There used to be a time when the minority may suffer because of the implementation of some policies. However, when it comes to distance-based fares, it seemed like the majority will suffer as "only 4 in 10 will benefit from it" - if the report below is anything to go by. Another article also highlight that the hub-and-spoke system is the way to go. In simple English, it means having more transfers to get to your destination.

In fact, according to analysts, the hub-and-spoke system can be as effective as direct services and the Ministry for Transport seems to believe in it. In the event that they do buy into the idea, commuters will end up having to do more transfers to get to their destinations. In such a scenario, direct bus services may jolly well become "premium services", which belong to a separate tier of bus fares. Simply put, commuters will end up paying "premium fares" for "premium bus services". In SBS, there’s already the "Express", "Fast Forward" and "Premium" services which serves this group of commuters.

Eventually when the transport system in Singapore adopts the hub-and-spoke system, more people will end up having to do more transfers because some direct services will either be removed or be rebranded as "premium services". When this happens, then more than "4 in 10" will benefit from distance-based fares because there will be more transfers. Statistically, the ministry can use this to prove their point in the future that distance-based fares will then benefit the majority of commuters.

As for the rest of the commuters who believes in having less or no transfers, there will be the premium bus services who will serve them. These commuters may end up paying more for for their journeys. In such a scenario, the fear of benefiting only the minority of the commuters in a distance-based fare system will then be unfounded. Eventually the transport companies may benefit from such a system too because some of their current direct bus services will end up becoming premium services which they would then be able to charge more for. As for the "revenue loss" resulting from distance-based fares, I would say that "benefit" is relative and when premium bus fares go up, then any fare lower than the latter fares are "beneficial" to the commuter. Commuters will then have to decide if that "few minutes saved" from a premium bus service is worthy of the premium fares they pay.

At least it will still be cheaper than taking a taxi. =)

Distance-based fares ‘fairer way to go’

But GPC deputy head is worried about six in 10 direct-service users having to pay more

By Yeo Ghim Lay & Maria Almenoar

CHARGING public transport fares based on distance travelled is a much fairer way to go, say commuters and members of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport.

At present, a commuter who transfers between buses or from a bus to a train pays more compared to someone who uses a direct service that travels the same distance to get to the same destination.

On Thursday, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) announced that under a new fare structure to be phased in by next year, both commuters will pay the same fare.

Calling distance-based fares ‘fair and equitable’, GPC for Transport deputy chairman Ong Kian Min said: ‘A commuter might want to avoid a certain stretch of road that might be congested, and this gives him the option to choose his route.’

However, he has reservations about how six in 10 commuters who take direct services might wind up paying more.

MOT had explained that a reduction in fares for those taking transfer routes will lead to a loss of revenue for public transport operators, and this would have to be shared by both operators and commuters.

Disagreeing with this, Mr Ong said: ‘This is not justified…fares should be maintained for those taking direct services now. I would like to know why the operators cannot absorb the cost first and let the system settle down first?’

MOT believes four in 10 commuters will end up paying less with the new fare structure, and Singapore is not alone in going down this road.

Seoul introduced distance- based fares as well as bus service reforms in 2004 and commuter behaviour changed as a result of the reforms, said MOT.

Hoping for a similar result here, it said that a number of commuters choose not to make journeys involving transfers now because of the transfer penalty.

‘So with through fares, more people will take transfers,’ added a ministry spokesman.

Commuters who have to make a transfer to get to their destination will benefit the most with the change.

Financial analyst Grace Lau, 25, who takes a bus from her home in Upper Serangoon before transferring to a train to get to her Shenton Way office, said: ‘Commuters shouldn’t be penalised for the route they choose as one could be faster than the other but the distance might be the same.’

But it is not so clear if the new distance-based fare system will motivate commuters to change their travelling habits.

While a commuter might have several options - either through a direct service or transfers - to get to his destination, the distance for each must be the same for fares to be uniform.

Many commuters also said that travelling time and convenience are just as important as the fare, when choosing a route.

Food stall assistant Sally Lim, 53, said: ‘I prefer taking a direct service instead of transferring from one bus to another. It can be very inconvenient.’

While commuters like Madam Lim are choosing to stick to their tried-and-tested route for now, a revamp of the land transport system still under way could see more direct services being withdrawn.

Transport Minister Raymond Lim had said in January that transfers are a key feature of a hub-and-spoke transport system, which commuters are set to see more of in the years ahead.

This means fewer direct services, which are considered inefficient and expensive.

Commuters can expect better service as a result as MOT has set public transport operators a new target - 80 per cent of commuters must complete their journeys within an hour, by 2015, up from 71 per cent now.

ghimlay@sph.com.sg

mariaa@sph.com.sg

Source: Straits Times Interactive, http://www.straitstimes.com/Singapore/Story/STIStory_256987.html

And a primer on the hub-and-spoke system:

Transfers key to hub-and-spoke transport system

By Christopher Tan, Senior Correspondent

THE fare restructuring exercise announced by the Ministry of Transport on Thursday throws up two key questions.

Why is it embarking on this monumental task? And what does it mean for public transport commuters?

To answer these questions, we need to go back in time, before there was an MRT network. Bus commuters paid full fare for each and every trip they made. There was no such thing as a ‘transfer rebate’.

When MRT trains started rolling in 1987, bus services were changed to integrate better with the rail lines. Because of that, people lost some direct bus services, and more needed to make transfers.

Hence, in January 1991, transfer rebates started - 25 cents for adults and 10 cents for children and students. This was to lessen the cost burden of changing from bus to bus, bus to train or vice versa.

The keyword was ‘lessen’, not ‘remove’.

Seventeen years on, the Government feels the cost burden of making transfers should be removed. The new thinking is that fares should be based on the distance of the journey - regardless of whether transfers are involved.

As right as that sounds, it is not the complete rationale for undoing a 17-year practice.

There are other practical considerations - like capacity. As the population grows, more buses need to be deployed. The best way to deploy them is through a hub-and-spoke model. While we have some semblance of a hub-and-spoke system today, it needs to be enhanced.

As Transport Minister Raymond Lim noted in one of his first speeches early this year, a hub-and-spoke system ‘is the right model for our public transport system’. The alternative is to have many direct services, which cannot work in a compact city.

He cited an example: ‘Let us take 20 origins and 20 destination points with a hub in the centre. With a hub-and-spoke system, you will have 20 buses going into the hub from the origins and 20 buses leaving the hub to the destinations, or 40 bus services to run this system. Take away the hub, replace it with direct services, and you will need 400 bus services.”

