WeeKee Today

technology and board games lover 
Filed under

rants

 

I want a Mercedes

Inspired by a slow Mercedes driver in the middle of 2 lanes who cut into my lane abruptly without signaling.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   rants  

Comments [0]

Why bitch about "chope-ing" seats?

I just don't get it. Why do some people like to keep on bitching about chope-ing of seats using packets of tissue papers? What is wrong about it?

It reminds me of the other silly campaign where we are deem ungracious for not clearing the table after use. People don't clear trays simply because the infrastructure weren't designed for it. There isn't any collection system nor are patrons expected to clear the trays. 

What has it got to do with being gracious? Should I offer to wash the dishes as wel l next time after my meals to show my super graciousness?


Now back to the issue of chope-ing of seats. What is so hard to understand that the packets of tissue paper is used to indicate that the seat is taken and the patrons have gone to queue up to get the food. It is not as if it is a prank by someone leaving tissue papers all over the place and trying to hog all the seats without using them. 

If the issue is about inconsiderate people who hog on to tables during crowded time, I can buy the argument that this practice is ungracious and should be stopped. However this isn't the case at all. People are just leaving an indication that the seats are taken so that everyone can quickly go to get their food and come back to the seats. What is wrong with that? 

The so called gracious rule is to get someone to stay behind to "look after" the table. This can be irritating as well. When I approach the table keeper asking if the seats are available, the person will just shake his head. At times it is hard to interpret if the seat is not available or is it not taken.The table keeper will then wait for the rest of the lunch mates to return before going to grab his food. By the time he return, the rest are halfway through their meals.

Then you have the situation where there are 6 seats taken and 5 people tcss while waiting for the table keeper to finish his meal. At the same time other patrons are surrounding them, waiting for them to get their ass off their seats. If that is the case, should we have a campaign to ask people to be "gracious" by eating faster so that other people can have the seats? Ok, I may exaggerate a little but I believe you do get my point. 

I have been in both situations. When I was working in the city area, food courts are always crowded. Lunch is usually a rush affair. You chope your seats, grab your food, eat and f**k off. Now that I am in more ulu areas, lunch is a less hurried affair. Someone will become a table keeper and the reason is likely because he has yet to make up his mind on what to have for lunch. After lunch some would sit around to tcss while others take their own sweet time to finish their meals and this isn't an issue because there are plenty of seats around.

Perhaps it is more gracious to have someone sit there, smiling and keep repeating "Sorry sir, these seats are not available. Thank you for your understanding and have a nice day." but in my opinion, chope-ing of seats isn't really a big deal.

Even if this is something that only Singaporeans do, there is nothing to be proud nor be ashame of. It might not be a practice in other countries but neither do Ang Mohs eat Kway Chap. We are just different and being different does not always equate to being ungracious.

Chope-ing of seats isn't the most gracious way but neither do I think that it is inconsiderate. Is it such a big deal that one needs to be so irked up that he needs to remove and discard all the packets of tissues that he come across? If chope-ing of seats is a disgusting trait, then I would say intolerance and causing unnecessary misunderstandings are much worse.

What are your thoughts?

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   life   rants  

Comments [12]

Thoughts on the Job Credit Scheme

This year budget debate is mainly around the Job Credit scheme. Some had described the Job Credit scheme as bold', 'innovative' and 'cleverly crafted'. We are just lacking the 'made in heaven' description.

There is no doubt that the scheme is interesting but it is really not that innovative. It is basically based on the same pro business approach that the country has adopted over the years. Save the businesses, save the world. The idea is that if businesses do well, every one of us will do well since it relates to employment.

To save the businesses, it is generally by increasing their revenue or decreasing the cost. The government can help businesses increase their revenue by having more government projects but there are limits in this approach. If you are running a sex toy shop, you can't expect that the government buy cartons of vibrators from you to help you in the revenue part right?

So the next approach is to help business cut down on cost. These could be done by squeezing the employees in terms of wage cuts or tax rebate for businesses, etc. Jobs Credit scheme is just one of the possible methods. Instead of cutting wages, government gives a certain amount of money (depending on the employee wages) to the businesses, helping them to cut down their cost. With the cost down, there is lesser need for businesses to cut jobs.

