torrential downpours?
It would be unfair to pick on the PUB or hold drainage as the culprit for the flooding. Neither should we cite Typhoon Conson as being a possible cause for our floods. It is simply too convenient.
[Ah! So you want an Inconvenient Truth? A conspiracy theory perhaps? So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it might well be a talented chicken who can swim and speak a second language? Or maybe... IT'S A DUCK!]
The Government should start a Commission of Inquiry to examine why the recent floods have been concentrated mainly in the central and southern parts of the island, whereas the northern, north-western and north-eastern parts have been largely spared.
[Let's see, could it be because the storm came from the Southeast and by the time it passed the central region, it had dumped most of the rain? Or that really, if the rain fell in the forest and there was no one around to see it, did it flood?]
Has this to do with the closing of the river estuaries and the massive construction and urbanisation in the city and the surrounding suburbs?
Until we arrive at a more multi-dimensional root cause for the problem, we will, at best, get only a piecemeal solution.
[Or maybe it's the fact that 100 mm of rain fell within 2 hours which is 60% of the entire month's average rainfall (June), and 180 mm of rain fell in 2 hours which was MORE than the ENTIRE month's average rainfall (July). The wettest month in Singapore is Dec with an average of 300 mm in total for the whole month. So 180mm in 2 hours is FREAKING unusual for ANY month. This is a "convenient" excuse? As a comparison, Typhoon Ketsana in 2009 dumped over 400 mm of rain on the worst hit region of the Philippines over 6 t0 12 hours. In other regions, the same amount of rain, 180 mm, fell over 6 to 12 hours.
But yes, there is more to it than, "it rained a lot" or "it was as wet as a typhoon". The question we should be asking is, whether the past can be used to predict the future. Whether past averages are a valid baseline for measurement. Or whether the 3 floods within the period of 1 month is going to be a freak occurrence. It is not impossible that 2 freak incidents (Sumatran squall and typhoons) occurs one after another. Just as it is not impossible to roll 6 on a dice 3, 4, 5, or even 6 times in a row. The point is, it could well be coincidence, aided by a confluence of factors. La Nina could be a cause, and if it is, then we might expect this to repeat every three years. Or if this is due to a long term or permanent trend in Singapore weather, then definitely we should upgrade our drainage to meet the new storm patterns. But, if this is only a freak confluence of "the perfect storm" conditions, then upgrading the drainage would be unnecessary.]
As a world-class city, we cannot afford to sink like Venice or swim like New Orleans.
Patrick Low
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Add more carriages to trains
Jul 11, 2010
I refer to last Sunday's article, 'Peak-hour crush'.
While it is true that the current infrastructure limits train capacity, as SMRT has pointed out, the issue has to be resolved because Singapore's population will continue to grow, and trains still have to carry more passengers.
Hence, it is myopic to maintain the status quo in our transport situation.
Here is a suggestion on how to improve the situation: Extend our six-carriage trains by adding two more carriages each - that is, one extra carriage at each end.
The load capacity of each train would effectively be increased by a third.
But how would these eight-carriage trains fit into current station platforms, which are only six carriages long?
To put it simply, they do not have to. The first and second carriages could share a common carriage door, while the seventh and eighth carriages could share another.
Though passengers get onto the trains at every station, most get off only at stations within the Central Business District (CBD).
The additional carriages would cater for passengers who are expected to alight at these stations, where the trains pretty much 'empty out'.
Yin Shanyang
[I should be more optimistic and supportive of good ideas. And this theoretically is a good idea. However in practice... I'm not optimistic. At least with buses, the drivers can try to cajole passengers to move to the rear to make room for incoming passengers, and practice a tacit blackmail by not moving the bus until passengers heed his pleas. On a train, during rush hour, with 2 or 3 minutes intervals between trains, drivers do not have the luxury... for trains with drivers. No one to shout, "Ao buay bo quee!" ("There're no ghosts at the back of the bus!") to use humour to try to get passengers to comply.
With the extra carriages which are rather long, and with only one exit now, only a few rational and non-kiasu Singaporeans will move to these carriages and most passengers will crowd at the doors. As it is, the carriages at the extreme ends are usually less crowded because most people find the cars at the extreme ends rather inconvenient (too far), let alone carriages beyond the platforms.
Better to just run more trains on a tighter schedule - like every 90 seconds during peak hours.]
I refer to last Sunday's article, 'Peak-hour crush'.
While it is true that the current infrastructure limits train capacity, as SMRT has pointed out, the issue has to be resolved because Singapore's population will continue to grow, and trains still have to carry more passengers.
Hence, it is myopic to maintain the status quo in our transport situation.
Here is a suggestion on how to improve the situation: Extend our six-carriage trains by adding two more carriages each - that is, one extra carriage at each end.
The load capacity of each train would effectively be increased by a third.
But how would these eight-carriage trains fit into current station platforms, which are only six carriages long?
To put it simply, they do not have to. The first and second carriages could share a common carriage door, while the seventh and eighth carriages could share another.
Though passengers get onto the trains at every station, most get off only at stations within the Central Business District (CBD).
The additional carriages would cater for passengers who are expected to alight at these stations, where the trains pretty much 'empty out'.