A hub-and-spoke model is cost-efficient and, if executed properly, just as fast as direct services.

Transfers are part and parcel of a hub-and-spoke system. And hence the move to make transfers far less punitive.

The ambition to go hub-and-spoke goes hand in hand with the planned liberalisation of the bus market to allow entry of new players.

This will happen after the Government takes over as central route planner.

What will all these mean to the commuter? In a nutshell, he will have to learn to live with more transfers. It is highly possible that the pattern of travel will involve bus to train or vice versa. Bus-only commutes will be far less common when new MRT projects like the Downtown Line and Eastern Region Line come onstream by around 2020.

Will it cost more? For some, yes. Others, no. But if a hub-and-spoke system is more cost-efficient, it should not cost more to commuters on the whole compared to one with more direct services.

But implementing it well is key. The hope must be that with more operators joining the fray, and with the Government playing its role as central route planner well, the commuter should be served better.

christan@sph.com.sg

Source: Straits Times Interactive, http://www.straitstimes.com/Singapore/Story/STIStory_256991.html

Article extracted on 13th July 2008

My friend and I revisited this topic today and I asked if she was for or against organ trading. Her answer was quite straight forward; she was for it - only if no lives are being sacrificed in the process because it is pointless to sacrifice a life just to save another one. Some people might be thinking - it couldn’t be that the donor would want to sacrifice his life in exchange for money that he couldn’t spend, would he?

Well, not exactly. However, we do know that there are already syndicates which are harvesting organs (legal or otherwise) for sale in the black market. Yes, that darkens everything, doesn’t it - the existence of syndicates that goes round harvesting for organs. Remember all those chain emails that you used to get that warns you about being drugged in a pub and waking up only to find yourself in a tub of cold water and a note that tells you to call 911 (or 995 in Singapore) immediately because your life is in danger? Yes, these emails depict of the dark scenario that may happen if syndicate activities were to go up. They warn of people getting drugged and having their organs stolen from them.

Of course, many of us shrug them off as being urban legends, but these could jolly well be true one day. However, just before you think that I am trying to convert you to be against organ trading, you might want to think through a few questions first.

Now, imagine if you are on dialysis, 3 times a week, 4 hours each time. Imagine if you have to be on the waiting list for an average of 9 years. Imagine spending 12 hours each week on the dialysis machine, over 600 hours a year and more than 5400 hours over 9 years. If you are a regular graduate paid about $150 for a 10 hours work-day, that’s about $15 per hour, which means your opportunity cost is about $81000. If your dialysis costs $1200 per month, that works out to be about $14400 per year and $129600 for that 9 years. Adding that up, that’s about $144000 (that’s one hundred and forty-four thousand) in total costs just waiting for a donor kidney; meaning, there’s no guarantee that you don’t have to wait beyond 9 years, and providing nothing happens to you while waiting on that dialysis machine.

Someone comes up to you, makes an offer of $30000 for someone else’s kidney excluding his medical well-being. Let’s put in another $20000 for hospitalization and medical fees for both of you. $50000 for a kidney - will you take it?

Perhaps you have integrity and feel that you are young and can wait. You feel that the time spent on the dialysis machine is nothing compared to someone losing his kidney over money. Moreover, you don’t know the circumstances leading to the donor giving up his kidney. Now, let’s assume that the donor himself comes up to you, and makes you an offer. Same figure, but no middle man. Every single cent you give him goes to his pocket.

Still not convinced?

Let’s just say without your money, the potential donor might just starve. He has a sick mother to take care of and needs money for the medical treatments. Your money will do him good. Even if you are half way into the waiting list, $50000 is still much less than how much you’d have to spend and that gives you and him a new leash of life. If you don’t take his kidney, he may never find another suitable recipient. His family suffers and you continue your wait. A wait that may see no end.

Instead of putting things in such a morbid light, let’s look at it from the pure economic aspect. Organ trading is now illegal because money is involved. If you take the money out of the equation, then it becomes "an act of kindness". Do you, as a waiting organ recipient, really expect to receive an organ for free? Would you be "thick-skinned" enough to receive an organ for free even if you have the means to compensate the donor for it but are not doing it because "organ trading" is against your morals? How about taking a back seat and rethinking about the whole thing again.

Of course, if organ trading becomes legalised, the syndicates may have more business and perhaps what’s said in the earlier chain emails might come true. People might really start waking up to find one or two of their kidneys, or their liver, or any other harvestable (editor: there’s no such word as "harvestable", but you know what I mean) organs missing. That is over the line, but if syndicates are involved, then there’s nothing to stop potential recipients from hunting down organs through the syndicates; legal or not. Of course, some will think that if organ trading is legalised, potential recipients will not feel that bad paying for an organ. There is, however, a difference between paying and seeing the donor, and just buying an organ.

That’s where legislation should step in.

With the recent upheaval on the organ trading cases, some countries such as India are toughening laws on organ transplants, requiring recipients to bring along their donors when seeking treatment in India. As in the article below, farmers are being duped of their organs by syndicates for small amounts of money. While I am not in any position to comment, at the end of the day, a holistic approach has to be taken. What’s written here is just meant to provide different perspectives to a problem that will continue to run its own course in the black market.

India gets tough on organ transplants

It will toughen laws so that foreigners seeking treatment must find donors from their own country

By P. Jayaram, India Correspondent

NEW DELHI - INDIA plans to tighten its organ transplant laws and put more curbs on foreigners who come for such operations.

Under proposed amendments to the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, foreigners, who make up 30 per cent to 40 per cent of these transplants - mostly kidney and liver - would need to find donors from their own country.

India has also proposed enhancing jail terms and fines for violations of the Act.

The move comes six months after a multi-million-dollar kidney transplant racket was busted in Gurgaon, an affluent Delhi suburb.

The racket involved a network of doctors, nurses, a clandestine hospital run from a three-storey house and mobile testing labs.

Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss said then the government would amend the organ transplantation Act to enhance penalties for the illegal organ trade.

Under the Act, only immediate relatives - parents, siblings, spouses - can donate an organ to the patient. It also allows a person to donate organs ‘by reason of affection or attachment towards the recipient or for any other special reasons’, a clause that experts say is grossly misused.

The amendments propose doubling the jail term for doctors, donors and recipients involved in illegal organ transplants from five to 10 years, and raise fines from 10,000 rupees to 500,000 rupees (S$315 to S$15,800).

