The Latest PBS Frontline documentary (available online) on Healthcare all around the world rocks.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
Makes you wonder if we can have compulsory insurance in Singapore too.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Good healthcare but the underinsured: reasons, proposed solutions, doubts and a suggestion
Good healthcare system
Singapore has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. Reasons commonly given include:
(i) large degree of emphasis on the individual (or the individual's employer) to take responsibility of the individual's health care; and
(ii) a stable political system.
(http://www.watsonwyatt.com/europe/pubs/healthcare/render2.asp?ID=13850)
Some of the ‘compulsory’ elements in the Singapore healthcare system are undoubtedly the most important ones. As Watty describes , “[i]n practice, Medisave covers approximately 85 per cent of Singapore’s population.” (link) Furthermore, both Medishield and Eldershield cover very serious illnesses. Compulsory annuities are also set to play an important role in Singapore's healthcare system.
underinsured
However, it is often said that Singaporeans are underinsured.
As Mr Low Kwok Mun, Executive Director (Insurance Supervision Department), MAS , recently described,
http://www.mas.gov.sg/news_room/statements/2008/Speech_by_Mr_Low_Kwok_Mun_at_LIA_Annual_Luncheon.html
reasons
One important reason why Singaporeans are underinsured is the tendency to purchase costly investment linked insurance products instead.of a cheaper term insurance.
Singapore has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. Reasons commonly given include:
(i) large degree of emphasis on the individual (or the individual's employer) to take responsibility of the individual's health care; and
(ii) a stable political system.
(http://www.watsonwyatt.com/europe/pubs/healthcare/render2.asp?ID=13850)
Some of the ‘compulsory’ elements in the Singapore healthcare system are undoubtedly the most important ones. As Watty describes , “[i]n practice, Medisave covers approximately 85 per cent of Singapore’s population.” (link) Furthermore, both Medishield and Eldershield cover very serious illnesses. Compulsory annuities are also set to play an important role in Singapore's healthcare system.
underinsured
However, it is often said that Singaporeans are underinsured.
As Mr Low Kwok Mun, Executive Director (Insurance Supervision Department), MAS , recently described,
“According to a NTU study commissioned by LIA in mid-2006, the average Singaporean working adult is under-insured by nearly 75%. This means that should the average adult pass away prematurely, the payout from his insurance policies will only cover 25% of what the surviving members of his family require for their expenses and living needs.”
http://www.mas.gov.sg/news_room/statements/2008/Speech_by_Mr_Low_Kwok_Mun_at_LIA_Annual_Luncheon.html
reasons
One important reason why Singaporeans are underinsured is the tendency to purchase costly investment linked insurance products instead.of a cheaper term insurance.
Mr Low, in his speech, described why this is the case. Firstly, he said people “mistakenly believe that by purchasing these products, they are adequately protected even though such products have relatively low protection coverage.”(link)
Another reason given is “the product which the insurance adviser would be more keen to push would naturally be determined by the amount of sales and thus the total commissions that he could hope to receive.”(link)
Thirdly, “[t]he way in which many insurance products are currently designed and marketed does not provide the consumer with any idea of the proportion of premiums paid that is used to purchase protection coverage.” (link)
Another reason given is “the product which the insurance adviser would be more keen to push would naturally be determined by the amount of sales and thus the total commissions that he could hope to receive.”(link)
Thirdly, “[t]he way in which many insurance products are currently designed and marketed does not provide the consumer with any idea of the proportion of premiums paid that is used to purchase protection coverage.” (link)
(Hey, now we know why some people really dislike some insurance agents)
proposed solutions
As part of the ongoing MAS policy to educate the public of the availability and attractiveness of term insurance, Straits Times had a report in moneysense recently. (Lorna Tan, Finance Correspondent, Why I became a convert to term insurance) She wrote,
“Once upon a time, I was no different from other Singaporeans who pooh-poohed the idea of buying a term cover. Back then, it did not make sense to me that I would not get anything back from the insurance premiums that I had paid. It was like throwing money down the drain. Only in the past few years have I become a term life convert. I realised I was putting the cart before the horse. I was mixing investment needs with protection needs and when they were bundled together, my priorities became clouded.” (link)
Apart from ‘educating the public’ in this fashion, MAS plans to ‘promote greater transparency in product disclosures’ and will like to get the insurance companies to ‘re-think their business strategy.’ (link)
doubts
I wonder how many people who read moneysense do not already know that term insurance is a better proposition than an investment linked insurance product. Can 'educating the public', and getting the industry to rethink the business strategy really work? Does the state have so much influence on the insurance companies? Furthermore, how does MAS intend to promote greater transparency in product disclosures and to get rethink insurance companies to ‘re-think their business strategy’ when the incentive of the agent is to sell the product which gives him or her more commission.
Perhaps if we can make a new rule which makes it mandatory for an insurance agent to tell us exactly how much of our money goes to a) the investment linked funds (and the commission charged), b) the term insurance component (and the commission charged) c) the expected coverage and returns respectively, we might be able to make a better choice. But I cannot imagine that this will be easy to enforce if insurance agents (and their companies?) have a greater incentive to not provide such information.
A suggestion
Indeed, if term insurance is good for Singaporeans, why don’t the state enter the term insurance business themselves and make it compulsory (ahem)? We already have Medisave/Medishield. Extending the Medisave/Medishield by increasing the premiums vis-à-vis the CPF to cover death does not seem too complicated. Private insurers can then be compelled in this fashion to provide disclosure and competitive prices in order that they might be ‘eligible’ to compete side by side with a public plan, and people should have the option to opt out of the public plan, and elect a private one. This will be easier to enforce as the state provide a minimum standard and act as gatekeeper. CPF had previously managed to come up with the various criteria for funds to be part of the CPF investment scheme, and I believe they have the capability to do so for term insurance. (However, this suggestion will be unpopular with Singaporeans consider the debate surrounding the compulsory annuities)
doubts
I wonder how many people who read moneysense do not already know that term insurance is a better proposition than an investment linked insurance product. Can 'educating the public', and getting the industry to rethink the business strategy really work? Does the state have so much influence on the insurance companies? Furthermore, how does MAS intend to promote greater transparency in product disclosures and to get rethink insurance companies to ‘re-think their business strategy’ when the incentive of the agent is to sell the product which gives him or her more commission.
Perhaps if we can make a new rule which makes it mandatory for an insurance agent to tell us exactly how much of our money goes to a) the investment linked funds (and the commission charged), b) the term insurance component (and the commission charged) c) the expected coverage and returns respectively, we might be able to make a better choice. But I cannot imagine that this will be easy to enforce if insurance agents (and their companies?) have a greater incentive to not provide such information.