Yin Shanyang
[I should be more optimistic and supportive of good ideas. And this theoretically is a good idea. However in practice... I'm not optimistic. At least with buses, the drivers can try to cajole passengers to move to the rear to make room for incoming passengers, and practice a tacit blackmail by not moving the bus until passengers heed his pleas. On a train, during rush hour, with 2 or 3 minutes intervals between trains, drivers do not have the luxury... for trains with drivers. No one to shout, "Ao buay bo quee!" ("There're no ghosts at the back of the bus!") to use humour to try to get passengers to comply.
With the extra carriages which are rather long, and with only one exit now, only a few rational and non-kiasu Singaporeans will move to these carriages and most passengers will crowd at the doors. As it is, the carriages at the extreme ends are usually less crowded because most people find the cars at the extreme ends rather inconvenient (too far), let alone carriages beyond the platforms.
Better to just run more trains on a tighter schedule - like every 90 seconds during peak hours.]
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Who'll stop littering by the river?
[Here is a sad example of exploiting the headlines for a less serious issue.]
Jun 30, 2010
THE tragic death of the young man who fell into the Singapore River after a drinking binge, as well as the recent floods, highlights the problem of littering along our waterways.
[You would be led to think that the young man who drowned must have slipped on litter and fell into the river. An image in my mind of the drunken youth slipping on a carelessly tossed beer bottle, and fallling into the river is created.]
Far too many groups of people gather along the banks of the Singapore River, especially on Friday and Saturday nights, and consume vast quantities of alcohol and food.
[So not only are they drunk, but they are gluttonous, as well. Revise image in mind. Replace youth with drunken FAT youth.]
Even comparatively quieter areas of the riverside, such as the stretch between Saiboo Street and Kim Seng Road, resemble 'war zones' on Saturday and Sunday mornings with drink bottles, cans, food scraps and plastic bags fouling the banks, bridges and river.
[Revise image in mind. Now drunken FAT youth is picking his way amidst the "war zone" of litter, BUT steps on a "land mine" of a beer bottle anyway!]
Obviously, the security staff of the condominiums and hotels that line the river do not have the authority to ask these revellers to move on or clean up after themselves.
[Okay. Not sure what this point is. Was the falling in the river witnessed by a hapless condo security guard?]
Rampant littering will undoubtedly cause drainage problems, especially when heavy rain coincides with high tide.
[Wait a minute! So was the FAT youth's body found trapped in some culvert thus causing flooding in Orchard Road?]
If vandalism attracts an automatic punishment of caning, surely littering calls for severe penalties.
Not only are we rapidly losing the distinction of being among the cleanest cities in the world, but we are also exposing ourselves to flood risks which severely impact the economy.
[Right. So we want to hang onto our reputation as having one of the harshest laws in a democratic country, as well as being the cleanest city, and also one of the most economically vibrant. Now if the writer can somehow tie in our Housing shortage, COE prices, Immigration policies, and CPF for retirement to this drowning, we would have the unified theory of what makes Singapore work.]
Jairam Amrith
[I am amazed at the logic that can flow from one man's drowning to litter. Actually the poor guy's death has nothing to do with litter, other than the fact that he might have contributed to the litter before he died. But he would be consoled that he did not die in vain. At least in his death, he offered Mr Amrith a chance for irrelevant hyperbole.]
.
Jun 30, 2010
THE tragic death of the young man who fell into the Singapore River after a drinking binge, as well as the recent floods, highlights the problem of littering along our waterways.
[You would be led to think that the young man who drowned must have slipped on litter and fell into the river. An image in my mind of the drunken youth slipping on a carelessly tossed beer bottle, and fallling into the river is created.]
Far too many groups of people gather along the banks of the Singapore River, especially on Friday and Saturday nights, and consume vast quantities of alcohol and food.
[So not only are they drunk, but they are gluttonous, as well. Revise image in mind. Replace youth with drunken FAT youth.]
Even comparatively quieter areas of the riverside, such as the stretch between Saiboo Street and Kim Seng Road, resemble 'war zones' on Saturday and Sunday mornings with drink bottles, cans, food scraps and plastic bags fouling the banks, bridges and river.
[Revise image in mind. Now drunken FAT youth is picking his way amidst the "war zone" of litter, BUT steps on a "land mine" of a beer bottle anyway!]
Obviously, the security staff of the condominiums and hotels that line the river do not have the authority to ask these revellers to move on or clean up after themselves.
[Okay. Not sure what this point is. Was the falling in the river witnessed by a hapless condo security guard?]
Rampant littering will undoubtedly cause drainage problems, especially when heavy rain coincides with high tide.
[Wait a minute! So was the FAT youth's body found trapped in some culvert thus causing flooding in Orchard Road?]
If vandalism attracts an automatic punishment of caning, surely littering calls for severe penalties.
Not only are we rapidly losing the distinction of being among the cleanest cities in the world, but we are also exposing ourselves to flood risks which severely impact the economy.
[Right. So we want to hang onto our reputation as having one of the harshest laws in a democratic country, as well as being the cleanest city, and also one of the most economically vibrant. Now if the writer can somehow tie in our Housing shortage, COE prices, Immigration policies, and CPF for retirement to this drowning, we would have the unified theory of what makes Singapore work.]
Jairam Amrith
[I am amazed at the logic that can flow from one man's drowning to litter. Actually the poor guy's death has nothing to do with litter, other than the fact that he might have contributed to the litter before he died. But he would be consoled that he did not die in vain. At least in his death, he offered Mr Amrith a chance for irrelevant hyperbole.]
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)