For others involved in running transplant rackets, the amendments propose to increase the jail term from seven to 10 years and the fine from 500,000 rupees to 1 million rupees.

According to health experts, the proposed amendments will make it mandatory for foreigners having the transplant operations in India to get donors from their own country, with proof that the organs are from their relatives, in line with India’s laws.

Experts say that one out of every 10 Indians - or about 100 million of the country’s one billion population - suffers from some form of kidney ailment, creating a huge demand for such transplants.

But the Gurgaon kidney racket showed that many foreigners were also coming to India for illegal transplant operations.

Investigations point to the involvement of politicians, bureaucrats and police, besides doctors, nurses and other hospital staff, in the racket.

It was also found that many poor labourers and farmers were duped into parting with their kidneys for 10,000 to 20,000 rupees each, and that the organs were then sold for 1.5 million to 2 million rupees.

pjay@sph.com.sg

Source: Straits Times Interactive, http://www.straitstimes.com/Asia/Asia/Story/STIStory_255581.html

Article extracted on 8th July 2008

Update: If you are looking for a list of the ERP gantries and the charges, you may retrieve it here. I was thinking of linking the one provided by Street Directory, which comes with pictures! But I scared kenna sued for linking…

I was on the PIE towards Tuas when I noticed a familiar pair of pillars being raised near the KPE exit. Yes, I was right. It is part of the familiar structure that we all lovingly know as the ERP gantry. It not just strikes fear in car owners, but ordinary folks like myself who need to flag the occasional taxi in a rush. Speaking of which, I tend to make myself heard whenever I pass an ERP gantry…

In a taxi… talking to taxi uncle when the taxi goes under the ERP gantry

ERP: *beep*

Me: Ouch…

Uncle: Bitten by ERP ant ah?

Not funny, taxi uncle; not funny at all. Indeed, every time I pass by a gantry, I remember the millions that the government has spent building them. At the back of my mind, I kept wondering on one question: How do they recover their Return On Investment. Well, I am only being logical - when the government spends money, I am sure they will want to get something good out of it - and it’s only natural that they do; if only they put in as much, or more vigilance when investing in overseas projects and businesses - some of which had been in the red for quite a while. Of course, it’s all part of a business decision and that risks have to be taken. So, what really is the business decision behind the ERP gantries? If the minister claims that they are losing more money than gain, then there has to be some gains that they are getting, else it just doesn’t make sense to build that many gantries.

Now, this is probably one of the most uninsightful posts of all because I seriously have no idea. Some have claimed that the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) that car owners have to purchase returns the money into the kitty, but there is, of course, no substantial proof. However, if Mr Lim Swee Say’s words are anything to go by, then the government suffers a net loss of S$40 million based on the supposed fact that they will collect S$70 million a year from the ERP increase while at the same time, losing S$110 million due to the 15% reduction in road tax (Source: AsiaOne Motoring, http://www.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20080625-72781.html).

Of course, nothing is mentioned on the road tax in following years.

So, is the government really serious in reducing congestion? If they do, then why don’t they nib the problem at the bud and reduce the number of COEs issued every fortnightly? Reading on another article gave a better insight; that the government is progressively shifting from vehicle ownership taxes to usage charges. This means that there is a chance when road taxes will hit a minimum - but that’s also when we pay ERP charges not just for congestion control, but as a means of road taxation. In simpler terms, the honey will come later.

On a bigger perspective, the government is laying grounds for a future method of road taxation, where literally, every road pays. They pay the government, that is. eventually, there will still be road tax, albeit a minimum sum, but the moment you drive on major roads, that’s probably when road taxation starts since it’s supposed to be part of a usage charge.

In the mean time, the government or LTA is probably used to the initial complaints that they hear every so often whenever they declare a raise in ERP charges or erections of new gantries. They have a bigger goal in mind and that is to move towards usage charging eventually. Everything else is secondary for now.

Of course, PR blunders are hard to miss whenever the government or agencies try to find a logical explanation for their actions. This comes in the form of a newspaper article which was first published in The Business Times on 23rd June 2008 (Source: AsiaOne Motoring, http://www.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20080623-72438.html). It was on how ERP actually helps businesses, and it said:

‘ERP changes are necessary to manage congestion effectively,’ Mr Yam (editor: Mr Yam is the LTA Chief Executive) explains . ‘Faster travel times lead to overall lower transport costs and ultimately help businesses to remain competitive. Congestion also adversely impacts family life as people spend more time on the roads.’

I thought this was a rather catch-22 statement. At the rate things are happening, faster travel times can only be achieved if ERPs are implemented, which in turn increases the cost of operation of businesses. This will have a spill-over effect which will see some businesses switching to public transport, which need not necessarily lead to faster travel times since there is now more people on public transport. There are many ways to remain competitive, and if we assume that travel timing is the same across all companies (since all of them are using the same roads as each other), the other way to do so is to offer competitive pricing. If faster travel times is achieved through ERP - which increases the cost of operation… then where does the competitiveness come from?

Of course, what LTA got right is on the part that congestion adversely impacts family life as people spend more time on the roads. However, having longer ERP timings may also mean that more people spend more time in office just to avoid paying - which in turn means family life is also affected. Public transport? Well, it’s just as congested now although I am happy that they have improved on the frequency of the trains. The difference between now and then is that now, we have lesser people waiting on the platform, but the trains are just as packed. I guess it really depends on where you are taking the trains from.

Now, I wonder when the next transport fee hike is coming…

Expect to see more of these gantries in coming months

New KPE will have 16, taking grand total from 60 to more than 80

By Christopher Tan, Senior Correspondent

EVEN as motorists cope with five fresh electronic road-pricing (ERP) gantries along the Singapore River and extended operating hours at others in the city from this week, more gantries are set to come onstream.

Besides the half dozen announced for spots along roads such as Commonwealth Avenue, Alexandra Road and Serangoon Road - to go up by November - 16 more are planned for the new Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway (KPE), which will run 12km from East Coast Parkway in the south to Tampines Expressway in the north. Three quarters of it will run underground.

When it opens fully on Sept 20, it will have the most ERP gantries among all roads here.

According to a Land Transport Authority (LTA) spokesman, however, they will not all be switched on at the same time, unless the average speed dips below 45kmh in the tunnels.

The new gantries form part of a massive ERP project the LTA recently awarded to MHI Engine System Asia, a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

Worth $83 million, the contract includes 27 new gantries, all to be up by this year, the replacement of some older gantries and maintenance works.