A suggestion
Indeed, if term insurance is good for Singaporeans, why don’t the state enter the term insurance business themselves and make it compulsory (ahem)? We already have Medisave/Medishield. Extending the Medisave/Medishield by increasing the premiums vis-à-vis the CPF to cover death does not seem too complicated. Private insurers can then be compelled in this fashion to provide disclosure and competitive prices in order that they might be ‘eligible’ to compete side by side with a public plan, and people should have the option to opt out of the public plan, and elect a private one. This will be easier to enforce as the state provide a minimum standard and act as gatekeeper. CPF had previously managed to come up with the various criteria for funds to be part of the CPF investment scheme, and I believe they have the capability to do so for term insurance. (However, this suggestion will be unpopular with Singaporeans consider the debate surrounding the compulsory annuities)
Go Figure
Headline: Train services at Choa Chu Kang station disrupted after man fell unto track
Photo Caption: Police remove the body of a man that was killed this morning when he jumped in front of a moving train at Choa Chu Kang MRT station
Go figure
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Self Improvement for others
Life is odd. A principal's 'advice' has become a debate about how one should better motivate students. The divisions appear neatly drawn. One might choose between the old school "wake-up" call or the more modern "positive" encouragement. I can imagine dinner tables marked by different schools of thought. Seen this way, the principal's 'advice' is at its worst, old school, and at best, solid advice. However, from the statistics, one can learn a lot more. Mobility between "streams" appear limited. There was no consideration that the students might end up in JCs, for example. I am sure there will be a few rare examples. Another rather Singaporean assumption - that polys are better than ITEs. And the list goes on. I feel that when one describes this as a "wake-up" call, you assume somehow that your station in life determines your "worth" - and the worth of you by family, state and society. Perhaps that is indeed the case in Singapore, we are that people who are people only in the eyes of others .
There is this philosopher - his name is Kant - whose idea of Categorical Imperative is often bandied around for a myriad of nefarious purposes - but it still is attractive. It is attractive because, let me quote Wiki,
"On this basis, Kant derives second formulation of the categorical imperative from the first.
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means"[2]"
It is this regard for humanity that will make Kant (be likely) to refuse to turn the switch in any case in the runaway railway wagon paradox. Although I believe that a state must resort to 'logical' apparatus to shape policy (and turn the switch no matter what), there is this part of me that feel that we have come too far from the very attractive ideal that we should treat people as the ends and not the means. There is really nothing 'wrong' in going to ITE, or not desiring to study - if you think about it morally or from the 'humanistic' point of view - there is nothing that morally demands a "wake-up" call. I think Kant will think that our values and our regard for humanity should be far greater and far more nuance than this.
There is this philosopher - his name is Kant - whose idea of Categorical Imperative is often bandied around for a myriad of nefarious purposes - but it still is attractive. It is attractive because, let me quote Wiki,
"On this basis, Kant derives second formulation of the categorical imperative from the first.
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means"[2]"
It is this regard for humanity that will make Kant (be likely) to refuse to turn the switch in any case in the runaway railway wagon paradox. Although I believe that a state must resort to 'logical' apparatus to shape policy (and turn the switch no matter what), there is this part of me that feel that we have come too far from the very attractive ideal that we should treat people as the ends and not the means. There is really nothing 'wrong' in going to ITE, or not desiring to study - if you think about it morally or from the 'humanistic' point of view - there is nothing that morally demands a "wake-up" call. I think Kant will think that our values and our regard for humanity should be far greater and far more nuance than this.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Protecting the old
As the Singapore Government makes our facilities elderly friendly in light of our greying population, perhaps it is time to institute better legal protection for the elderly.
The elderly in general are more vulnerable to scams. In North America, statistics and anecdotal evidence point this to fact.
http://money.aol.com/bankrate/general/canvas3/_a/top-scams-targeting-the-elderly/20060615164009990002
http://crime.about.com/od/elderabuse/a/frauds.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645313.shtml
This will also probably be the case for Singapore.
How many elderly in Singapore have been tricked to part with their lifelong savings by MLM scam artists offering products which are inherently worthless, we will never know.
But a legal framework which emphasis that contracts with elders without the provision of requisite information or advice will be void can encourage third parties to not take advantage of the elderly.
The elderly in general are more vulnerable to scams. In North America, statistics and anecdotal evidence point this to fact.
http://money.aol.com/bankrate/general/canvas3/_a/top-scams-targeting-the-elderly/20060615164009990002
http://crime.about.com/od/elderabuse/a/frauds.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645313.shtml
This will also probably be the case for Singapore.
How many elderly in Singapore have been tricked to part with their lifelong savings by MLM scam artists offering products which are inherently worthless, we will never know.
But a legal framework which emphasis that contracts with elders without the provision of requisite information or advice will be void can encourage third parties to not take advantage of the elderly.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
A brief note on Article 15(2)
Recently I been looking at Article 15(2) of the Consitution and wondered what it is all about. A word of warning, my intepretation here is largely based on a literal reading of Article 15(2). My conclusion from reading Article 15(2) is that the use of public reason in determining public policy is very important. Here it goes:
Article 15(2) in essence prevents state taxation for the purposes of a religion that one does not subscribe to. (See possible exceptions in footnotes)
This means there is no compulsion of others for the purposes of a religion by way of financial penalties in Singapore. The state cannot compel a member of one religion to support financially the religion of another person. This is a very important protection of the individual and is a secular guard against the tyranny of having to financially support someone's else beliefs, or for that matter, anyone's belief at all.
One might ask, if religion sucessfully determines (say wholly) a particular public policy, can I object and not pay taxes based on Article 15(2)? As an illustration, say Religion Pasta has successfully petitioned to Parliament based on their own religious rules that all children age 7 should wear a blue jacket. State funds have then been allocated to the Ministery of Education to buy blue jackets to compel all children to wear a blue jacket. For clarification sake, there appears to be no reason for this public policy save for the Religion Pasta rulebook that all children must wear blue jackets when they are of age 7 years.
This appears to be a “purpose of religion” under Article 15(2) and one might have a good argument that taxes cannot be so compelled to buy blue jackets from anyone save of those who subscribe to Pastafarianism. After all, why should I pay for someone's else religious beliefs?
From this reading of Article 15(2), the Constitution invites people to use what John Rawls calls “public reason” when discussing policy changes. It is fair and promotes peace and good order as hurting a person's pocket against his beliefs does little good to his temper. It is also neutral between religions and belief systems.
