Skip to main content

Taxi without Airbags: That is the maximum Desmond can offer.


Only u HG 不离不弃后港情8


Vehicle airbags have been around for more than 20 years. It is longer than the Hougang voters elected WP to represent them in the Parliament. Now almost all private cars in Singapore are equipped with airbags for safety reasons.  It really comes with a shock our taxis have no airbags – LTA does nothing about it, passengers don’t know about it except the taxi operators and tax drivers.

Both the operators and drivers know the situation but due to cost and rental factors, they remain silent as both want to save money.  So, the drivers have to risk their life and the only thing they can do is to drive carefully.  No matter how careful, accident is an accident.  So, the risk also extends to the passengers who have no knowledge about it.   

When Desmond said he was his own man and an independent man, was he the driver or passenger or operator?  Since he is part of the establishment, member of the PAP – the ruling party, he should have more knowledge than ordinary citizens – the passengers.  Will he inform the passengers there is no airbags in the taxi?    Does he see his duty to inform passengers the truth?  Or will he continue to co-operative with the operators to remain silence?

Desmond has yet to be elected and there is no way to prove his independence from the PAP.  Unless he is not a member of the PAP, a true independent standing in the by-election with his own political logo, then we can give credit to his words he is his own man.  However, when you look at the existing PAP MPs, who can be called independent?  Why Desmond makes himself so special?

Unfortunately, he is likely to be associated with the PAP.  Just like the taxi drivers, they will continue to rent the taxis from NTUC Comfort, SMRT, and others.  Even the drivers prefer to have airbags, even they voice out, but the ultimate decision will still be made by the operators (and the government).  This must be a well kept secret for more than 20 years and passengers have been subjected to such a risk without any knowledge.

Desmond has given a lot of promises to Hougang residents.  But will he provide all information openly to the residents? For whatever reasons, he will hide some information, as pointed by WP – his funding for his programs, his use of government facilities and money as an adviser, his wet market proposal, etc.

There are many similar cases of taxi without airbags in Singapore? If not for the recent unfortunate accident which claimed 3 lives, passengers may still be in the dark.  Taxi is a common transport mean and is used by many people.  In fact, due to its long hours on the road, taxi has higher risk than private cars and even public transport.  

Not necessarily big operators will install airbags.  Small operator (Prime) in fact has airbags for all its taxis:  

<<Prime Taxi, which has a fleet of 700, is the exception - all its taxis have airbags.And it will introduce a new Toyota Prius model which will be fitted with six airbags for front passengers and drivers by the end of this month.Its general manager, Mr Eric Ang, feels that continuous upgrades are necessary to ensure the safety of its drivers.He said: "Of course, it (upgrading of safety features in taxis) is costly. But our drivers' safety is more important."A check with other taxi operators here revealed that older models of taxis have no airbags installed.TransCab general manager Jasmine Tan had earlier told the media that its fleet of 1,890 older Toyota Crowns, which have no airbags, will be gradually phased out by 2014.Similarly, SMRT Taxis director Tony Heng said that its older models will be "replaced progressively with new taxis that are equipped with airbags". (TNP, 21 May 2012)>>

Why small operator can do it and big ones cannot or reluctant to do it? This is like asking town councils, why small TC like Hougang, Potong Pasir (under Chiam CS) and even Aljunied-Hougang can keep the towns clean and even reduces their maintenance charges?  Why the PAP TCs have to increase charges?

Small operators have to care about drivers’ safety then they can attract drivers to rent taxi from them. Of curse, they will also have to offer competitive rental.  This is how Hougang and Potong Pasir (under Chiam) TCs survived in the past. There is a human touch and caring for the people.  

Back to taxi without airbags, Desmond will not give you the full picture – not even telling you whether there are airbags or not.  If you don’t ask, that is fine Desmond will not provide you the information. If you ask, then Desmond will say I am only a driver, what can I do I am only earning a living? How can I fight the big operators and the union, can you expect them to do anything?

Hougang voters as well as voters in Singapore must realise that without airbags are OK if there is no accident.  However, should you be given the airbags information in advance as your rights whether you are passengers or not?  Desmond, likes the PAP government, will not answer you if you never ask. Not only that they will hide the truth, just like the immigration policy, population strategy, CPF, foreign scholarships, foreign talents, etc.

Just like the former SMRT CEO, had she disclosed everything in the COI? Or was she asked to answer details of the MRT breakdowns? The open inquiry has lasted so long and people have stated to forget about COI and the real meanings. 

From taxi without airbags, town management, to parliament, do you think Desmond as a PAP candidate can be different from other PAP MPs. Desmond is a unionist, why can’t he care about the safety of taxi drivers and the passengers at large?   He, after all, is still co-operating and assisting the taxi operators and the government.      

The most that Desmond can provide is a taxi without airbags.  You are safe and enjoy your trip if there is no accident.  If there is an accident, Desmond cannot provide the airbags to protect you.  You need to buy an insurance to protect yourself or you can act as a co-driver to remind the driver to drive carefully.  By now, you should know the co-driver and from whom to buy insurance.    

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...