The cost is higher than the $80 million spent on Singapore’s 60 existing gantries, the first of which went up 10 years ago.

Asked about the huge expenditure, the LTA said construction and materials costs had risen over the years. Each three-lane gantry now costs $1.5 million, compared to $1 million before, said the spokesman.

The expansion of the ERP network will see almost 90 gantries here by the end of the year.

Five gantries went up in areas such as Toa Payoh Lorong 6 and Geylang Bahru in April. Like those for the future KPE, it was decided they would only be switched on if traffic speeds dipped below the 45kmh threshold for expressway speeds. All have since been switched on.

The 45kmh threshold will be adjusted over the next few months. To stave off ERP, 85 per cent of vehicles will have to attain the optimum speed, instead of half the vehicles now.

‘For safety reasons, it is essential that we keep traffic in the tunnel smooth-flowing,’ the LTA spokesman said of the KPE.

Asked if that meant ERP on the KPE may be operational over weekends as well, the spokesman said no decision on that had been made.

But retired traffic planner Joseph Yee expects the KPE gantries to be switched on before long. He explained that when the LTA conducted traffic forecasts using computer simulations, it found that without congestion pricing, ‘the KPE would be jammed quite soon after it opened’.

Mr Yee expects the Marina Coastal Expressway (MCE) now being built to have ERP too. The $2.5 billion MCE is a 5km underground road connecting the KPE and ECP to the Ayer Rajah Expressway. It is due to be completed by the end of 2013.

Motorists are not looking forward to the fast-expanding gantry network.

Said housewife Beverly Wong, 38: ‘That is terrible. Food and fuel prices are increasing. This isn’t helping.’

To ease the pain, a 15 per cent cut in road tax will kick in this month; public transport services have also been beefed up to make buses and trains a more viable alternative.

Editor of Torque motoring magazine Lee Nian Tjoe, 30, expects some drivers to be priced out, but he says the majority will continue driving into ERP areas.

Aircraft sales engineer Ng Tzong Sheng, 30, says he does not need to drive into ERP zones, but he wonders whether ‘average speeds’ could be improved by better synchronising traffic lights and carrying out roadworks only during off-peak periods.

christan@sph.com.sg

Source: Straits Times Interactive, http://www.straitstimes.com/Prime%2BNews/Story/STIStory_255258.html

Article extracted on 7th July 2008

Back in the old days not too long ago, people were commenting how the liberalization of diesel-vehicles would be a good alternative to petrol-powered cars given that diesel engines are way more advanced than yesteryears and that it is not as pollutive as it used to be. Lobbyers were possibly eyeing on the fact that diesel costs much lesser than petrol back then - by as much as 60 cents per litre; and one of the legislative issues holding back ownership of diesel-powered cars was the high tax that is imposed on these vehicles. In fact, it was reported that the Singapore government should look into relaxing the rules and

SINGAPORE is an acknowledged leader in transport management - but its policy on diesel-fuelled cars is increasingly looking antiquated.

While the Republic’s Certificate-of-Entitlement (COE) quota system to control vehicle growth and its Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system to manage vehicle usage have set the pace for other cities, Singapore is lagging behind in its policies towards diesel-powered cars.

Singapore’s rules for diesel engines were set many years ago when diesel was a dirty fuel. The modern diesel engine and fuel is actually very clean, even compared to gasoline engines.

Current policies, however, do not take that into account. While most commercial vehicles are diesel-powered, few private passenger cars are, with owners discouraged by high charges.

Private users of diesel-driven cars must pay a diesel tax on top of a road tax, which is six times the road tax, or four times for a Euro IV-compliant diesel car. Not surprisingly, only seven out of the 470,000 cars sold here last year run on diesel. This is in sharp contrast to many developed countries, where there is an even greater emphasis on being green. In Britain last week, the government launched a major campaign to promote greener driving, and its underlying message was that a diesel car was the best option as it would travel at least 20 per cent further than a similar car using an equivalent amount of fuel. Almost half the new passenger cars in Europe run on diesel.

It is notable that Japan, which has also frowned on diesel cars, has signalled that it is now prepared to give diesel a second look, given the advancements made in diesel technology. Diesel-powered cars, of course, are not the only alternatives to petrol-driven cars.

Hybrid vehicle technology, which couples the internal combustion engine with an electric motor, will play an increasingly important role as costs come down and as hybrid technology becomes available on a broader range of vehicles.

And the government here has been receptive of hybrids and other vehicles powered by alternative fuels. It offers a Green Vehicle Rebate worth 40 per cent of the Open Market Value (OMV) - or the base value - of a vehicle that can be used to offset the upfront taxes, in order to help motorists who are willing to switch to environmentally friendly vehicles, such as CNG, electric and petrol-electric hybrid cars.

But it can be argued that diesel-fuelled cars, because they are far more advanced in development compared to hybrids or other alternative fuel-driven vehicles, offer the best immediate alternative to petrol-driven cars. Indeed, major manufacturers like BMW, Mercedes and Audi have taken the diesel engine to petrol-beating heights. New-generation diesel engines are not only as clean as petrol engines but also more efficient.

Singapore - which prides itself in having a flexible policy-making regime that keeps pace with changing developments - should consider re-evaluating its stand on diesel.

Source: One Motoring, http://www.asiaone.com/Motoring/Motorworld/Others/Story/A1Story20070813-21739.html

However, diesel price has now crossed the $2 mark, bringing the prices of diesel closer to that of petrol, with it just being 22 cents cheaper than the lowest grade of petrol. This, together with the high tax that comes with private ownership of diesel-powered vehicles, makes diesel-powered vehicles less attractive for private owners. In addition, this will affect taxi drivers as well as bus operators who will be hard-pressed to raise prices again.

This will of course have adverse effects on commuters who depend on such transport, particular school children whose parents have seen at least 2 school bus fee hikes in the past year. In the evening news, it was reported that bus operators may look into transporting workers of companies instead - which may be more profitable than transporting school children.

Parents have also hinted at the possibility of taking their kids off school bus transportation during the last fee hike. With the price of diesel crossing the $2 mark, they may well have to brace themselves for it.

Diesel price crosses $2 mark

By Jason Hau

THE cost of diesel breached the $2 mark yesterday after the latest round of pump price increases.

Shell raised the pump price of petrol by five cents and diesel by 10 cents at 4pm.