---------
Note: It appears that Public Reason is getting to be more and more and controversial. I think it was previously contrasted with religious reasoning but it appears that some critics are suggesting that liberal conceptions of the good life are not neutral (“public reason”) either. All this is rather confusing really.
FN1: It is probably important to note that it allows the state to compel a member of one religion to support financially the religion of that person. Hence, it is possible to impose, in Malaysia for example, a tax on Muslims to support their religion.
FN2: Another exception will probably be the Malay minority. Article 152(2) provides
As most Malays are Muslims, it is likely that their “religious... interests” will be read as the interests of Muslims in Singapore.
Article 15(2) in essence prevents state taxation for the purposes of a religion that one does not subscribe to. (See possible exceptions in footnotes)
(2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.
This means there is no compulsion of others for the purposes of a religion by way of financial penalties in Singapore. The state cannot compel a member of one religion to support financially the religion of another person. This is a very important protection of the individual and is a secular guard against the tyranny of having to financially support someone's else beliefs, or for that matter, anyone's belief at all.
One might ask, if religion sucessfully determines (say wholly) a particular public policy, can I object and not pay taxes based on Article 15(2)? As an illustration, say Religion Pasta has successfully petitioned to Parliament based on their own religious rules that all children age 7 should wear a blue jacket. State funds have then been allocated to the Ministery of Education to buy blue jackets to compel all children to wear a blue jacket. For clarification sake, there appears to be no reason for this public policy save for the Religion Pasta rulebook that all children must wear blue jackets when they are of age 7 years.
This appears to be a “purpose of religion” under Article 15(2) and one might have a good argument that taxes cannot be so compelled to buy blue jackets from anyone save of those who subscribe to Pastafarianism. After all, why should I pay for someone's else religious beliefs?
From this reading of Article 15(2), the Constitution invites people to use what John Rawls calls “public reason” when discussing policy changes. It is fair and promotes peace and good order as hurting a person's pocket against his beliefs does little good to his temper. It is also neutral between religions and belief systems.
---------
Note: It appears that Public Reason is getting to be more and more and controversial. I think it was previously contrasted with religious reasoning but it appears that some critics are suggesting that liberal conceptions of the good life are not neutral (“public reason”) either. All this is rather confusing really.
FN1: It is probably important to note that it allows the state to compel a member of one religion to support financially the religion of that person. Hence, it is possible to impose, in Malaysia for example, a tax on Muslims to support their religion.
FN2: Another exception will probably be the Malay minority. Article 152(2) provides
The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.
As most Malays are Muslims, it is likely that their “religious... interests” will be read as the interests of Muslims in Singapore.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Press Freedom
"In India, Singapore and Russia, by contrast, more people favoured stability over press freedom. In those countries, around 48% of respondents supported controls over the press to ensure peace and stability. Around 40% expressed the view that press freedom was more important. People were also asked to rate how free the press and broadcasters were in their country to report the news truthfully and without undue bias. Perceptions varied widely among developing countries, ranging from 81% giving a high rating in Kenya, to 41% in Mexico. In India, 72% of respondents thought their media were free, compared with just 36% in Singapore."
[link]
Haiz...
Where they find these people
Mike Huckabee
"As new polls highlight Mike Huckabee’s ascent in the Republican presidential field, he is drawing new scrutiny of his record in Arkansas, particularly his actions in the release of a convicted rapist who went on to murder a woman and his response to a questionnaire in which he said people with AIDS should be quarantined."
{link}
Rudy Gulliani
Ms. Gustitus said: “He said he didn’t know if waterboarding is torture.”
Mr. Giuliani said: “Well, I’m not sure it is either. I’m not sure it is either. It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it. "
[link]
**Waterboarding is not to be mistaken for wakeboarding. Gulliani answer is not strictly inaccurate - I believe one can water board - which is to make a person feel like he is going to drown - another with tender loving care. But his answer is shifty.
"As new polls highlight Mike Huckabee’s ascent in the Republican presidential field, he is drawing new scrutiny of his record in Arkansas, particularly his actions in the release of a convicted rapist who went on to murder a woman and his response to a questionnaire in which he said people with AIDS should be quarantined."
{link}
Rudy Gulliani
Ms. Gustitus said: “He said he didn’t know if waterboarding is torture.”
Mr. Giuliani said: “Well, I’m not sure it is either. I’m not sure it is either. It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it. "
[link]
**Waterboarding is not to be mistaken for wakeboarding. Gulliani answer is not strictly inaccurate - I believe one can water board - which is to make a person feel like he is going to drown - another with tender loving care. But his answer is shifty.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Military Intelligence
Apparently, . If you watch Frontline, you know that the evidence against Iran as a terrorist state was quite weak previously.
This is the timeline.
2002 was the year the Bush administration coined the term "the axis of evil".
This axis of evil theory is I think a simple one. The greatest terrorist threat is when the wrong weapons fall into terrorist hands - because terrorists cells cannot by their very nature build such weapons. That is why North Korea is bad (really 'evil') - they have a long history of selling weapons to other people.
So despite being labelled an evil person, Iran decided not to pursue nuclear **** in 2003. Perhaps it was believed that this was in order that the Bush administration will stop disturbing them. But the Bush Administration did not. They kept on going about how evil Iran was.
Then came the year 2005.
2005 was a pretty interesting year if you follow the crisis. Ahmadinejad came to power with elections backed by the supreme religious leader. His Government is definitely more aggressive than the predecessor - a moderate leadership with reformist tendencies. The new president has issued belligerent statements about this and that for a long time. His declared views of pursing nuclear technology heightened tensions.
It was also the year that the Bush administration believed that Iran was pursing Nuclear *****. This is the report now proven to be wrong.
But if the Iranians will already willing to cooperate by 2003, it is a two year window of opportunity that has already passed for the US to make love, not war, with Iran.
Besides, some say, hardliners won the elections in Iran because of US attitudes towards the moderates.
So in 2007, we have now a military intelligence report saying that they were wrong in 2005 about things in 2003. They plan to change things, eh. Strange. Surely action should be based on evidence currently, not evidence that is based on what they were wrong about in 2003.
Anyway, more importantly, this tells us that the war on terror has not made the world a safer place.
And that we should not trust military intelligence, not in 2005 or in 2007.
What will Iran do now? Will Hawks become doves overnight?
Or more importantly, could there have been a secret agreement nobody knows about? Conspiracy theories. Maybe a moderate government might come to power in Iran soon?