However there are some limitations to the scheme. Different businesses have different cost structure and wages is just want of the many cost drivers. In the face of changing demands, businesses are still likely to go ahead with retrenchment if they are having problems because from a bigger picture and longer term perspective, the cost savings from this scheme is insignificant. For businesses that are doing fine, then it is basically a bonus from the government which I doubt would translate into wage increases for their employees.

However this scheme does have merits in cases where businesses are hiring foreign workers due to lower cost. It is insane to expect Singaporeans to compete in terms of wage level because the cost of living that we have to bear is different. Hence the scheme may make it possible for Singaporeans to compete with foreign workers in certain jobs hence giving jobs to fellow Singaporeans.

No doubt the scheme provides a certain degree of boost to the economy but the key discussion in the budget debate is about the effectiveness of the scheme. For every $1 that the government spends, we definitely hope that there is a multiplier effect that leads to an increase of more than $1 in the GDP. If the scheme is not as effective, the government should look at other ways to spend the money. It could be schemes to help the retrenched instead of the businesses, spending to improve the transport infrastructure, reduce cost of living, looking at foreign labor policies, etc.


This is where I found the budget debate to be a great disappointment. MPs are asking questions if there is agreement that the job credit scheme helps and saying how the scheme helps certain companies. Of course the scheme will help since someone must be benefiting from the money that the government spends. The key question is on the effectiveness of the scheme which somehow the MPs just don't seem to get it.

In the debate, the MPs are more interested to prove that they are right and having redundant responses in showing how good the scheme. Some even go as far to suggest that the choice is either the jobs credit scheme or a cpf cut which I think is totally out of point. This isn't a black and white issue. This is an opportunity to take a critical look at the scheme and hopefully refinement can be made so that we make the best use of the budget. It was a total disappointment that not a single one of the responses try to address how to solve or clarify the limitations that were brought up.

Perhaps the job credit scheme is the best alternative that we have at this moment in time but I find it a pity that the MPs were not able to demonstrate their ability to listen and take feedback constructively and take this opportunity to build up the trust in their leadership. I would definitely wish that the responses from the MPs were better thought out and of a higher quality.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   rants  

Comments [2]

Transportation fares are not linked to diesel price. Really?

I am confuse. Sometimes It is really hard to understand what our extremely talented minsters are saying in their comments in the papers.

It wasn't too long ago that PTC allows the transport companies to raise the fares, citing higher electricity and diesel cost as the reason for the increase. With the drop in crude oil prices from the high of $120 to $40 per barrel, it is logical to think that public transport fares would drop too.

However today Raymond Lim, our talented transport minister states that fares are not directly linked to retail diesel price. I have no idea what he meant by that. Does he meant that there is no relationship, no correlation, not a significant, etc? Of course he knew that blur folks like me would not understand so he provide the following example,
"from 2007 to this year... oil prices went up 40 per cent, but fares went up just 0.7 per cent" [source]
 As you all can see there is definitely not directly linked to diesel price. It is only 0.7 per cent (not sure how he calculate this but since he is a talent he can't be wrong) increase instead of 40%.

But since they are not linked, doesn't it make sense to revert all the fares prior to the increase. After all oil prices went down by more than 40%? Then again, apart from being squeezed like sardines in buses that come late, what would I know about public transport compared to the talented Raymond Lim.

I suspect that the reason why there is no direct link between fares and diesel prices is that our talented Raymond Lim might have some secret high technology that is powering the buses and trains. It might be nuclear power, solar panel on the buses' roof or even wind power. But I think the most like technoglogy is a generator that could transform fart coming from the mouthass into methane that can use to power our transport system.

Let me wow you guys further with his talents and expertises. Although people are asking for reduction in fares, he has the foresight to answer a question that nobody asked. 

"About $1.2 billion just to get the buses and trains out. The money still must come from somewhere, right? It is about a 1.5 percentage point increase of your GST. So, now it is 7%. You want it to be free, do you want the GST to go up to 8.5% to run a completely free bus and train system?"
Aren't you amazed at what a good communicator he is and how he managed to get his point across? He is indeed one of those talents that Singapore can't do without.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   rants  

Comments [3]