When contacted last night, none of the other three petrol companies - SPC, Caltex and ExxonMobil - had raised its prices yet.

With the latest adjustments, a litre of 98-octane petrol costs $2.36 before discount. The 95 grade is now $2.286, with 92-octane at $2.253. A litre of Shell’s V-Power premium fuel will set you back by $2.479.

Diesel, which is used by buses, taxis and heavy vehicles, now costs $2.033, the first time it has crossed the $2 mark.

Diesel prices have gone up by 80 cents in the last 12 months, a 40 per cent increase and the most among the five main fuel variants at pump stations here.

This latest round of price hikes is the 14th since July last year. It comes as crude oil prices reached another record high of US$146.69 (S$199.35) per barrel two days ago.

A Shell spokesman explained that crude oil prices are ‘not the only reason for petrol price increases’. Strong demand from China and India, as well as the increase in costs for transport, and political volatility in some oil-producing countries are all factors that may affect pump prices.

The higher diesel prices are likely to affect the transport sector the hardest.

Private bus operators had earlier been reported as saying that they have raised prices by at least 10 per cent in the last few months, largely because of rising diesel prices.

Mr Lionel Lim, owner of Bedok Transport, foresees hard times ahead for the whole private bus industry as a result of the increasing prices.

However, as the bus operators have only recently raised prices, Mr Lim said that it is ‘unlikely that they will increase (prices) again’.

Motorists here are also switching to cheaper alternatives. Some have given up their cars and moved to public transport. Others have downgraded to smaller cars or two-wheelers.

A growing number have opted for hybrid- engine cars or retrofitted their cars to run on compressed natural gas.

Source: Straits Times Interactive, http://www.straitstimes.com/Singapore/Story/STIStory_254799.html

Some may think that CNG may be a good alternative, but there are other issues to consider before mounting that gas tank in your boot - including the space required, as well as the breaking even with the cost of installing a CNG tank into the vehicle. Attempts to extract more information from the CNG website at http://www.cng.com.sg returned an "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage" error. However, it is understood that the conversion to a CNG tank costs approximately S$3.5k and there is also a bi-fuel (CNG + petrol) option available. More information of this is available at http://www.scantruck.com.sg/cng.htm.

However, it took an ST Forum writer to figure out that the price of CNG had been going out. Quoting his letter to the ST Forum:

… I am surprised that the price of compressed natural gas (CNG) has also risen. Before May 1, the price of CNG at Mandai CNG station was $1.18 per kilo, after which it went up to $1.38. Less than two months later, Smart, which runs the Mandai station, has again raised its prices to $1.49. The CNG station ran by SPC at Jalan Buroh fared slightly better, with its prices rising to $1.38 only on June 15.

In addition, the writer, David Tan, asks if the government is doing anything to control the price hikes, stating that the price of CNG goes up every time there is a petrol price hike. To this, Paul Lim, GM of Sembcorp Gas replied that:

… the market price of CNG is pegged to the price of high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO), which is a derivative of oil. Over the last six months, the price of HSFO has increased by around 35 per cent, resulting in a corresponding increase in the cost price of CNG. Our company has absorbed the bulk of this increase at our retail outlets at SPC Jalan Buroh and on Jurong Island, and even today, the increase in our pump price of CNG remains significantly lower than the 35 per cent increase.

Moreover, Paul Lim stated that "even with the adjusted prices, in terms of energy equivalence, Gplus CNG is still roughly 45 per cent cheaper than diesel and almost 60 per cent cheaper than 95-octane petrol". It is also interesting to note, in the statement above, that the company has absorbed the bulk of the 35% increase of HSFO at our retail outlets. I can’t help but wonder what is the margin that petrol companies and Sembcorp Gas works on, that allows the latter to absorbed the bulk of, mind you, a 35% increase.

Nonetheless, with prices going up across the board, and not sparing CNG, commuters may be forced to rely more on public transport - which is also not spared from the fare hikes but usually distributes the increase across a wider ridership. While the 3 to 5 cents per trip may not mean much to most of us, this works out to be about 12 to 20 cents on a 4-trip day, amounting to about $6 per month. I won’t do the math, but for the poorer families or those with more kids, this may work out to a hefty sum when combined with other hikes of products or services that’s affected by petrol prices (practically everything).

The implications are overwhelming but as a consumer, I can only brace myself and hope that any "bonus" from the government is good enough to cushion the impact. Getting your vote will also help cushion the impact. =)

ST Forum letter from David Tan:

Why has price of CNG gone up?

IN RECENT months, there was constant news on rising petrol prices, the reason given being escalating oil prices all over the world.

However, I am surprised that the price of compressed natural gas (CNG) has also risen. Before May 1, the price of CNG at Mandai CNG station was $1.18 per kilo, after which it went up to $1.38. Less than two months later, Smart, which runs the Mandai station, has again raised its prices to $1.49. The CNG station ran by SPC at Jalan Buroh fared slightly better, with its prices rising to $1.38 only on June 15.

Rising petrol and diesel prices are blamed on rising oil prices around the world, but what is the reason for the recent increase in CNG prices? Are Smart and SPC out to earn more profit now that CNG cars are fast increasing in numbers?

Is the Government doing anything to control such price hikes? On the one hand, the government encourages Singaporeans to use CNG cars by offering rebates, but on the other, CNG stations increase their prices whenever petrol prices go up.

Perhaps Smart and SPC can clarify their reasons for the increases as I do not recall any news about escalating CNG prices around the world.

David Tan

Source: Straits Times Interactive, http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_252535.html

ST Forum reply from Paul Lim:

Price of CNG pegged to that of oil derivative

AS THE operator of the Gplus CNG pump at SPC Jalan Buroh station, Sembcorp would like to thank Mr David Tan for his feedback last Saturdy on the price increase of compressed natural gas (CNG) (’Why has price of CNG gone up?’).

CNG is a relatively new fuel for Singapore drivers and the proportion of CNG drivers remains small. As Singapore’s first retailer of CNG, we would like more Singaporeans to consider switching to this economical and environmentally friendlier fuel.

In view of this, we have worked to keep the price of Gplus CNG affordable. However, the market price of CNG is pegged to the price of high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO), which is a derivative of oil. Over the last six months, the price of HSFO has increased by around 35 per cent, resulting in a corresponding increase in the cost price of CNG. Our company has absorbed the bulk of this increase at our retail outlets at SPC Jalan Buroh and on Jurong Island, and even today, the increase in our pump price of CNG remains significantly lower than the 35 per cent increase.