**** Its nuclear something really. Energy/Technology/Weapons - I think the US is totally opposed to all of them which frankly is not very consistent.
This is the timeline.
2002 was the year the Bush administration coined the term "the axis of evil".
This axis of evil theory is I think a simple one. The greatest terrorist threat is when the wrong weapons fall into terrorist hands - because terrorists cells cannot by their very nature build such weapons. That is why North Korea is bad (really 'evil') - they have a long history of selling weapons to other people.
So despite being labelled an evil person, Iran decided not to pursue nuclear **** in 2003. Perhaps it was believed that this was in order that the Bush administration will stop disturbing them. But the Bush Administration did not. They kept on going about how evil Iran was.
Then came the year 2005.
2005 was a pretty interesting year if you follow the crisis. Ahmadinejad came to power with elections backed by the supreme religious leader. His Government is definitely more aggressive than the predecessor - a moderate leadership with reformist tendencies. The new president has issued belligerent statements about this and that for a long time. His declared views of pursing nuclear technology heightened tensions.
It was also the year that the Bush administration believed that Iran was pursing Nuclear *****. This is the report now proven to be wrong.
But if the Iranians will already willing to cooperate by 2003, it is a two year window of opportunity that has already passed for the US to make love, not war, with Iran.
Besides, some say, hardliners won the elections in Iran because of US attitudes towards the moderates.
So in 2007, we have now a military intelligence report saying that they were wrong in 2005 about things in 2003. They plan to change things, eh. Strange. Surely action should be based on evidence currently, not evidence that is based on what they were wrong about in 2003.
Anyway, more importantly, this tells us that the war on terror has not made the world a safer place.
And that we should not trust military intelligence, not in 2005 or in 2007.
What will Iran do now? Will Hawks become doves overnight?
Or more importantly, could there have been a secret agreement nobody knows about? Conspiracy theories. Maybe a moderate government might come to power in Iran soon?
**** Its nuclear something really. Energy/Technology/Weapons - I think the US is totally opposed to all of them which frankly is not very consistent.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Lawyer goes missing
.... (probably) with 6 million (probably), according to the Straits Times.
Another case where there is a breach of trust over the proceeds of a property transaction.
Last time these cases were hardly heard of.
Lawyers were only allowed to charge a certain rate for property matters.
In 2003, these scale fees were cut.
There was "liberalisation" of the legal sector.
Then the fixed scale fee became a recommended scale.
Then the competition started. What was recommended was what it was said to be - just a recommendation.
Then in a dog eat dog world, costs were slashed.
Consumers celebrate.
Banks. Insurance Companies. Had boards of law firms where you can go to for 'cheaper' real estate solutions.
Consumers, estate agents, banks, insurance agents, celebrated.
Then the cases started.
4 million. 10 million. 6 million
Then there were more rules.
To ensure internal compliance vis-a-vis partners and book-keepers.
Each time they were proven wrong.
I think they were too liberal with the liberalisation.
Maybe there should be a minimum charge per property transaction.
And if you read the ST report you might see there are two schools of thought.
Another case where there is a breach of trust over the proceeds of a property transaction.
Last time these cases were hardly heard of.
Lawyers were only allowed to charge a certain rate for property matters.
In 2003, these scale fees were cut.
There was "liberalisation" of the legal sector.
Then the fixed scale fee became a recommended scale.
Then the competition started. What was recommended was what it was said to be - just a recommendation.
Then in a dog eat dog world, costs were slashed.
Consumers celebrate.
Banks. Insurance Companies. Had boards of law firms where you can go to for 'cheaper' real estate solutions.
Consumers, estate agents, banks, insurance agents, celebrated.
Then the cases started.
4 million. 10 million. 6 million
Then there were more rules.
To ensure internal compliance vis-a-vis partners and book-keepers.
Each time they were proven wrong.
I think they were too liberal with the liberalisation.
Maybe there should be a minimum charge per property transaction.
And if you read the ST report you might see there are two schools of thought.
Asked if the new rules needed more teeth in light of the latest incident, lawyer Montague Choy said: 'You may change the rules... but then someone might show up to work around whatever's new in place to the point where there are so many rules that it becomes not commercially viable to operate.
'I do not think the problem is with the rules.'
Lawyer Amolat Singh said the case could trigger a move for clients' deposits to be held by a separate stakeholder, rather than by lawyers.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
FIGHTING TO BUY!!!
Ugly Singaporeans?
No.
This is just ridiculous.
But we too have the potential of becoming really really irrational consumers.
Imagine:
7 million people. Christmas shopping 2020? Orchard Road?
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Thursday, November 22, 2007
My mother is right - I should off all energy appliances WHENEVER I leave the room
Well, it turns out that for the year 2006 (if the source is right), we have been per capita the fifth most polluting (as in CO2) nation in the world. I am pretty sure it has something to do with Jurong Island and our growth.
And Leaf Monkey is one great Singaporean. - Go read his/her whole blog.
I am proud of him/her for advocating (and somewhat setting an example) that we may live more 'greeny'.
My carbon footprint is probably 10 times the average Singaporean :(
Now really must cycle more often.
And Leaf Monkey is one great Singaporean. - Go read his/her whole blog.
I am proud of him/her for advocating (and somewhat setting an example) that we may live more 'greeny'.
My carbon footprint is probably 10 times the average Singaporean :(
Now really must cycle more often.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
What is this world coming to?
This post is potentially PG. So be warned, and ask your parents to read first.
I must be crazy/amoral/indecent, but I think this is absolutely ludicrous. Not the fact that Mr Stewart was humping a bike (although I admit that is quite funny), but also because he has been placed under probation for 3 years as a sex offender. Perhaps some might disagree. Some might indeed argue that allowing man to have sex with bikes will be promoting the sex-with-bike lifestyle or that it is morally deprave ("God did make us to have sex with bike?"). Perhaps the straw up nose analogy was not that misplaced after all.
But honestly, is a person really a criminal simply because he choose to have sex with an object in the privacy of his room? What about sex dolls, vibrators, objects, ad infinitum. Clearly, Mr Stewart has a particular fetish that is not widely shared. But who is the victim here? Is there harm? There is no chance of STDS.
FN1: BBC News Link
Because this is so funny
How it could have been criminal?
1. He was not wearing a helmet.
2. He was cycling on the pavement.
3. He forget to signal his intentions.
4. The bike is damn cranky (breach of the peace). ("Remember to lubricate often")
Other choice comments
The advantage of having sex with bikes is that once you do it, you will never forget how.
This shows you why a bike is better than a woman.
