When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Thursday 13 March 2008
CBD Taxi Rule
This is typical government way of doing things - they think they know all/best and acted without consultation with the people (real people and not elitists or balls carrier).
Residents, business owners in CBD fume over cab rule
They want rule eased for elderly, disabled passengers and tourists with heavy bags. -ST Yeo Ghim Lay
Thu, Mar 13, 2008 The Straits Times
THE recent rule that restricts where taxis can pick up and drop off passengers in the Central Business District (CBD) is frustrating not just cab drivers and passengers, but also residents and businesses in the area.
They want the rule eased, at least for elderly and disabled passengers, and tourists with heavy luggage in tow.
For real estate executive Nicholas Ng, 30, who lives in Smith Street in Chinatown, the nearest taxi stand is across an overhead bridge at the People’s Park Complex. His wife - who has just given birth - and his elderly grandmother both take taxis to the hospital for check-ups.
He said: ‘Working executives and fit citizens can be made to walk. But what about old folk, the handicapped, pregnant women and women carrying babies? What happens if it rains?’
In this case, calling for a cab will not help because passengers have to board from a taxi stand.
Besides residents, businesses in Chinatown are also up in arms.
Jalan Besar GRC MP Lily Neo, whose ward covers the Kreta Ayer-Kim Seng area, said at least two restaurant owners have brought up their concerns with her, saying that ‘their elderly customers find it difficult to walk to find a cab, so they don’t come back to eat at the restaurant’.
Businesses in areas away from main trunk roads, like Club Street and Ann Siang Hill, are also having a tough time. For them, the nearest taxi stands are at South Bridge Road or Cross Street - at least a five minutes’ walk away.
Mr Jack Sim, restaurant manager at The Screening Room in Ann Siang Road, said: ‘Some customers think we are being lazy when we tell them we can’t ask cabs to drive in here.’
Mr Peter Douglas, who runs financial research firm GFIA in Club Street, said the regulation has inconvenienced his staff and foreign guests.
‘It doesn’t kill anyone to walk a few hundred metres, but you pay extra for a taxi because you want the convenience.’
This problem is replicated at hotels in the CBD that do not have taxi stands or driveways. Patrons of Hotel 81 Chinatown, at the junction of New Bridge Road and Upper Cross Street, would have to cross the road to Chinatown Point to take a cab.
Hotel manager Peter Chua said the hotel has written to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to ask that the rule be re-evaluated.
However, hotel staff might have reason to cheer soon: the LTA said that, where possible, it will build taxi stands at the side lanes of hotels that do not have the stands.
At Bencoolen Street, American tourist Jermiah Golmen, who was trying to flag down a taxi, was incredulous when four cabs with no passengers in them whizzed by. He said: ‘I did not know about this (rule). There should be signs.’
Despite the rule, some taxi drivers continue taking the risk of stopping along the road. The Straits Times observed at least 10 taxis picking up and dropping off passengers at Club Street and Keong Saik Road over a period of about one hour.
Tampines GRC MP Ong Kian Min, deputy chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport, said a middle- ground approach should be taken in implementing the rule.
‘There should be some flexibility. Taxis probably should not stop along main trunk roads, but they should be allowed to at side roads like Club Street.’
WHEN cabby Wee Chew Khoon explained to his two passengers that they could not alight at Stanley Street, they were so incensed they abandoned his taxi at a traffic light junction near their destination - without paying the fare.
The 40-year-old taxi driver, who encountered the incident last week, said: ‘I told them that the nearest taxi stand was at Cecil Street but they got angry.’
Stanley Street, which is one street away from Cecil Street, is subjected to the new CBD taxi-stand rule.
Cabbies are increasingly finding themselves caught in the middle of what is turning out to be a hugely unpopular move.
Flout the rule and they risk being caught by the Land Transport Authority, like the 352 of their counterparts who have been warned as of March 10.
Many continue to ignore the rule and would still make kerbside stops, especially along smaller lanes like Keong Saik Road in Chinatown, which serves boutique hotels, restaurants and shophouse offices.
Those who comply with the rule sometimes get verbal abuse, or worse, from passengers who still believe they should get door-to-door service.
Last week, 46-year-old Daniel Lee had vulgarities hurled at him when he informed a pair of well-attired passengers that they could not alight at the MacDonald House on Orchard Road.
The nearest taxi stand was at The Atrium Orchard, less than 100m away.
Mr Lee recalled how another passenger had called him ‘a liar’ when he would not let the commuter get off at a specific spot on Purvis Street.
‘I tried to explain that it is a government ruling,’ he said with a sigh.
A check with cab companies found that complaints are rising.
ComfortDelGro spokesman Tammy Tan said it has received feedback from drivers who now face difficulties as a result of the rule.