Nonetheless, readers may be interested to know that, even with the adjusted prices, in terms of energy equivalence, Gplus CNG is still roughly 45 per cent cheaper than diesel and almost 60 per cent cheaper than 95-octane petrol.

Hence it represents an economical alternative fuel for Singapore drivers.

Paul Lim
General Manager
Sembcorp Gas

Source: Straits Times Interactive, http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_253693.html

Article extracted on 5th July 2008

There had been recent rants by netizens on how our dearest foreign talents have been taking up jobs, and then settling down, and then having kids (yeah! achieve government’s goals) and finally decide that - hey, why don’t they settle down in Singapore as well. If I were the government, I may be extremely happy because it does seem like a plausible solution to an aging population in Singapore. Retaining them is of course another problem which… I am not prepared to look into yet. =)

Personally, I know 2 siblings who studied in Singapore for quite a while and they finally got their Permanent Residency (PR). They got their parents over (on some pass) and were thinking of getting their own flats. I was a little surprised because, if I am not wrong, singles under the age of 35 are not allowed to own HDB flats (government built apartments). At least that was true for Singaporeans. What follows is a whole chain of speculation and may not be substantial at all.

We (a few of us) guess that the only situation that allows unmarried siblings under the age of 35 to own any HDB flat is when their parents pass away. Of course, there may be 101 other clauses that allows them to own flats, but let’s just take a simplistic view first. The 2 siblings I know are definitely not at or over the age of 35 and their parents are still around - so what makes it so special?

Then we speculated (again) that it could be because they do not have Singaporean parents (Singapore Citizens or PRs), they could be deemed to be in the same scenario as Singaporean siblings whose parents are no longer around (we are not sure if migrated parents count - but it would seem a little weird that parents do not bring their kids along; unless of course you are talking about male children who have to serve compulsory National Service). Of course, at the end of the day, it might just be a single clause that simply allow PRs under the age of 35 to own HDB flats, but we were just trying to get the rationale of it.

So, does it mean that if the parents of the 2 siblings are Singapore PRs, they would not be able to own HDB flats? I am actually not sure, but I think it is highly probable. I am not good with HDB purchases, but does anyone here have any first hand experience on this?

We may not be totally accurate on the rationale part, but don’t you think we deserve a vote today? =P

More HDB homes sold to PRs

By Jessica Cheam

MORE permanent residents (PRs) in Singapore are snapping up Housing Board (HDB) flats to beat rising rents.

Latest figures from local property agencies show that almost one in five HDB flats sold recently went to PRs.

Housing experts attribute this to a combination of rising rents and low interests rates as the driver of this demand.

The number of flats sold to this group is a two-fold increase from a year ago, when PRs bought up 10 to 15 per cent of homes sold, said PropNex chief executive Mohamed Ismail.

Source: Straits Times Interactive, http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/STIStory_254529.html

Article extracted on 4th July 2008

There’s much much speculation that Mrs Lee Kuan Yew has rested in peace and the topic was brought up over the coffee table again. In fact, the news "leaked" out as early as 26th June 2008 in some popular forums. As the last news of her being admitted was announced 3 days after it happened (admitted to hospital on 12th May 2008, announced in papers on 15th May 2008), netizens have been using the 72 hours lag as a guidelines as to when news of her demise will come.

72 hours is long, gone, over and there had been no news. Although we spotted some ang chias along North Bridge Road yesterday, we don’t think it’s got anything to do with Mrs Lee. So… shall we all move on? News will be news when it’s newsworthy. =)

But seriously, we are really so looking forwarded to it? Shadowfox highlighted some forums where this is apparently going on. Some hate her simply because she’s the wife of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, while others have grudges against her for setting up the Women’s Charter in Singapore. The apparent grudges for the latter was simply because the charter empowered "even into the most undeserving women who cheats in marriage and fully capable of fending for themselves".

This, of course is not necessarily true for all cases, bearing in mind that the initial purpose of the charter, extracted from Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women’s_Charter_(Singapore), was to:

… improve and protect the rights of females in Singapore and to guarantee greater legal equality for women in legally-sanctioned relationships (but not those of Muslims). Definitions of the rights of husbands and wives in marriage, as well as outlining legal potentialities with regard to divorce and separation, and the banning of polygamy are some of the major elements of the Act.

An amendment was passed to the Women’s Charter in 1996, which focused around rights regarding domestic abuse and matrimonial assets.

While some may argue that this is outdated as women are gaining more (very equal?) education and working opportunities that it should be abolished altogether. However, we have to remember that there is now another group of women coming into Singapore: foreign brides. This may of course open up another Pandora’s Box, where some think that foreign brides are here for another purpose; but I shall not visit that issue yet.

Essentially, the charter may be amended again, just like how car owners get their money back after scraping their cars. If we, according to the discussion forums in Straits Times Interactive, have such belief in the feedback system, I think the system will change gradually. Perhaps nothing drastic, but I think Singapore needs some time to adjust properly to a global change.

PS: For digging out whatever’s on the net (hey, it’s still quite a dig), have you cast your votes today? =)

—

Someone: Ya, cast already… but you didn’t say cast for who. kekeke… =P

Editor: Yikes! Please cast for Simply Jean. =P

The authors at Simply Jean made a couple of oversights in the blog posts that were being made public over the past 2 weeks. In part 1 of a 2 part series, we will address the first oversight - which was the post on Myanmar’s cyclone situation, where Myanmar’s effort was compared against China’s in the post dated 13th May 2008. We felt that the statement "to Myanmar: What use is a country when eventually people go against you? Or are you planning to suppress them regardless?" was rather unfair to the junta in Myanmar.

Firstly, Myanmar, being a sovereign country, has their own constitution and ways to run the country. The cyclone was indeed a sad incident that left many people in the country homeless, hopeless and hungry. While other countries may offer food and financial aid, doing so does not mean that Myanmar has to abide by the wishes of the helping countries. I’m sure Myanmar is trying to help those whom they have access to. While it had been reported that many are not receiving help, I would like to quote Foreign Minister George Yeo that "countries which want to help others struck by disasters must respect their autonomy" and that "(Yangon) have been quite clear about their policy that the rescue effort will be principally their own". I’m not sure if this meant not responding to any call for aid since rescue effort will be principally their own. For a moment, I thought this means that Myanmar have their own means of printing more money and growing more rice. Overnight.