Mr Stewart was caught in the act with his bicycle by cleaners in his bedroom at the Aberley House Hostel in Ayr. Gail Davidson, prosecuting, told Ayr Sheriff Court: "They knocked on the door several times and there was no reply. "They used a master key to unlock the door and they then observed the accused wearing only a white t-shirt, naked from the waist down.
"The accused was holding the bike and moving his hips back and forth as if to simulate sex." Both cleaners, who were "extremely shocked", told the hostel manager who called police. Sheriff Colin Miller told Stewart: "In almost four decades in the law I thought I had come across every perversion known to mankind, but this is a new one on me. I have never heard of a 'cycle-sexualist'. {FN1} "
I must be crazy/amoral/indecent, but I think this is absolutely ludicrous. Not the fact that Mr Stewart was humping a bike (although I admit that is quite funny), but also because he has been placed under probation for 3 years as a sex offender. Perhaps some might disagree. Some might indeed argue that allowing man to have sex with bikes will be promoting the sex-with-bike lifestyle or that it is morally deprave ("God did make us to have sex with bike?"). Perhaps the straw up nose analogy was not that misplaced after all.
But honestly, is a person really a criminal simply because he choose to have sex with an object in the privacy of his room? What about sex dolls, vibrators, objects, ad infinitum. Clearly, Mr Stewart has a particular fetish that is not widely shared. But who is the victim here? Is there harm? There is no chance of STDS.
FN1: BBC News Link
Because this is so funny
How it could have been criminal?
1. He was not wearing a helmet.
2. He was cycling on the pavement.
3. He forget to signal his intentions.
4. The bike is damn cranky (breach of the peace). ("Remember to lubricate often")
Other choice comments
The advantage of having sex with bikes is that once you do it, you will never forget how.
This shows you why a bike is better than a woman.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Random Talks about Inflation
I am not an Economist and really know nuts about the subject. But I am getting worried about what I "think" will happen in Singapore. Recently a Minister said that increase in CPI does not mean increase costs of living. Singapore's inflation has always been rather low. Due to cheap products in China, we have been all rather lucky. Considering how commodity prices were hitting 11 year high (wheat) just a month back, food prices are probably set to increase with poultry farmers eventually passing the costs to consumers. But surely far greater evils lie ahead of us. There is no way the Yuan can continue to be valued at such a cheap rate with a surplus worth 27 billion USD. How much is that in RMB?? Before long, cheap products in China will become less cheap as the currency appreciates. All that is fine if the Singapore economy keeps expanding. As I understand it, the phenomena where the economy slows down as prices go up is one that is rare - but very painful for a large number of people. This means loss of jobs and cuts in wages as inflation increase. Stock exchange losses translate to cheaper houses and cheaper cars. In such a scenario, according to my limited understanding, the cash rich will be very happy and the poor very very unhappy. So I hope our multi-million dollar Ministers can solve the problem (if it exists).
Sunday, November 4, 2007
An Eventual Gambling Problem : Insights from Genting
I read the Time Magazine article “Asia Growing Gambling Addiction” [1] with a heavy heart. I find Casino seriously distasteful because it is mere exploitation of the irrational, the superstitious and usually, the uneducated. This might be considered racist, but when it comes to gambling, the average Asian cannot count. Don’t think. And frankly, stupid.
If you have been to Genting, you know what I mean. Genting casinos games have the tables with one of the the worst odds in the world. Just take the “Pontoon” tables for example.
First, Genting does not have Blackjack tables, which is the only beatable game in Casinos through card counting (which is possible if the dealing is not done through a continuous shuffle system). In its place in Genting is called “Pontoon”. This is basically blackjack without the 10s in UK. If you understand blackjack, the more 10s and Aces in the deck, the higher the odds for the player. Pontoon is also the game that the Royal Statistical Society concluded can’t be beaten. If you have access to JSTOR, you might look at an article on this. [2]
The beauty about this is that in Genting, their variant of Pontoon is actually not the unbeatable English Pontoon above. It is worse than that. It is actually a variant of the American game Spanish 21. By calling it Pontoon confuses people, and the Genting dealers will describe the rules as “similar to blackjack.” However, Genting does not even use standard Spanish 21 rules. It only allows doubles on two hands. This is significant for two reasons. To apply a successful basic strategy in Spanish 21 games, one must double and double often, and on many cards. Without card counting (impossible under a continous shuffle system), you can reduce the house edge to about 2.08% which means you will lose less in the long run. But because 99.9 % of the gamblers in Genting (mostly Singaporeans) are still under the impression this is Blackjack or UK Pontoon, they refuse to double save on 8-9-10s, which means they are seriously in trouble – which gives them worse odds than random play.
Already lost? Yes. Most gamblers don't even bother knowing the rules of the game.
According to Edward Thorpe (who I really respect, not only because of his mathematical ability in the casino, but also in the stock market [3]) if you play without any strategy in Pontoon, the house has nearly a 30% edge (if I don’t remember wrongly). This means that if you Randomly play a 100RM a hand (which is the minimum bet sum for Pontoon in Genting) for 100 hands (one hour) you will lose about 3000 RM. And if you are "lucky", you will lose about 1000 RM. If you are unlucky, about 10000 RM.
And these “Pontoon” tables in Genting are so popular that on weekends due to the Singaporean crowd, you can forget about finding a seat, with Singaporeans clamoring to lose their money. So when Genting won the bid for the IR in Sentosa, I was pissed. If Singaporeans clamour to lose 3000 RM per hour in Genting, they will pay the entrance fee and lose more, this time in SGD. Maybe that is why Genting won the bid. They sure can lure those with money to burn. Who knows?
This is seriously an Asian problem, not an Asia one. If you go to casinos in British Columbia, Canada, you will see Chinese, Chinese, Chinese. I hope this is not taken to be racist, but the Chinese seemed more predisposed to getting addicted to gambling. Same thing for The Crown, Australia, which is supposed to be the largest Casino in the Southern Hemisphere. Same thing for Star City, Syndey. One seems to find unusually a large percentage of Chinese. Perhaps the locals prefer betting on sports than on cards, but I won’t know. I see Chinese.
So I really hope that Singapore apart from those psychological and family-centric help efforts – they must ensure that house edges are displayed at every table. Currently, I think only odds and payout might be provided. Actually odds as these people understand will be provided in any case because it is part of the rules of Gambling (Casino pays 3 to 2 on Blackjack is “odds” to the layman). This helps no one except the casinos. Gamblers will ask in any case. I hope I am not seen to be dissing the psychological and family-centric help thing here. Look, all those things are great, but - for cigarettes - you do put the warning labels right? And in this case, because the risk is mathematically quantifiable, that should be provided. Not everyone should end up in the addiction clinic. That might be too late. Information as any economists will tell you, will help a lot in making rational choices - or at least make irrational choices in the least irrational way.
