Not sure whether 'bravery' is the right term to describe them.

People who are genuinely interested in making a difference would try and join an alternative group and get themselves into parliament. It's parliament where we need more alternative voices to air bread & butter concerns, instead of the ruling party proclaiming that they can raise relevant criticisms of their own policies (kinda like slapping their own face).

Unfortunately, Chee has already declared that he will seek reforms through 'civil disobedience'. In an educated society, bravery or not, this sort of approach isn't going to appeal to voters.

Originally posted by Xcert:

Basically this person just wants a parking lot reserved in the lower decks just for him to park when he comes back late.

Lazy for waking up earlier in the morning to reposition the car?Then he should not borrow the car or should willingly fork out money for landed property.

What makes him think that he deserves a lower deck parking lot more then the neighbour next door?

Lifts at every MSC?His SGD 90 is covering the cost of installing the lift or the cost of maintaining it,including electricity cost?

He can afford the increase in season parking charge doesnt mean the rest of Singapore is with him.

Personally i couldn't care less about some reporter's attempt to get a story into the papers...

On the other hand, i am concerned about the lack of interest in resolving parking priorities for residents, as highlighted in the 2nd post.

In relation to this, there was an observation on a previous case about the supposed 'free parking' at IMM building in jurong east. Apparenly, IMM realised that the reason their shoppers always complained of a lack of parking was not down to flat fees for parking, but rather a large number of residents from the nearby housing estates were taking advantage of the fact that IMM did not lower their shutters overnight, hence residents actually left their cars at the IMM building to avoid paying the usual carpark charges from their own HDB carparks.

Law of nature - people will flock to freebies...

Even if SMRT pays the fine, it seems like a 'left pocket into right' case.

Why not have SMRT pay a 'subsidised' penalty by forcefully lowering their ticket prices across the board for half a year or so? Or give further rebates to all commuters of all age groups?

A lump sum fine seems to hurt them less than a sustained profit loss factor. They just don't feel the pinch....

I REFER to last Friday's report, 'SMRT appeals against $387k penalty' (March 21), in which the transport operator appealed to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to reduce its fine for an accident which caused delays in its service on Jan 21 this year.

I read with dismay at how the SMRT tried to appeal against the fine by stating what had been done to mitigate the damage caused by the seven-hour delay it had caused earlier this year.

This accident is clearly due to SMRT's negligence as its workers had failed to engage the proper brakes on the repair train which led to an accident that caused thousands to be late for school and work.

Instead of being forthcoming and paying the penalty, I am disappointed that the SMRT should ask for the fine to be reduced. Being a daily commuter, I fully understand the anguish and frustration when one is late for school or work because of a train disruption.

The agony of watching the clock tick on while waiting for the train to move; or looking at busloads full of people and being unable to board, can be extremely distressing.

I urge the relevant authorities not to consider SMRT's appeal as such negligence cannot be excused, especially from one of the providers of our 'world-class transport system'.

<!-- show media links starting at 7th para -->

Shen Shifa

After all the issues with rising costs of flats and their lack of availability plaguing the system, Ms Maya Lim is correct to believe that nothing will come from her email request.

We are talking about a government agency which to this day has not yet given a response to the previous open question of discounted flats as opposed to HDB's claim that flats sold are at a subsidy to the people.

This was the comments from one HDB resident:

I read with interest recent complaints about HDB carparks. Let me narrate an encounter with an officer from HDB regarding a request to reserve car parks for residents. I stay at Serangoon North Ave 1 and I almost always have problem finding a parking lot near my block during 'peak' hours of after work. I usually end up having to park a distance away from my block. I have requested my HDB area office officer-in-charge to consider converting half of the parking lots at my block for residents' use only, if not for the whole day then at least from 6 pm. However his response was that the general public is entitled to use the car park.

I agree with his view, however I requested him to consider the needs of residents who use the parking lots on a daily basis and the proximity of parking their cars nearer to their block is extremely useful during bad weather or when they have bags of groceries etc. He responded with a 'hmmm", followed a "No" and then he hung up. My email request for an appeal by his supervisor was met with silence as I have not received any response from HDB. I surmise from the above encounter, the officer is just there to do his job, which is to look after HDB's affairs. I do not fault the officer for not being helpful.

