Thursday, August 31, 2006

Protest

Excerpt from TODAY Online,
PROTESTING THE WORLD BANK FROM BATAM
Thursday August 31, 2006
On Sept 18, as many as 700 people from a dozen countries will take to the
streets, waving banners and chanting slogans to protest the policies of
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Group.
But instead of marching in Singapore, where the annual meeting will be
held at the Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition
Centre, the protesters are taking their gripes to Batam.

The first thing that came to my mind was a chinese saying 'Ge An Guan Huo' (watching a fire from the opposite bank). How do u protest fm such a distance??!! Sounded quite ridiculous and hilarious to me. And why Batam?

The International People's Forum (IPF) will be attended by delegates from
several international groups and is being coordinated by Mr Ramches
Merdeka, an anti-human trafficking activist based on the island. Batam was
chosen because it is close to Singapore and offers cheap accommodation,
said Mr Ramches.

Cheap accomodation only? I suspect that the organisers / participants must be predominantly male, and staging a protest in Batam will give them a legitimate excuse to go Batam, which also offers a certain pleasurable activity at very cheap rates. How abt that.

Most of the foreign participants are expected to enter Batam through
Singapore. Several Singaporeans will also attend the forum, said Mr
Ramches, but did not say how many have signed up so far.

Oh well, if they need more Singaporeans, there will definitely be alot of Singaporean DOM (Dirty old men) in Batam to supplement numbers. Or maybe, for a small fee, they can easily hire more pp to join in the protest. Afterall, Batam labour is much cheaper than Singapore labour .

Friday, August 04, 2006

Newspaper Headline

4 Aug , Today Paper:


JUDGE QUITS CHEE CASE TO WARD OFF CLAIMS OF BIAS


In an unusual development, the judge presiding over the defamation suits against Opposition politician Chee Soon Juan and his sister disqualified himself from the case.

This followed an application by Mr M Ravi, the lawyer for the Chee siblings, who had claimed that Justice Woo Bih Li may be biased against him.

The lawyer and the judge had been involved in a sharp, widely-reported exchange in court some three years back in a completely unrelated case.
.....
.........

In 2003, Mr Ravi was representing convicted drug trafficker Vignes Mourthi, 22, who had been sentenced to death and had exhausted all avenues of appeal. Despite that, Mr Ravi sought a retrial and insisted on arguing even after the judge explained the case had run its course. He also sat down while the judge was taking notes.
"I find your conduct improper and I have to make a complaint to the Law Society," Justice Woo told him then.
To that, Mr Ravi had replied: "I have no fears ... I am migrating to Australia next month." Mr Ravi was subsequently fined.



Isnt it interesting how birds of a feather flock together? If I were the newspaper editor, I would use this headline instead: Problematic politician hires problematic lawyer
And for a tabloid paper, this would be my headline: Judge byes to Chee case / Judge says goodbye to Chee case

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Another Hike

SBS Transit and SMRT have applied for bus- and train-fare hikes. **#(%!!!

Feels like we hv had a few increases for the past few years...

A reader wrote to ST forum:

"I don't understand why SMRT and SBS Transit have decided to raise fares when SMRT registered operating profits of $68.9 million in 2004 and $70 million in 2005 on its bus and MRT services. SBS Transit, too, enjoyed healthy operating profits, of $52.6 million (2004) and $57.15 million (2005). Both companies enjoyed operating margins in excess of 10 per cent in both years. "

*APPLAUSE*

My sentiments exactly. My JC GP Tutor once told us that Singapore is the only country where the public transport carriers are making a profit. This is becos the government pays for the cost of the infrastructure (the roads, the rail, the station etc). So the public transport carriers does not have the burden of the heavy overhead investments.

Reasons for fare increase were due to higher fuel prices and higher wages. But, profits are still in millions! Note that profits = Revenue - Expenditure. Hence after deducting higher fuel costs + higher salary costs, they are still able to survive. So what's the case for having higher fares? So that they can continue to maintain their astronomical profits? That's not my biz! They should operate more efficiently and find other ways to cut cost! If not, then what's the issue if profits drop from $50 mil to $25 mil? Too low ? Try going to Indonesia... the population is many times ours, but their losses are many times ours too.

I think the government should just liberalise the transport economy and allow private bus operators to come in. The government's stance is they do not wish to hv duplication of efforts. But it should not be the government to worry abou this. If indeed there is duplication of effort, and it becomes unprofitable to operate > 1 bus on the same bus route, leave it to the market to vote, so that the fittest and best will survive. Another reason cited: low profit margins will lead to less investment / maintenance of buses, meaning, u will get lousy , dirty buses etc. Again, survival of the fittest. Just like there r budget carriers and full service airlines, let the consumers decide whether they want to pay 20cts for a non aircon bus, or 60cts for aircon. Besides, in Hong Kong, even though there are many bus operators, I did not spot any lousy buses. Even their mini-bus is ok... and they also hv the slick double storey aircon bus like ours.

But anyway, nothing I say will make any difference. I predict the opposition and MPs will put up a fierce debate over fare hikes, but at the end of the day, it will still go thru.. Just a wayang.. after all, how many people in Parliament take public transport?