So we should put house edges (Display "House has edge of 15 percent even if you use optimum strategy" - aka "everyone at this table is a rich fool").
But Gamblers tend to blow their fortune tables with a relatively low house edge too ( they think they can beat the house - aka at about the very high 5 percent house edge) because that is when it gets really addictive. When a player gets punished too much, the non-pathological tends to quit. So it is not enough to display the House Edge alone.
Another thing the state can do is to follow British Columbia Casinos where they provide basic strategy tables for games like Blackjack where if you just follow blindly, the house edge will significantly reduce – about 3 percent. Otherwise, all these family-centric and psychological help is useless to aid the "My-Mind-Can-Change-Card-Outcome" or "I-just-have-to-pray-harder" variety. Gamblers are traditionally masochistic. They have traditionally embraced relatively better odds games but make their odds worse by playing lousily. The classic example is Blackjack and more recently, Caribbean stud poker (which already has bad odds in the first place) comes to mind. Where the odds are about even, they tend to choose side bets with terrible odds.
Personally, I think gambling against the odds not wicked or immoral per se. And I won’t really call Gambling a disease per se. After all, it is beneficial when it can be beaten. Won't think that a disease in that case, will you?
But my point here is that the average Singaporeans who is addicted to bad odds in Genting already, is seriously quite screwed when the IR arrives. Someone should really tell them the house edge, the odds, and if he still chooses to play, the optimum strategy. And if he still does not follow that, nothing will save him.
[1] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1678672-1,00.html
[2] http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0035-9238(1972)135%3A2%3C221%3ACP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C
[3] http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/thorp/paper.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
There are actually far worse odds in the world than at the tables of Genting. Lotteries typically have worse odds, but I feel its level of harm to individuals much less. Other terrible bets:
1) Keno, a popular casino lottery game boost a house edge of 25 percent. Unsurprisingly this was invented in China.
2) Betting ties in Baccarat is horrible in Genting too. It is so bet that if you bet it, the dealer might sneer at you. (At about 14.5% house edge - I think Ties pay 1:9 in Genting, is higher than the average 1:8 payout in other Casinos).
3) Insurance in Pontoon. (Its so bad I could scream. 30 percent house edge)
4) Roulette with O,00 (5.6 percent. Not terrible but why bother when you can find one table with only one 0 making it half the edge)
5) One of the Chinese Favourite with various names "War" or "Tie War" (About 19 percent)
________________________________________________________________________________
If you have been to Genting, you know what I mean. Genting casinos games have the tables with one of the the worst odds in the world. Just take the “Pontoon” tables for example.
First, Genting does not have Blackjack tables, which is the only beatable game in Casinos through card counting (which is possible if the dealing is not done through a continuous shuffle system). In its place in Genting is called “Pontoon”. This is basically blackjack without the 10s in UK. If you understand blackjack, the more 10s and Aces in the deck, the higher the odds for the player. Pontoon is also the game that the Royal Statistical Society concluded can’t be beaten. If you have access to JSTOR, you might look at an article on this. [2]
The beauty about this is that in Genting, their variant of Pontoon is actually not the unbeatable English Pontoon above. It is worse than that. It is actually a variant of the American game Spanish 21. By calling it Pontoon confuses people, and the Genting dealers will describe the rules as “similar to blackjack.” However, Genting does not even use standard Spanish 21 rules. It only allows doubles on two hands. This is significant for two reasons. To apply a successful basic strategy in Spanish 21 games, one must double and double often, and on many cards. Without card counting (impossible under a continous shuffle system), you can reduce the house edge to about 2.08% which means you will lose less in the long run. But because 99.9 % of the gamblers in Genting (mostly Singaporeans) are still under the impression this is Blackjack or UK Pontoon, they refuse to double save on 8-9-10s, which means they are seriously in trouble – which gives them worse odds than random play.
Already lost? Yes. Most gamblers don't even bother knowing the rules of the game.
According to Edward Thorpe (who I really respect, not only because of his mathematical ability in the casino, but also in the stock market [3]) if you play without any strategy in Pontoon, the house has nearly a 30% edge (if I don’t remember wrongly). This means that if you Randomly play a 100RM a hand (which is the minimum bet sum for Pontoon in Genting) for 100 hands (one hour) you will lose about 3000 RM. And if you are "lucky", you will lose about 1000 RM. If you are unlucky, about 10000 RM.
And these “Pontoon” tables in Genting are so popular that on weekends due to the Singaporean crowd, you can forget about finding a seat, with Singaporeans clamoring to lose their money. So when Genting won the bid for the IR in Sentosa, I was pissed. If Singaporeans clamour to lose 3000 RM per hour in Genting, they will pay the entrance fee and lose more, this time in SGD. Maybe that is why Genting won the bid. They sure can lure those with money to burn. Who knows?
This is seriously an Asian problem, not an Asia one. If you go to casinos in British Columbia, Canada, you will see Chinese, Chinese, Chinese. I hope this is not taken to be racist, but the Chinese seemed more predisposed to getting addicted to gambling. Same thing for The Crown, Australia, which is supposed to be the largest Casino in the Southern Hemisphere. Same thing for Star City, Syndey. One seems to find unusually a large percentage of Chinese. Perhaps the locals prefer betting on sports than on cards, but I won’t know. I see Chinese.
So I really hope that Singapore apart from those psychological and family-centric help efforts – they must ensure that house edges are displayed at every table. Currently, I think only odds and payout might be provided. Actually odds as these people understand will be provided in any case because it is part of the rules of Gambling (Casino pays 3 to 2 on Blackjack is “odds” to the layman). This helps no one except the casinos. Gamblers will ask in any case. I hope I am not seen to be dissing the psychological and family-centric help thing here. Look, all those things are great, but - for cigarettes - you do put the warning labels right? And in this case, because the risk is mathematically quantifiable, that should be provided. Not everyone should end up in the addiction clinic. That might be too late. Information as any economists will tell you, will help a lot in making rational choices - or at least make irrational choices in the least irrational way.
So we should put house edges (Display "House has edge of 15 percent even if you use optimum strategy" - aka "everyone at this table is a rich fool").
But Gamblers tend to blow their fortune tables with a relatively low house edge too ( they think they can beat the house - aka at about the very high 5 percent house edge) because that is when it gets really addictive. When a player gets punished too much, the non-pathological tends to quit. So it is not enough to display the House Edge alone.