It is clear to me that my problem is not his problem as his key performance indicator appears to be to take care of HDB's property and not to serve and satisfy the residents' requests. After all that, I come to realise I should not expect much from HDB.

I am but one of the masses and unless I am exceptional (in which I probably will not be residing in a HDB flat) I should not be expecting anyone to pay attention to my needs.

Maya Lim

HDB carparks need a makeover

EVERY time I borrow my fiancee's mother's car for the weekend, I go back to find the nearby multi-storey carpark almost full.

The only available spaces will invariably be on the top deck.

My future mother-in-law is not going to climb five storeys to her car the next day. So, in return for using it, I'm supposed to drive it down to a lower deck in the morning - something I don't look forward to.

As a soon-to-be car owner myself, I will join the ranks of drivers who feel their estate's carparks are inadequate and in need of some design upgrades.

Going by readers' complaints others, too, have faced similar problems when they go home to find parking spaces only on the least-desirable, unsheltered deck of some multi-storey carparks.

It costs $90 a month for season parking there - that's what the Housing Board (HDB) charges for covered lots.

The fee is much higher than the $65 a month for unsheltered surface carparks.

Unfortunately, the number of cars at my Pasir Ris carpark seems to have grown each time I use it.

Unless I return at the unlikely time of 6pm on a weekend, there's no chance of getting a sheltered parking space.

This, I feel, defeats the purpose of paying the extra $25.

Besides, there are also no surface carparks nearby.

Recently, a reader even suggested charging lower parking rates for the unsheltered top levels of multi-storey carparks, an indication of how residents must feel when they don't get their money's worth.

Holding a season parking label does not guarantee a choice space, however.

I was surprised to find out from the HDB that non-residents can pay for season parking there, too.

However, the HDB says priority will be given to residents of the estate served by the carpark.

There is no difference in the monthly season parking fee for non-residents.

With season parking available to so many, it is no wonder the red-painted lots are always taken up by the time I get back late at night.

Currently, most of the lower decks at my carpark are reserved for season parking, and the higher floors for visitors.

While it may serve season parking holders well to have more parking spaces set aside, as car ownership goes up, it is unlikely to solve the problem.

To be fair, however, there are limits to how many labels a household can get, depending on supply.

Priority will be accorded to the first vehicle of the household. Remaining parking spaces will be allocated to subsequent vehicles belonging to the same household as well as non-residents on a first-come, first-served basis.

However, improving the design of multi-storey carparks could go a long way in making life better for HDB residents.

For a start, adding shelters to the rooftop decks of these carparks will make it less inconvenient for users, especially when it rains.

Since 2005, the HDB has been building shelters on the uncovered roof decks of carparks where demand has, well, hit the roof.

It will extend this to other multi-storey carparks where suitable.

But, more importantly, lifts should be installed at all multi-storey carparks, and not just the taller ones.

This would not only encourage parking at all levels but also make it easier for older drivers, who will then be spared climbing several flights of stairs. It will even allow the disabled to use regular lots.

These features might eventually raise parking charges, but it is something I would willingly fork out money for - just for the sake of convenience.

That is why I am buying a car in the first place.

Marcel Lee Pereira

The logic behind MM Lee's comments is flawed. By bringing in foreign talent to replace our 'brain drain', he says there will be a net gain, because many Indian and Chinese use SG as a stepping stone to other places. But this number is less than those who will stay.

Why isn't he (and the govt) addressing the root cause of the brain drain? Why are locals prefering to stay abroad? It seems exhorbitant pay for high office isn't enough to retain local talent in public service.

In any case, the smarter ones will get the big picture once they're exposed to globalisation; it's surely better to work overseas than in the local scene if the opportunity arises. There aren't many incentives to stay, especially if one's family is mobile.

Originally posted by googoomuck:

Anyone in Singapore who feels that he's underpaid is justified to take bribes.

That's the govt's message to the people. The salary benchmark to discourage corruption at present stands at about SGD2m.

Don't talk about integrity, OK?

This has been discussed at length.

That's where the term legatimized corruption came from.

Our ministers justify their exhorbitant salaries to starve off corruption and deny potential 'suitors' from headhunting them to lead prominent MNCs.