While most of us feel for the hopeless victims, we have to understand that just as we do not want the United States government to come in and decide how much aid each destitute gets, the junta will not be happy if they allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to go into their country and creating a mess out of everything. Remember, mess is relative.

For this oversight, the authors of Simply Jean will like to apologise to the junta in Myanmar and the people in the country for being insensitive to their constitution by joining in the condemnation of the rescue efforts. Or the lack of it.

Beijing - Countries which want to help others struck by disasters must respect their autonomy, said Foreign Minister George Yeo yesterday.

He was speaking to Singapore reporters about the ongoing relief efforts in earthquake-hit Sichuan and cyclone-battered Myanmar, at the end of a four-day official visit to China.

While China has shed its traditional reluctance and welcomed relief teams from Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Russia in recent days following the 7.9-magnitude quake on Monday, Yangon is still turning away international aid agencies from Myanmar and keeping foreigners out of the disaster zone two weeks after Cyclone Nargis wreaked devastation.

But any outside help is always going to be supplementary only, since the key responsibility lies with the government of the affected country, said Mr Yeo.

‘We must respect the autonomy of countries and accept the fact that they know local situations better than foreign people ever can.’

Tomorrow, Asean’s foreign ministers will meet in Singapore to hammer out ways in which the regional grouping might help reclusive Myanmar in the aftermath of the cyclone, which has left at least 133,000 people dead or missing.

Playing down expectations ahead of the meeting, Mr Yeo said: ‘I don’t think the outcome will be a dramatic one because they (Yangon) have been quite clear about their policy that the rescue effort will be principally their own.’

Since Myanmar has been tight-lipped regarding the scale of destruction inside its borders, Asean needs to wait for Yangon to lay down what help it needs, he added.

‘We’ve extended our hands out to them and I’m quite sure that what they ask us to do, we will try to meet as much as we can.’

When calling on Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi yesterday, Mr Yeo briefed him on tomorrow’s meeting and raised the possibility that Asean and Beijing could look for ways to jointly help Myanmar, which is an ally of China’s.

Mr Yang welcomed Asean’s moves, said Mr Yeo.

Myanmar has accepted material aid but only a handful of aid teams from neighbouring countries - China, Bangladesh, India and Thailand - and nothing more, noted Mr Yeo.

Western countries feel much more should be done to help the victims, with some even suggesting that Myanmar should be force-fed aid, he added.

But he said: ‘I don’t see how this can be done because if we try to do that, it will only make the situation worse and it will increase the suffering of the people in Myanmar.’

Yangon is not the only country getting through a natural disaster on its own, noted the minister.

India dealt with the devastation of the 2004 tsunami on its own, as did Japan after the 1995 Kobe earthquake, he said.

Even as Myanmar struggles, the way Beijing is handling what’s been described as the country’s most devastating disaster since 1949 paints a contrasting picture.

‘You can see that they are completely on top of the situation,’ said Mr Yeo. ‘I believe they will emerge stronger, more united, more resilient.’

simcy@sph.com.sg

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 19th May 2008 dated 18th May 2008

It’s quite sad that Chengdu had been affected by the recent earthquake, which measured 7.8 on the Ritcher scale. As the scale is logarithmic, that’s about 600 megatons of TNT, or 2.4EJ of energy. In layman’s term, it’s one helluva energy to be released. More facts can be found here. and death toll is expected to hit the tens of thousands if aftershocks create more damage.

This calamity happened shortly after Myanmar was hit by a cyclone. However, unlike Myanmar, there’s sufficient resources in China for the rescue missions. Myanmar, till date, has only shown concern with pushing its own propaganda to its people, with little regards to the pleas to allow UN aids to enter Myanmar. Due to the delay in delivery relief to the people, diseases are expected to be rampant, which will probably see a sharp increase in the death toll should the government remain stubborn in its stance. To Myanmar: What use is a country when eventually people go against you? Or are you planning to suppress them regardless?

While it’s only Day 1 of the aftermath, China has responded promptly on its rescue missions. While Taiwan has offered aid, China showed no resistance in accepting help from a country that it is still at loggerheads with. If indeed China accepts help from the Taiwanese counterpart, I guess it says a lot of how China is willing to put aside pride and politics and putting their people first.

It’s sad that the cyclone and earthquake happened back to back, and what saddens me more is how one country is unwilling to set aside its propaganda for the good of its people. The junta in Myanmar is having a wrong sense of priority and I hope the people can wake up eventually. To all the people who suffered in the calamity, I offer my deepest condolences and prayers.

By now, most people people would have known that this blogger got jailed, but what I couldn’t understand is why he is insisting on fasting. He might feel that he has suffered an injustice, he might have felt that the "jail term" was unnecessary, he might feel that everyone should just believe him that "Yes! Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak and his wife are really involved!"; however, he should have known better.

He reminds me of Singapore’s Dr Chee, who has so far shown defiance to the government on a public front. It’s not that I am condemning or disagreeing with what they are doing - but I’m sure they know; I’m sure the people know - that it’s futile to go against a system; and in the midst of it, making live so miserable for themselves.

What’s the point of starving and probably dying in jail? They will just be a name down in history. If that’s what they want, they might just even be a little successful, for a short while - because their actions will not cause any revolution, will not cause any sudden reforms, nor will their actions cause any change in mindset of the general people.

Probably… some people might just have given up about the whole situation.

KUALA LUMPUR - A MALAYSIAN blogger in jail after writing an article linking a top leader to the gruesome killing of a Mongolian woman has begun a hunger strike, his wife said on Wednesday.

Raja Petra Kamaruddin, founder and editor of the popular Malaysia Today site, has been charged with sedition for implicating Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak and his wife in the October 2006 murder.

He refused to post bail set at 5,000 ringgit (S$2,182), opting instead to be locked up until his trial begins on October 6.

‘He is on a hunger strike. It is a protest. He is not guilty and he is being punished,’ his distraught wife, Ms Marina Lee Abdullah said.

‘The last time he did this, his liver was damaged. I don’t think he is going to last that long.’ Raja Petra has also refused visits by family members.

‘I don’t blame him but of course he’s my husband and… if he doesn’t want to meet even me, this means it is bad news,’ she said.

Pictures of the 57-year-old blogger looking defiant while behind bars at the court prison were this week splashed on the front pages of local papers.

‘I am not going to post bail. I don’t have the money,’ he told reporters in the packed courtroom on Tuesday.

If convicted, he faces a three-year jail term or a fine of up to 5,000 ringgit.