Another thing the state can do is to follow British Columbia Casinos where they provide basic strategy tables for games like Blackjack where if you just follow blindly, the house edge will significantly reduce – about 3 percent. Otherwise, all these family-centric and psychological help is useless to aid the "My-Mind-Can-Change-Card-Outcome" or "I-just-have-to-pray-harder" variety. Gamblers are traditionally masochistic. They have traditionally embraced relatively better odds games but make their odds worse by playing lousily. The classic example is Blackjack and more recently, Caribbean stud poker (which already has bad odds in the first place) comes to mind. Where the odds are about even, they tend to choose side bets with terrible odds.
Personally, I think gambling against the odds not wicked or immoral per se. And I won’t really call Gambling a disease per se. After all, it is beneficial when it can be beaten. Won't think that a disease in that case, will you?
But my point here is that the average Singaporeans who is addicted to bad odds in Genting already, is seriously quite screwed when the IR arrives. Someone should really tell them the house edge, the odds, and if he still chooses to play, the optimum strategy. And if he still does not follow that, nothing will save him.
[1] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1678672-1,00.html
[2] http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0035-9238(1972)135%3A2%3C221%3ACP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C
[3] http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/thorp/paper.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
There are actually far worse odds in the world than at the tables of Genting. Lotteries typically have worse odds, but I feel its level of harm to individuals much less. Other terrible bets:
1) Keno, a popular casino lottery game boost a house edge of 25 percent. Unsurprisingly this was invented in China.
2) Betting ties in Baccarat is horrible in Genting too. It is so bet that if you bet it, the dealer might sneer at you. (At about 14.5% house edge - I think Ties pay 1:9 in Genting, is higher than the average 1:8 payout in other Casinos).
3) Insurance in Pontoon. (Its so bad I could scream. 30 percent house edge)
4) Roulette with O,00 (5.6 percent. Not terrible but why bother when you can find one table with only one 0 making it half the edge)
5) One of the Chinese Favourite with various names "War" or "Tie War" (About 19 percent)
________________________________________________________________________________
Friday, November 2, 2007
Eavesdropping : Sex and Abstinence
I was momentarily surprised when the conversation turned to sex. After potential for eavesdropping on discussions about sex was not that common, especially while drinking coffee at Coffee Bean. These two young girls (one looks 19, the other looks 17) were initially talking about relationships {and here note inaccuracies of memory, poor hearing and paraphrasing}.
The older looking one said; “We were discussing relationships during our cellgroup meeting. Between us and the external world and God. You know, like how our parent’s love is perpendicular and the relationship with boys are horizontal. And you know how our relationship with God is forever and vertical.”
As she was telling the younger looking girl this, her hands were drawing lines in the air. The older looking girl continued, “I am at the point now where my relationship with God is good. Celibacy. We are walking together. Sex will corrupt this relationship. Heaven and Hell are parallel lines. They will never meet. The relationship with God is like a vertical line. He knows what we are going to do every step of the way.”
The other young girl started giggling, and said, “So you not going to do that…ever..?” The older girl quickly said, ““Everyone does not seem right for me. Hah, I know how a single woman feel. Free of worries and horror. Besides, sex outside marriage is sinful. My cellgroup leader can tell you more. You can join me. Give me your telephone number.”
There are many things one can hazard from this conversation. First the lines metaphor. Horizontal, vertical, perpendicular. Parallel? It probably means she comes from a non-traditional Church where the more common metaphor will probably be "Father""Lover""Husband or Wife" to describe relationships with the external and internal world. Either that, or she comes from a cellgroup with members from a Church which in recent years been active in spreading the “abstinence” message.
I was just wondering then whether her message to her friend is in fact useful.
The older looking one said; “We were discussing relationships during our cellgroup meeting. Between us and the external world and God. You know, like how our parent’s love is perpendicular and the relationship with boys are horizontal. And you know how our relationship with God is forever and vertical.”
As she was telling the younger looking girl this, her hands were drawing lines in the air. The older looking girl continued, “I am at the point now where my relationship with God is good. Celibacy. We are walking together. Sex will corrupt this relationship. Heaven and Hell are parallel lines. They will never meet. The relationship with God is like a vertical line. He knows what we are going to do every step of the way.”
The other young girl started giggling, and said, “So you not going to do that…ever..?” The older girl quickly said, ““Everyone does not seem right for me. Hah, I know how a single woman feel. Free of worries and horror. Besides, sex outside marriage is sinful. My cellgroup leader can tell you more. You can join me. Give me your telephone number.”
There are many things one can hazard from this conversation. First the lines metaphor. Horizontal, vertical, perpendicular. Parallel? It probably means she comes from a non-traditional Church where the more common metaphor will probably be "Father""Lover""Husband or Wife" to describe relationships with the external and internal world. Either that, or she comes from a cellgroup with members from a Church which in recent years been active in spreading the “abstinence” message.
I was just wondering then whether her message to her friend is in fact useful.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Taxi Touting : Greed and Naivety
Enforcement but is the underlying problem resolved?
I have read various lamentations by online folks "whacking" taxi drivers for touting. The result - mainstream media picked it up and it is now a serious issue. Frankly, I don't know what these people are angry about. The penalties are already very harsh - with loss of income and livelihood for very long periods. But yet taxi drivers are still taking the risk. The most immediate solution on the head of these people? Tighter Enforcement. Ridiculous if you ask me. I am not saying touting is right - or that law breaking ought to be encouraged. I think the situation is one of a combination of greed and naivety - rather than anything immoral or wicked.
Lets start with what I consider a reasonable assumption. I assume that the average driver works reasonably hard and attempt to earn as much as reasonably possible within the human spirit. With the recent rise in diesel prices, the average driver will have to work much harder. We also know a few things. Mercedes Cab drivers pay from $120-$150 a day for their rental. Compared to one of the cheaper options available ($90 SMART Volkswagen Touran), we are looking at a $900 monthly difference.
This $900 monthly should reflect a premium which Mercs cab driver can obtain somewhere. There are naturally some "advantages" which one can easily envisage from driving a Mercs. There are a class of taxi drivers which this will appeal to. For exmaple, many of these Mers Cab drivers are also part time insurance agent or property agents or have other businesses - where a Mercs will "help" their image.