To date, not a SINGLE ex-minister is listed as a board member or CFO-equivalent in any 'leading MNC', not even the likes of Tony Tan, Seet Ai Mee or Yeo Cheow Tong.

Can someone enlighten me on this generous red packet? Why are taxpayers' monies being given away to a country whose emerging economy shows no sign of being abated? Why is this money not being spent on endowment funds for our own needy and to help offset rapid inflation?

Why does kuching kurak Singapore need to contribute to the already rich Dragon's nest?

Has our govt gone MAD?

~Redirected into relevant thread~

This topic wasn't exactly discussed at length in the previous thread, which was incorrectly labelled as 'PRC talent, bane or...' or something along that line.

I think the whole issue should be centered around our NSA's moneycentric approach to the matter - bottomline talks. In the end, money is what makes our singaporean mares (NSA chiefs) in their comfort seats go.

Dudley Au raised a very significant point - one of contract and legal binding. Ronald Lee raised the other, which begs the issue of graciousness and nobility - it cannot be forced upon, but given voluntarily. Browbeating a young talent and attempting to use the state media to embarrass and humiliate is bullying tactics of the guttter.

If the SSA did not include such a 'taxation' clause in Tao Li's initial contract, then they have no case and Tao Li can reject the notion of 'taxation' altogether. In fact, should the SSA insist and introduce abitrary clauses to permit them to 'tax' a sporting talent, Tao Li can tear up the existing contract and declare it null and void, because such an amendment was done without her approval.

I'd recommend to her to give up singapore citizenship and go home to china. Our unethical govt and sporting bodies does not deserve talents like her. After all, the altrusic reason for raising our sporting achievements is simply to improve our international standing as a first world nation. If altrusism is the real reason behind this 'taxation', then our ministers should get off their high horse and reduce their mega-salaries before demanding peasants to accept outrageous 'taxations'.

Teo Chee Hean should lead the charge, seeing as how he has 'gallantly' backed the NSAs and the SSA on their 'taxation' stand.

Tao Li saga: Is there any legal basis for the SSA to ask for 15 per cent cut?

MAY I ask the Singapore Swimming Association (SSA) and leaders of the local sporting fraternity who censored Tao Li what their anger is predicated on relative to her displeasure about the 15 per cent cut from her cash awards.

I understand the swimmer won four golds in last month's South-East Asian Games. Some officials of the SSA and the local sporting fraternity argue that Tao Li is ungrateful because she resents the 15 per cent deduction, which is said to be for the development of youth - I presume the nurturing of young sportspeople.

I believe altruism was one of the mainstays of the rebuttals. Let us look at it from this perspective.

When Tao Li was brought here, as foreign talent, to assist Singapore in accruing golds in swimmimg, what was in her contract?

Was there a condition, explicitly mentioned, that she had to give up 15 per cent of what she won, to a named sporting fraternity, to redistribute for youth development or some other cause?

Was there a clause which stated that her coach, or coaches, were entitled to a certain percentage of what was won? Was there a clause stating that she had to pay back a certain percentage, for food, housing, training, etc, to the SSA, or any other relevant body, in the event she accrued golds and was eligible for cash from the Multi-Million Dollar Award Programme?

<!-- show media links starting at 7th para -->If there was, there is no argument involved. If there was no agreement (contract), then let's be forthright and go by the law. Let's not introduce arbitrary conditions, after the event, when the golds have come in and Tao Li is being paid cash. No court in the land will uphold a condition initiated after the contract is signed and without the knowledge of one signatory.

If, on the other hand, Tao Li is asked to donate, of her own free will, 15 per cent then there is still this problem. Donation must come without duress. There must be no pressure exerted to give, otherwise it becomes extortion. There can be no angry rebuttals or an arbitrary amount stated (15 per cent).

Tao Li has the option to accept or reject the plea, if plea it is, for a donation. It appears, however, that the SSA and some others see it as a command.

If it is a command, from where does the command draw its legal authority? And, in continuity, on what legal basis does the name-calling 'greedy' and 'insincere' draw its strength? The sine qua non in such instances is the legal principle on what was agreed and only on this must we decide equity and its justification.

Dudley Au

~ST Forum, 01 Feb 08<!-- headline one : end -->

A gracious society would not take back what has been given, whether in cash or in kind

I STAND on the side of swimmer Tao Li, 'Tao Li taken to task over comments' (ST, Jan 29).