Prime Taxis has received 15 complaints from its cabbies so far, said its general manager Tan Soon Chye.
General manager of Smart Taxis Niki Ong added: ‘We have had two or three complaints per day from cabbies since the rule started.’
Whooping $400,000 for disruption Singaporeans now wonder if they themselves will be doing the paying themselves.
By Seah Chiang Nee. Mar 11, 2008
It was a big financial punishment for SMRT, the operator of Singapore’s mass transit service.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) fined the company, 54.8 per cent of which is owned by Temasek Holding, for a seven-hour train disruption in January. It caused hardship to thousands to workers reporting for work.
That the government imposed such a heavy penalty on one of its own companies is a sign of transparency and fairness, but not many commuters are cheering.
The reason? The fine will burn a $400,000 hole in the company’s accounts that could necessitate it approaching the Public Transport Council (PTC) for a fare hike. This is usually granted, sometimes after a delay.
In other words, SMRT will recover the money from the travelling public. period.
This will be an ironic sort of punishment if it is allowed to happen and a fare hike results. That would SMRT makes a mistake, but the commuters pay.
This has raised several postings over the Internet, one of which said that SMRT is a publicly listed company that is providing public transport services,
"Fines are paid out of shareholders funds and recoverable from rail fees collected from the publicly," he said. None of which comes from the SMRT elites, he added.
‘TalkFact’ who agreed with it, said it would be fairer to impose the fine on the people in charge, like the management and staff responsible for the disruption.
“The $400k fine will be accounted under business cost by simple accounting,” said ‘undiscern’.
“The SMRT will submit an application to PTC for fare increment due to the business costs,” he said.
Is there another country where such a thing can happen?
4 comments:
Residents, business owners in CBD fume over cab rule
They want rule eased for elderly, disabled passengers and tourists with heavy bags. -ST
Yeo Ghim Lay
Thu, Mar 13, 2008
The Straits Times
THE recent rule that restricts where taxis can pick up and drop off passengers in the Central Business District (CBD) is frustrating not just cab drivers and passengers, but also residents and businesses in the area.
They want the rule eased, at least for elderly and disabled passengers, and tourists with heavy luggage in tow.
For real estate executive Nicholas Ng, 30, who lives in Smith Street in Chinatown, the nearest taxi stand is across an overhead bridge at the People’s Park Complex. His wife - who has just given birth - and his elderly grandmother both take taxis to the hospital for check-ups.
He said: ‘Working executives and fit citizens can be made to walk. But what about old folk, the handicapped, pregnant women and women carrying babies? What happens if it rains?’
In this case, calling for a cab will not help because passengers have to board from a taxi stand.
Besides residents, businesses in Chinatown are also up in arms.
Jalan Besar GRC MP Lily Neo, whose ward covers the Kreta Ayer-Kim Seng area, said at least two restaurant owners have brought up their concerns with her, saying that ‘their elderly customers find it difficult to walk to find a cab, so they don’t come back to eat at the restaurant’.
Businesses in areas away from main trunk roads, like Club Street and Ann Siang Hill, are also having a tough time. For them, the nearest taxi stands are at South Bridge Road or Cross Street - at least a five minutes’ walk away.
Mr Jack Sim, restaurant manager at The Screening Room in Ann Siang Road, said: ‘Some customers think we are being lazy when we tell them we can’t ask cabs to drive in here.’
Mr Peter Douglas, who runs financial research firm GFIA in Club Street, said the regulation has inconvenienced his staff and foreign guests.
‘It doesn’t kill anyone to walk a few hundred metres, but you pay extra for a taxi because you want the convenience.’
This problem is replicated at hotels in the CBD that do not have taxi stands or driveways. Patrons of Hotel 81 Chinatown, at the junction of New Bridge Road and Upper Cross Street, would have to cross the road to Chinatown Point to take a cab.
Hotel manager Peter Chua said the hotel has written to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to ask that the rule be re-evaluated.
However, hotel staff might have reason to cheer soon: the LTA said that, where possible, it will build taxi stands at the side lanes of hotels that do not have the stands.
At Bencoolen Street, American tourist Jermiah Golmen, who was trying to flag down a taxi, was incredulous when four cabs with no passengers in them whizzed by. He said: ‘I did not know about this (rule). There should be signs.’
Despite the rule, some taxi drivers continue taking the risk of stopping along the road. The Straits Times observed at least 10 taxis picking up and dropping off passengers at Club Street and Keong Saik Road over a period of about one hour.
Tampines GRC MP Ong Kian Min, deputy chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport, said a middle- ground approach should be taken in implementing the rule.
‘There should be some flexibility. Taxis probably should not stop along main trunk roads, but they should be allowed to at side roads like Club Street.’