Yet not all have a sideline. Most will have to rely on other sources of income. Some rich Corporates will hire them to drive special corporate folks around. They were also the choice of top notch hotels (5, 6 stars variety) when the hotel staff call a Mers cab for their choice customers (negotiated rate). Yet, the corporate/s in the new wave of cost cutting philosophy eschew from such "ostentatious" display and hotels realize soon enough their choice guests are not willing to pay so much even if they are choice customers, when the alternative is far cheaper and widely available. Then there is the boycott due to the bad reputation. Some Singaporeans now snide Mercedes Cabs and refuse to board it. I heard this is also the case for certain hotels. Touting = criminal = bad rep = image drop = less business.
Why then is anyone surprised/shock/disgusted that Mers Cab Drivers are the ones that are touting?
The situation is a result of naivety on the part of the Mercs Drivers because many of the Mercs Drivers who signed the contract with the Taxi Companies still believe that there is a "premium" on the "image". I think there still is, but it has definitely deflated to far less than $30 a day. In order to reflect that premium today ($30 a day), the Mercs Cab driver must do 4 to 5 trips per day more than the average cab driver. To ask the average Mercs Cab driver to work so much harder than the average driver which we assume already works reasonably hard today will be very difficult. Sure, they will have no choice when the enforcement kicks in or take greater risks (which means asking for more during touting).
We could also price how much "risk" costs for them to make it worth it. It is very important for the touts to avoid getting caught for a suitably long period for this to be profitable. That is probably the key reason why they don't take locals - because of that naive belief that locals are more prone to complain.
But as we have read, many indeed choose to do not tout rather than tout. So there is also the greed element to it. Compare that strenuous effort additional 4-5 trips a day to touting. Little wonder the quoted rate is 30-50 dollars. As long as the Mercs Cab driver gets one short trip on that rate a day, it will suitably reflect the premium he had paid for the cab. But this is not greed as we normally condemned it to be, this is not an attempt to become rich, but more akin to a hungry man stealing bread. Any more will be greed.
So enforcement has begun. This is very easy really.
"SINGAPORE: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has intensified its crackdowns on taxi drivers who commit offences. It caught 41 taxi drivers committing offences during a four-day operation conducted at popular nightlife areas such as Clarke Quay, Boat Quay and Orchard Towers from October 24 to 27. Twenty-two of them were found touting; eight had overcharged; the rest had refused to pick up passengers."
So it is indeed, as I suggested already, a very common practice. And despite enforcement, is the underlying problem resolved? So I think we must give them some advantages. I suggest that perhaps some authority like the Airport give them some privileges (like special queues for Mercs Cab) which will indeed reflect their premium, etc. Then it will help reduce the incentives to tout. Or else in the long run, it will just mean there will be less Mercs Cabs, and hence less cabs on the streets.
I have read various lamentations by online folks "whacking" taxi drivers for touting. The result - mainstream media picked it up and it is now a serious issue. Frankly, I don't know what these people are angry about. The penalties are already very harsh - with loss of income and livelihood for very long periods. But yet taxi drivers are still taking the risk. The most immediate solution on the head of these people? Tighter Enforcement. Ridiculous if you ask me. I am not saying touting is right - or that law breaking ought to be encouraged. I think the situation is one of a combination of greed and naivety - rather than anything immoral or wicked.
Lets start with what I consider a reasonable assumption. I assume that the average driver works reasonably hard and attempt to earn as much as reasonably possible within the human spirit. With the recent rise in diesel prices, the average driver will have to work much harder. We also know a few things. Mercedes Cab drivers pay from $120-$150 a day for their rental. Compared to one of the cheaper options available ($90 SMART Volkswagen Touran), we are looking at a $900 monthly difference.
This $900 monthly should reflect a premium which Mercs cab driver can obtain somewhere. There are naturally some "advantages" which one can easily envisage from driving a Mercs. There are a class of taxi drivers which this will appeal to. For exmaple, many of these Mers Cab drivers are also part time insurance agent or property agents or have other businesses - where a Mercs will "help" their image.
Yet not all have a sideline. Most will have to rely on other sources of income. Some rich Corporates will hire them to drive special corporate folks around. They were also the choice of top notch hotels (5, 6 stars variety) when the hotel staff call a Mers cab for their choice customers (negotiated rate). Yet, the corporate/s in the new wave of cost cutting philosophy eschew from such "ostentatious" display and hotels realize soon enough their choice guests are not willing to pay so much even if they are choice customers, when the alternative is far cheaper and widely available. Then there is the boycott due to the bad reputation. Some Singaporeans now snide Mercedes Cabs and refuse to board it. I heard this is also the case for certain hotels. Touting = criminal = bad rep = image drop = less business.
Why then is anyone surprised/shock/disgusted that Mers Cab Drivers are the ones that are touting?
The situation is a result of naivety on the part of the Mercs Drivers because many of the Mercs Drivers who signed the contract with the Taxi Companies still believe that there is a "premium" on the "image". I think there still is, but it has definitely deflated to far less than $30 a day. In order to reflect that premium today ($30 a day), the Mercs Cab driver must do 4 to 5 trips per day more than the average cab driver. To ask the average Mercs Cab driver to work so much harder than the average driver which we assume already works reasonably hard today will be very difficult. Sure, they will have no choice when the enforcement kicks in or take greater risks (which means asking for more during touting).
We could also price how much "risk" costs for them to make it worth it. It is very important for the touts to avoid getting caught for a suitably long period for this to be profitable. That is probably the key reason why they don't take locals - because of that naive belief that locals are more prone to complain.
But as we have read, many indeed choose to do not tout rather than tout. So there is also the greed element to it. Compare that strenuous effort additional 4-5 trips a day to touting. Little wonder the quoted rate is 30-50 dollars. As long as the Mercs Cab driver gets one short trip on that rate a day, it will suitably reflect the premium he had paid for the cab. But this is not greed as we normally condemned it to be, this is not an attempt to become rich, but more akin to a hungry man stealing bread. Any more will be greed.
So enforcement has begun. This is very easy really.
"SINGAPORE: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has intensified its crackdowns on taxi drivers who commit offences. It caught 41 taxi drivers committing offences during a four-day operation conducted at popular nightlife areas such as Clarke Quay, Boat Quay and Orchard Towers from October 24 to 27. Twenty-two of them were found touting; eight had overcharged; the rest had refused to pick up passengers."
So it is indeed, as I suggested already, a very common practice. And despite enforcement, is the underlying problem resolved? So I think we must give them some advantages. I suggest that perhaps some authority like the Airport give them some privileges (like special queues for Mercs Cab) which will indeed reflect their premium, etc. Then it will help reduce the incentives to tout. Or else in the long run, it will just mean there will be less Mercs Cabs, and hence less cabs on the streets.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
