A treat

     The floor was wet, raindrops were falling down but it did not stop anyone's footstep. Likewise, I was eager to meet my older son for lunch. He has just finished his final examination yesterday, so I have decided to treat him to MacDonald!!

     I was early. While I was standing outside MacDonald looking through the glass door, I read the menu on the sign boards. Then I realized it has been a long time since I have taken my children to any fast food restaurants and neither have my children patronizing them on their own because I do not give them enough pocket money to buy such expensive meal.  It was not because we are too health conscious about the kind of food we eat, it was about value for money. I just simply find it too pricey for "junk food", not worth it at all.

    My son arrived on time and I could tell he was excited because he told me that it was a treat for him that hardly came by. He was right about that! Reading up till this point, do you not feel this is so unreal? Eating at MacDonald is a treat? You must think my boy is such a poor fellow!

    How could that be? Children and junk food is almost like the go-together-thingy. You go to fast food restaurants, you see children. You ask them what to eat? Even the two years-old toddler could name you a few dishes on the menu!

    Well, if I have to spend more than $10 for a meal, I would choose to have a nutritious meal. The best way to ensure the food is nutritious at a minimum expenditure is the home cooked food. Unfortunately, most households in Singapore prefer not to cook at home. Either they find it too troublesome or the adults just refuse to learn cooking. Hence, you will find restaurants, food courts or food stalls around every corner you turn. It has become a normal routine to eat out. In fact, only some will choose to cook for the family reunion on Chinese New Year Eve and that would be their treat for their family. What an irony!

 

Who would've thought?

The public transport service in Singapore is considered the best in South-East Asia. There are 2 companies providing the public transport services across the entire island. The customer services are excellent but what piques me is that the employees are ignorant about the actual running of the public transport systems and their regulations. I came to realize that they have the same sort of “clichéd answers” to all my questions, which are either “it’s the company policy” or “please check with the other company”.

Recently, I have begun to travel more frequently in my neighbourhood using the public transport. Only then that I noticed each time I made a transfer of buses, I received rebate from the previous ride. For once, I felt like I have been “rewarded”. However, the rebate did not seem to be consistent, sometimes I saw the transfer rate when I tapped my “ez-link” card upon exit, but at other occurrences, I did not. At this point, I assumed that probably there were hidden terms and conditions which I was not aware of.

Eager to get to the bottom of the matter, I consulted numerous employees for clarification. Finally, I was directed to the right consultant at the TransitLink counter. However, the information given to me was incorrect. So, I went back to the same person to file a complaint. Despite the fact that he had given the wrong information (training issue), I was not upset because he is extremely helpful and had promised that I would be contacted shortly regarding my complaint.

True enough, I was contacted by a customer support and clients servicing clerk, Jaslin. She was very helpful and her efficiency had livened up our conversation. Not only did she resolve the issue, she also referred my concern regarding the Distance Fares regime to PTC (The Public Transport Council). I am grateful about the fact that Jaslin had responded promptly and handled the case professionally.

However, the query I have for the Distance Fares regime is not about the single journey but the terms and conditions that have been set up for the scheme seems “too petty”. Check this out…

Under Distance Fares, the rules are:

·         Transfer time limit of 45 minutes.

·         All journeys must be within 2 hours of the first boarding on the same journey.

·         Single entry and exit allowed for rail.

·         Current bus service must not be the same number as the preceding bus service.

·         Maximum of 5 transfers can be made within a journey

My queries…

1. If the transfer time limit is 45 minutes, and the maximum number of transfers is 5 times, should it not be a total of 180 minutes instead of restricting the completions of all the journeys within 120 minutes? Are traffic jams not an issue in Singapore?
2. If this is a Distance Fares scheme, why should there be a restriction for the passenger who would be taking the same bus number as the preceding bus service so long as it is within 45 minutes of transfer time limit? Why penalize the passenger who may have changed his/her mind on his/her  destination? After all, the travelling distance determines the fare, not the individual’s decision, isn't it?
3. Since all journeys must be completed within 2 hours of the first boarding, could the bus driver possibly ensure that the arrival times are consistently accurate? If not, surely you are not expecting the passenger to be on time to meet your terms and conditions in order to comply to your Distance Fares regime?

Who says public transport companies should not profit? Of course they do! They have to pay wages and year-end bonuses to the employees and also answer to the public shareholders based on their yearly performances. That is understandable, therefore, in regardless to the reasons given for the frequent increase of fares would be submissively accepted by the public. Then my point is why being so rigid, making it so difficult over the terms and conditions on the Distance Fares regime when the two transport companies are making money if they are not making big bucks. I am curious who came out with these terms and conditions and who approved them? Perhaps they had never taken public transport.

Although this may appear to be critical, but most Singaporeans will not pay attention to it as they believe they are in good hands. The Government here is working very hard to provide better public welfares. However, does it includes monitoring the public transport systems to ensure that the people are getting benefit without having to struggle for it?

All in all, I strongly agree that in a metropolitan city ,rules and regulations are required and should have terms and conditions applied to keeps the world goes round. However, in this case, making them so difficult to comply is irrelevant and impractical!

Which of the following annoys you the most?

Recently, I have encountered so many incidents that happened on public buses. They annoyed me so much so that I have to write it out to release my frustration.

• Refusing to move to the rear of the bus when it is packed.
• Refusing to give up priority seats to people with special needs.
• Resting the feet on the opposite seat.
• Cutting nails.
• Talking loudly on the cell phone.
• Playing loud music.
• Love birds smooching and hugging.
• Standing guard at the doors.
• Occupying another seat with their belongings.
• Making unpleasant sounds.

I cannot comprehend why the passengers in Singapore are so oblivious to their surroundings. The above-mentioned actions should not even be present in this modern society at all. Unfortunately, most of them find it a challenge to follow these fundamentals. It is undesirable to live among the "uncivilized". It is also difficult to voice your opinions, since you will therefore become a "Kaypo". (Sigh...)

Interesting, eh?

Date: Jan 02, 2012
Title: 1 fare 2 seats

This woman had removed her sandals and put her feet up on the seat throughout her entire journey on a SMRT bus. The bus was quite packed but neither did it seem to bother her a bit, nor to the student from Saint X school who was sitting next to her feet. Strangely, nobody dared to ask her to remove her feet. The best part was that the student had immediately moved onto the seat where those feet were right after the woman had alighted, as if nothing had happened. Interesting, eh?