I do not think it is the duty of participants to worry or be involved in the funding or contribution of their own sports fraternity.

Conversely, participants' only duty is to train hard and win a 'gold' when they participate in any game. This will do the country proud and bring honour to Singapore.

It has been argued that a percentage of their winnings should be given back for the 'development of their academy players' or for grooming athletes.

There is also the argument that the Singapore Swimming Association (SSA) 'has supported Tao Li, sent her for overseas competition and these things cost money'. But surely if we do not expose her to overseas competition, she can only be as good in our own country. If our participants, after exposure, win a gold medal, our pride is that she wins by beating the best participants who are good enough to represent their own countries.

As I understand it, the SSA gives out monetary rewards to gold medallists via the Multi-Million-Dollar Award Programme. However, there is a cap on how much the gold medallist can receive, irrespective of how many gold medals he or she wins.

Surely, the SSA can motivate our participants by (a) removing this maximum monetary reward, (b) giving out another reward, not only for winning a gold, but also for breaking the games record and (c) giving out a yet higher reward if the world record is broken. This indeed would be a motivating factor for all participants.

How, then, can sports fraternities be funded? It is for them to convince and get more funding from the Singapore National Olympic Council by showing it the exemplary and superb results of their participants.

It is also a gracious society that does not take back what it has given, whether in cash or kind.

Ronald Lee Yew Kee

~ST Forum, 01 Feb 08

All i'll say is this: a competent and capable leader will know when to give up power.

A gracious and successful leader who has earned the respect and kudos of the people will not need an army of bodyguards when walking down any street in the country.

An ethical and noble leader will not lash out at his people when they gribe over exhorbitant ministerial salary.

It's a pity that while some among our leaders dream of an 'Austrian utopia' or a Swiss standard of living, it will remain that - a pipe dream, because they have not incalculated our knowledge-based economy with the right grace.

<--- from ST Forum:

Don't begrudge our sportsmen their monetary awards

I AM shocked that Singapore Sailing president Low Teo Ping saw it fit to call Tao Li a greedy grabbing athlete, 'Tao Li taken to task over comments' (ST, Jan 29).

Greedy? For wanting to keep $1,425 of her earnings?

Instead of explaining his disagreement with Tao Li's comments and stand, Mr Low resorted to a mean personal attack that is ungentlemanly. His words to Tao Li reflect a lack of grace towards a 17-year-old who has done Singapore proud.

Athletes in Singapore make immense sacrifices and, apart from the occasional rewards for winning medals, most will retire from sports with little financial security for their time, effort and sacrifices. Yes, the Government sponsors and volunteers (such as Mr Low) contribute to the development of these athletes but these are not purely altruistic acts. Success of Singapore athletes at international competitions brings prestige to the country and recognition to paid sports officers (higher bonuses, perhaps?) as well as volunteers (like Mr Low).

It is ironic that we live in a society which rightly accepts high salaries for civil servants and ministers but which would begrudge our sporting heroes a few thousand dollars.

Mr Low owes Ms Tao Li an apology.

Ho Jia Ying (Ms)

--->

I wasn't aware that some sports president had resorted to name-calling....comments of the gutter. Now let's see if there some real graciousness among our so-called sports leaders.

Originally posted by New Creation:

Hmm, the issue of taxing and whether it is ethical is indeed a whole different dimension to consider. Some athletics feel that it is ok that part of their winnings go towards rewarding their coaches. Afterall, this creates a winning partnership, where the coach knows training an atheltic well infers he/she will also be rewarded financially.

 

This thread seeks to focus on Tao Li's allegience to Singapore. I mean, perhaps her heartache stem from the fact that the $ to be given for youth development will only benefit the Singapore born talents. I mean if Tao Li were to be in CHINA, i am sure she will without hesistation agree to the taxing of her winnings to benefit her own PRC species.

 

This Beholds a fundamental dilemma. Why the hell did we give her citizenship for? And all that perks and training opportunites at the sports school, her super expensive Aussie Coach. Making her a freaking PR would do. 

 

If she is so god damn good at swimming, why the hell is she developing here in SG?

 

I disagree.