Blogger Ahirudin Attan, president of the National Alliance of Bloggers, said the ‘high-handed’ way in which Raja Petra was treated by authorities, threatened freedom of speech on the Internet.

‘Parties mentioned in his article should exercise their right to reply and debate with him over the issues instead of quickly resorting to sedition,’ he added.

Gayathry Venkiteswaran from Malaysia’s Centre for Independent Journalism said: ‘It is a systematic target against an individual who has risked his neck to expose issues of public interest.’

The government’s harshest critic, former premier Mahathir Mohamad - who has recently taken up blogging - has also denounced the charge against Raja Petra.

The high-profile case involving the killing of the 28-year-old Mongolian woman, Altantuya Shaariibuu, whose body was blown up with explosives, has grabbed headlines across the country since the murder trial began in June last year.

Mr Najib, who is expected to take over from Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as the country’s next premier, has denied any involvement in her death.

Two police officers from an elite force, whose duties included guarding the prime minister and Najib, were charged with the killing.

Analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, who has links with Najib and top government leaders has been charged with abetting the killing.

Malaysia’s Sedition Act, a carryover from British colonial times, broadly criminalises activities with ’seditious tendencies,’ including those that express anti-government sentiments. — AFP

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 8th May 2008

Mas Selamat has wrecked havoc after his escape from the detention center. It was a non-tested method but it worked and caught the national security off-guard totally. They were probably expecting him to bomb a building, hold an important person hostage (having said that, there’s a chance that the important person might be left to die - remember, nation above self), bomb more buildings, set the Istana (for our foreign readers, the Istana is where the President of Singapore reside - and unlike most countries, he doesn’t hold much power in reality except to pardon a prison’s life) on fire and the likes; but no, he did something worse.

He disrupted the lives of 4 million people. Well, not everyone is affected, but just look at the inconvenience he has caused - jamming up our causeway, making the immigration process horrible, wasting manpower on his escape and all. Speaking of which, this reminded me of the plot in the movie Vantage Point (spoilers alert!) where this suicide bomber bombed the lobby of the hotel were the U.S. President was staying so as to draw attention and manpower to ground zero so that the assassin has a chance to kidnap the president. I am just wondering if Mas Selamat’s escape is part of a bigger plan to terrorize Singapore.

At first, everyone was surprised that this even happened (is it a prelude to an April Fool’s Day joke?), but most were confident that at the end of the day, he would be caught in Malcom Park and everything will be back to normal. Then 24 hours came, 48 and 72. Still no sign of him. Security at exit points were increased, fingerprints now have to be taken of almost every single person that leaves Singapore - and we were so glad that we don’t travel to U.S. that often (U.S. immigration takes all finger prints of all visitors). The Home Team deployed men all over Singapore , particularly empty buildings and forested areas - yet, Mas Selamat remained elusive.

While it seemed that the Ministry is not giving Mas Selamat a chance, it’s only a matter of time before fatigue takes over. I mean - if Mas Selamat is in hiding, or dead, for 1 year, it’s either we have to "rely on accurate sources" to determine if he’s really dead or not in Singapore, or our guys will just literally die from fatigue. See? The terrorist kills a few good man without having to bomb himself up.

Amidst all these, some people in Singapore - and I am pretty sure that it’s just a handful, say 100 out of 4 million people, who are asking for someone to be responsible - with Mr Wong Kan Seng being the most popular choice. However, as most of the other 3,999,900 people can see, it’s really an honest mistake and therefore, no one has to be sacked. Some people also questioned about the choice of people who are seconded into the Board of Inquiry. Out of 3, at least 2 were somehow linked to the Police Force or the Home Ministry. These complaints were dismissed as noise.

It’s been almost a month since Mas Selamat has escaped - probably the same amount of time that detainees are devoid of toilet breaks. It’s strange that there are still no findings as to how Mas Selamat could have possibly escaped - not even the crawl-down-the-toilet-bowl conspiracy theory. Some even factored his escape through the use of black magic, or something more probable - digging really deep into the ground and coming up from the other side. It’s really a wonder how he managed to get out of a place that’s supposed to be tightly secured.

In the mean time, monetary awards are being put up by private organizations for any information leading to the arrest of the escapee. The Home Ministry, however, declined to do likewise because it does not believe in monetary rewards not to the tune of $30 or $3mil. Of course, being Singaporeans, no one will expect anything of this sort from the government. This is after what we expect. Thankfully, other Singaporeans are more innovative - with a duo promising INSTANT ORD (Operationally Readiness Date? a term used to describe the date that army conscripts are released from their 2 year national service) to any NSF (National Service Force? - a term used to describe army conscripts) who can lead to the arrest of the escapee. How they are going to convince the Defence Ministry to do so is anyone’s guess.

So… where’s the terror? Well, without doing anything substantial, Mas Selamat has created havoc in our once peaceful and serene city. Not only are the people inconvenienced - particularly at the causeway, but the armed forces are dragged into it as well, instead of preparing for war that can happen anytime.  Look at the causeway - 4 hours just to get across! Thankfully that doesn’t happen at the airports, so at least air travel is still a viable option (as I am typing, I hear truck loads of army personnel being deployed at Terminals 1,2 and 3 and the Budget Terminal; especially the Budget Terminal - where all the passengers are left to their own device).

However, there is some silver lining though. Now that crossing over the causeway is such a hassle, Singapore gets to keep all the expenditure to herself - i.e. money will no longer be spent buying cheaper essentials like oil, rice and sugar across the causeway and food connoisseurs will be subjected to the sometimes ridiculously priced India crabs at seafood restaurants. No cheaper petrol for the car owner who forgot to factor in fuel costs as a burden for his newly-bought-50-cents-per-step-on-the-accelerator BMW too - and with security this tight, it’s unlikely he can pass through immigration without getting his boot, bonnet and fuel gauge checked. Hack, they might even X-ray his car! Wait… isn’t this silver lining only for the government and none for the people? Darn…

In the meantime, all you complain-kings and complain-queens will just have to bear with whatever inconveniences that the government might decide to impose, even if you feel deeply that Mas Selamat could well be killed and buried in the detention center. After all, it’s all in the name of security. Failure to comply could jolly well land you in the detention center to keep the up-and-coming JI leader company; but if you are suffering from incontinence, you’d better consider twice about non-compliance because there will be no toilet breaks for you. Indeed, Dr Chee would be one of the last person that you’d want to model after. =)