Cabbies caught in the middle
13 March 2008
WHEN cabby Wee Chew Khoon explained to his two passengers that they could not alight at Stanley Street, they were so incensed they abandoned his taxi at a traffic light junction near their destination - without paying the fare.
The 40-year-old taxi driver, who encountered the incident last week, said: ‘I told them that the nearest taxi stand was at Cecil Street but they got angry.’
Stanley Street, which is one street away from Cecil Street, is subjected to the new CBD taxi-stand rule.
Cabbies are increasingly finding themselves caught in the middle of what is turning out to be a hugely unpopular move.
Flout the rule and they risk being caught by the Land Transport Authority, like the 352 of their counterparts who have been warned as of March 10.
Many continue to ignore the rule and would still make kerbside stops, especially along smaller lanes like Keong Saik Road in Chinatown, which serves boutique hotels, restaurants and shophouse offices.
Those who comply with the rule sometimes get verbal abuse, or worse, from passengers who still believe they should get door-to-door service.
Last week, 46-year-old Daniel Lee had vulgarities hurled at him when he informed a pair of well-attired passengers that they could not alight at the MacDonald House on Orchard Road.
The nearest taxi stand was at The Atrium Orchard, less than 100m away.
Mr Lee recalled how another passenger had called him ‘a liar’ when he would not let the commuter get off at a specific spot on Purvis Street.
‘I tried to explain that it is a government ruling,’ he said with a sigh.
A check with cab companies found that complaints are rising.
ComfortDelGro spokesman Tammy Tan said it has received feedback from drivers who now face difficulties as a result of the rule.
Prime Taxis has received 15 complaints from its cabbies so far, said its general manager Tan Soon Chye.
General manager of Smart Taxis Niki Ong added: ‘We have had two or three complaints per day from cabbies since the rule started.’
如果一切事情都能挽回、都能来得及，那么思念也就不会是一种病。。。
思念是一种病- 张震岳
当你在穿山越岭的另一边
我在孤独的路上没有尽头
一辈子有多少的来不及
发现已经失去
最重要的东西
恍然大悟早已远去
为何总是在犯错之后
才肯相信错的是自己
他们说这就是人生
试著体会试著忍住眼泪
还是躲不开应该有的情绪
我不会奢求世界停止转动
我知道逃避一点都没有用
只是这段时间里尤其在夜里
还是会想起难忘的事情
我想我的思念是一种病
久久不能痊愈
当你在穿山越岭的另一边
我在孤独的路上没有尽头
时常感觉你在耳后的呼吸
却未曾感觉你在心口的鼻息
汲汲营营
忘记身边的人需要爱和关心
藉口总是拉远了距离
不知不觉无声无息
我们总是在抱怨事与愿违
却不愿意回头看看自己
想想自己到底做了甚黱蠢事情
也许是上帝给我一个试炼
只是这伤口需要花点时间
只是会想念过去的一切
那些人事物会离我远去
而我们终究也会远离
变成回忆
oh 思念是一种病
oh 思念是一种病一种病
多久没有说我爱你
多久没有拥抱你所爱的人
当这个世界不在那黱美好
只有爱可以让他更好
我相信一切都来得及
别管那些纷纷扰扰
别让不开心的事停下了脚步
就怕你不说就怕你不做
别让遗憾继续一切都来得及
SMRT fined
Whooping $400,000 for disruption
Singaporeans now wonder if they themselves will be doing the paying themselves.
By Seah Chiang Nee.
Mar 11, 2008
It was a big financial punishment for SMRT, the operator of Singapore’s mass transit service.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) fined the company, 54.8 per cent of which is owned by Temasek Holding, for a seven-hour train disruption in January. It caused hardship to thousands to workers reporting for work.
That the government imposed such a heavy penalty on one of its own companies is a sign of transparency and fairness, but not many commuters are cheering.
The reason? The fine will burn a $400,000 hole in the company’s accounts that could necessitate it approaching the Public Transport Council (PTC) for a fare hike.
This is usually granted, sometimes after a delay.
In other words, SMRT will recover the money from the travelling public. period.
This will be an ironic sort of punishment if it is allowed to happen and a fare hike results. That would SMRT makes a mistake, but the commuters pay.
This has raised several postings over the Internet, one of which said that SMRT is a publicly listed company that is providing public transport services,
"Fines are paid out of shareholders funds and recoverable from rail fees collected from the publicly," he said. None of which comes from the SMRT elites, he added.
‘TalkFact’ who agreed with it, said it would be fairer to impose the fine on the people in charge, like the management and staff responsible for the disruption.
“The $400k fine will be accounted under business cost by simple accounting,” said ‘undiscern’.
“The SMRT will submit an application to PTC for fare increment due to the business costs,” he said.
Is there another country where such a thing can happen?
Post a Comment