 

Instead of focusing on the issue of taxation of winining athletes, the editor chose to zoom in on a single athlete's gribe over the need to give up her winnings based on her personal hard work and achievements. This distraction, wayang kulit from addressing the real issue and blowing a molehill into a mountain.

 

So the talk of the town is now aimed at questioning Tao Li's personal integrity and 'loyalty' to Singapore, when the real question really should be why the SSA only recently decided to add themselves to this taxation club. The SBA isn't imposing such a requirement on their players, which can only imply that there are certainly other avenues to explore to get funding.

 

In addition, Swimming is considered a class A sport; if badminton can go about their business without the need to strongarm their talents, why does the SSA feel this need?

 

Is there some insecurity within the SSA or some backroom politics at play here? Perhaps the SSC should step in to review the reasons behind such an act.

 

Personally, if the various sports bodies wanted to incalculate a sense of nobility among their athletes, they should also be aware that nobility cannot be forced. It has to be given.

 

Did Khaw really commit when he 'promised' this to be the last tweak?

I'm adopting a wait and see policy

Many people think our sports talents owe the country a favour. What most people forget is the short lifespan our athletes have and the pittance they earn on an annual scale in the long run, as compared to our average CBD executive.

Winnings are a form of incentive to excel. If the carrot on offer is reward for winning, then it should be given with no strings attached.

'Taxing' is becoming the norm and i'm shocked that people accept this notion. It's like someone who worked hard, achieved his year end target, received the company bonus, then suddenly he's asked to fork out a portion of it to the company for next year's budget....how would you feel?

Surely there are other avenues to reward the coaches? Surely our super-rich govt and the SSA can obtain funding for youth development? If not how was it done initially?

We seem to forget that athletes get a pitiful allowance for training and other needs. If compared to other asian countries like Korea for example, an olympic gold is worth one million USD, a house, a car and other allowances. Is our govt prepared to consider such incentives in our pursuit for sporting success? if not, why give the excuse that a portion of our youth's development costs have to be 'taxed' from the winnings promised to our athletes? Don't they have sufficient avenues to explore for their budget?

If our govt expects such ridiculous requirements, perhaps our athletes should reconsider whether they want to represent our money-faced nation.

script is too slow...i type faster than the cursor can keep up....is that a bug? Some threads have this problem and some don't.

tks

Originally posted by sbst275:

Can can can

We go dig 6 underground tunnel for Raffles Place there

Since you said of 3 tracks (3 each for NSL and EWL)

In response to your cynical post, i would say: why not?

Why is it so un-feasible to conceive of additional tracks linking each of the existing stations?

We worry about the polar ice caps melting and SG being submerged. LKY claims that building dykes to keep the flood waters out is a solution, why not go one step further and consider underwater cities?

We talk so much about underground shopping malls, and in fact Paris already has one, so why should living underwater be so unfathomable?

Similarly, why should we shun the idea of additional underground tracks and alternatives as fiction?

Originally posted by sbst275:

Ok

No one would go and design mulit tracks for a metro system simply because only 1 route would use it at 1 time

Unlike those intercity, at 1 time there can be 4 or 5 trains travelling to different end destinations but right here, Tampines side only EWL is using at one time and it'll always be only ONE...

No engineer in their clear mind would go and build an unecessary complicated system for nothing which would end up costly to maintain

Since you have a knack for complicating situations which demand simplicity, let me say again:

It is close to improbable that SMRT will conceive a supplementary line now. Had they done so at the inital inception of such a train line, it would have provided them options now.

Having said that, for the overland tracks heading towards the city, it is still possible to expand the system to factor in additonal tracks and carriages to offset the high commuter traffic. It is however, nigh impossible to extend that into the underground system now, because of the on-going construction of the circle line, and high capital outlay to finance such a venture at this stage.

The only option left is to increase the number of trains to service peak hours, increase the frequency between trains and practice 'station-hopping' to ensure alternate trains have sufficient vacancy for commuters.

These methods, will eventually max out because of the sheer numbers and the physical limitations of the existing line. The only other option left to SMRT, will be to provide parallel lines leading into the station. Such a plan will effectively split the commuting traffic between the two lines, possibly reducing jam-packed trains and solving the issue in the long run. But at considerable costs, and possibly more price hikes to the public.

Another issue is signal, do you how complicating would it go to?

Should our people be constrained by complex algorithms? We want to be #1, yet when push comes to shove, we shrink back when faced with these challenges.

We have managed to introduce pilotless trains into service; can complex signal change be any more complicated?

Originally posted by sbst275:

Why are you saying the 3rd line is for maintenance? Even w/ the 3rd track, more work is needed to maintain this 3rd track! Alrdy it's not possible for the night trucks to grind or repair every stretch of the track daily, you wanna add the workload w/o looking at adding night trucks

Or you wanna tell me since our minister are paid world class wages, they sholud be different, build a 3rd track and leave it w/o maintenance... to be used only when in incident...

Later on you realise tracks lack of maintenance and end up rust or watever, the track end up useless...

So later ppl will say how come cannot use... By then dun blame the PAP, it's your idea

You alrdy said it's intercity... You know how big and how many intercity services are there from the main train station?

The metro are still 2 tracks per route. Maintenance issues has to be looked at

Obviously a 3rd track requires maintenance. Stating the obvious does not add substance....duh

And no, the 3rd track was a suggestion, not a godsend. Ministers are free to decide upon their final course of action. There are probably other solutions that don't require such a high capital investment. The real question is whether Raymond lim has an inking about how to solve this very REAL problem.

Yes, i did mention intercity, but how does that constrict our minds from expanding on possibilities? Must it be a strictly one to one comparison? So what if intercity trains run on larger axels, require wider tracks etc etc, The gist lies in the concept - with a 3rd track, there are more options. Servicing this supplementary track should fall back on similar applications already in practice.

Building 3rd track is therefore NOT insurance; it's process improvement. A privatised company would definitely find creative ways to keep their customers happy, rather than sit in board rooms and collect fat pay checks, even if it didn't include building a 3rd track. Not to mention the VERY HEALTHY profits (not sales but operating profits) SMRT has been raking in year in and year out.

What has SMRT done? Their last significant improvement was to upgrade the existing trains to the new Jap imports, offering more spacious standing space. Since then, the only noteworthy addition is more CCTVs since people started committing suicide on their tracks, and then only for their own benefit. And this only came because an internal inquiry determined that their existing CCTVs did not record but merely displayed real time footage for observation.

Cheaper, better, faster is definitely not one of their hallmarks.

"History is always written by the victor, and the histories of the losing parties belong to the shrinking circle of those who were there."

~ Joachim Peiper, SS-Standartenführer, youngest regimental colonel in the Waffen-SS during WWII

The above quote was taken from one of the more interesting comdrs from WWII and bears relevance today.

The 6-day war has been written in two versions: one for the world, and one for arabs.

What is easily available to us is the version which indicates that Israel was a beleagued nation being squeezed economically and militarily by a gang iof arab bullies intent on 'wiping Israel off the map' (to quote ahmadinejad's infamous outburst).

That Israel launched a pre-emptive strike was a measure of self defence and so on.

Analysts have stressed in the aftermath that an Anwar Sadat-led Egypt was unlikely to have moved against Israel without provocation; that single act was required to get international backing. Morever, their only real ally, Syria, was less committed into an all out assault, their main interest only lying with the Golan Heights. The 3rd major player - Jordan was in an even less threatening position, with hesitant committment from their leaders regarding any attempt at war.

As for the arab version, i haven't managed to get a reliable copy, but i'm sure it will be a complete reverse of the above version - labelling Israel's strike a blatant act of war.

Originally posted by sbst275:

again, who is going to pay for and the long term maintenance the 3rd track?

Another thing, those Euro line can you specify are they inter state (Like KTM) or are they Metro lines (MRT or MTR)

You seem to visualize the 3rd rail as a mere 'maintenance' support line rather than a necessary supplement.

Let me re-emphasize: this rail could solve a potential train drain issue that is plaguing SMRT; track maintenance is now of secondary interest. So what is the purpose of your question? Surely the 'maintenance' costs of this line should lie with SMRT if they decide to build it? With the millions they're earning being the sole proprietor of a train network, along with the added buffer of price hikes, surely your question becomes moot?

The eurail is obviously an intercity line. That does not take away the advantages it offers in track organization in relation to an intracity metro line.