meaningful weekend
Sunday, August 29, 2010
as my ord date draws closer, i find myself busier during weekends...with meaningful things. my to-do list is getting longer and longer, and i wish for more time during weekends to complete them, one by one.
for now, apart from my regular reading, it's planning for my melbourne and taiwan trip. planning is tedious but fun, and i'm really looking forward to these trips...provided i can still book my tickets for taiwan.
on a seperate note, i wanted to comment on the private tuition industry in singapore. but as my book in time nears, i guess i will have to leave it for next week...
another 4 day week. hope it will be a fast one. =)
for now, apart from my regular reading, it's planning for my melbourne and taiwan trip. planning is tedious but fun, and i'm really looking forward to these trips...provided i can still book my tickets for taiwan.
on a seperate note, i wanted to comment on the private tuition industry in singapore. but as my book in time nears, i guess i will have to leave it for next week...
another 4 day week. hope it will be a fast one. =)
travel.
Monday, August 23, 2010
i've just booked tickets for my melbourne trip with my bmt section mates, and will be booking tickets to my taiwan trip soon. as i was planning for both trips, i realise how important it is to bear in mind what the purpose of the trip is; an attempt to squeeze too many activities or goals into one trip will end up making it a wasted one.
and so, i will be busy with planning both holidays for the next couple of weeks. i suppose it's a good thing, at least i'm doing something productive. and of course not to forget, my overseas college applications. that, i'm still undecided.
moving on, there are a couple of topics that i wanted to comment on, but i'm just lazy to think in depth. i guess i will just use the 'touch-and-go' method here...
1. the distance-based fares.
after its implementation, there are people who complain that their travel expenses have increased (i'm one of them). i must say that no new policy will benefit everyone; it's always the case of subsidizing one group of commuters to benefit another. in the past, it was those who traveled by direct buses who benefited and those who made transfers who are penalized - what they call the transfer penalty. today, with the new system in place, the transfer penalty is removed and the whole fare system is made 'fairer' by calculating travel fares based on distance. while this may sound logical to me, i think it's important to note that the idea of 'fairness' is highly subjective; what may seem fair to one person may not be the case for another. in the past, the fare system was unfair to those who made transfers. today, the system is made fairer by calculating the fares based on distance, such that those who make direct trips pay the same as those who make transfers, provided the distance travelled is the same. however, more often than not, the direct trips often travel over a longer distance than transfer trips. moreover, there is not enough incentive (sufficient bus services that offer transfers and long waiting time) to attract commuters to benefit from this new system. is this still considered as 'fair'?
another controversial point is the conditions that come along with this distance based fares. let's not talk about the time limit of 2 hours (whether or not this time limit is realistic is another topic to argue about) and the maximum number of 5 transfers. the one that i think is really ridiculous is the mrt fares - how they are not based on distance travelled alone, but based on the shortest distance travelled, which includes walking time from one platform to another. with more mrt lines being built, our mrt system will get more complex, so much so that it will be difficult for a commuter to figure out which is the shortest available method to get from one place to another. the conditions that come along with the new fare system does not help to simplify things. instead, its lack of clarity on how walking distance and time taken to travel will result in commuters paying more if they pick the wrong choice. there are two options available - come up with a system that will conveniently tell commuters which is the shortest route to take when travelling from one place to another (which will cost money), or simply remove the time-factor.
yes, i simply cannot stand how profit-hungry public transport operators are in Singapore. and their lack of transparency in the methodology used to obtain their statistics to support the new fare system is not helping. i agree that there are people who benefit, and those who benefit will not call to say that 'i've benefited from the system' as much as those who complain that they have to pay more. but if the general consensus is that more people are paying more than paying less, then something is wrong with the new system. to be fair to LTA, I will give this system more time before my next comment.
2. YOG
and so, i will be busy with planning both holidays for the next couple of weeks. i suppose it's a good thing, at least i'm doing something productive. and of course not to forget, my overseas college applications. that, i'm still undecided.
moving on, there are a couple of topics that i wanted to comment on, but i'm just lazy to think in depth. i guess i will just use the 'touch-and-go' method here...
1. the distance-based fares.
after its implementation, there are people who complain that their travel expenses have increased (i'm one of them). i must say that no new policy will benefit everyone; it's always the case of subsidizing one group of commuters to benefit another. in the past, it was those who traveled by direct buses who benefited and those who made transfers who are penalized - what they call the transfer penalty. today, with the new system in place, the transfer penalty is removed and the whole fare system is made 'fairer' by calculating travel fares based on distance. while this may sound logical to me, i think it's important to note that the idea of 'fairness' is highly subjective; what may seem fair to one person may not be the case for another. in the past, the fare system was unfair to those who made transfers. today, the system is made fairer by calculating the fares based on distance, such that those who make direct trips pay the same as those who make transfers, provided the distance travelled is the same. however, more often than not, the direct trips often travel over a longer distance than transfer trips. moreover, there is not enough incentive (sufficient bus services that offer transfers and long waiting time) to attract commuters to benefit from this new system. is this still considered as 'fair'?
another controversial point is the conditions that come along with this distance based fares. let's not talk about the time limit of 2 hours (whether or not this time limit is realistic is another topic to argue about) and the maximum number of 5 transfers. the one that i think is really ridiculous is the mrt fares - how they are not based on distance travelled alone, but based on the shortest distance travelled, which includes walking time from one platform to another. with more mrt lines being built, our mrt system will get more complex, so much so that it will be difficult for a commuter to figure out which is the shortest available method to get from one place to another. the conditions that come along with the new fare system does not help to simplify things. instead, its lack of clarity on how walking distance and time taken to travel will result in commuters paying more if they pick the wrong choice. there are two options available - come up with a system that will conveniently tell commuters which is the shortest route to take when travelling from one place to another (which will cost money), or simply remove the time-factor.
yes, i simply cannot stand how profit-hungry public transport operators are in Singapore. and their lack of transparency in the methodology used to obtain their statistics to support the new fare system is not helping. i agree that there are people who benefit, and those who benefit will not call to say that 'i've benefited from the system' as much as those who complain that they have to pay more. but if the general consensus is that more people are paying more than paying less, then something is wrong with the new system. to be fair to LTA, I will give this system more time before my next comment.
2. YOG
There have been lots of complains on this widely advertised event. some are unhappy that MCYS had busted their budget more than twice, some demand an apology from Dr Balakrishnan, some are unhappy of the ticketing. Well, this is an inaugural event, there is bound to be some uncertainty to it. looking at how youths from around the world get to compete with each other in this rare opportunity and benefit from the experience and exposure, i'd choose to believe that the YOG has been beneficial for all the participants.
as for the budget - it remains a fact that they have busted the budget. some of the money spent may or may not be necessary, and it is a mistake on the ministry's part. but we have proven that we could host an international event well (look at India and the upcoming Commonwealth Games), and you could imagine if we flopped in this event. there may not be a YOG anymore - and imagine the lost to the participants! we made a mistake, we learn from the mistake, and we move on.
on the argument that this sum of money could be better used to help the needy - let us put this argument on the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. China isprobably be more in need of that kind of money to help the poor in the countryside than us. But remember, there are economic benefits that come along with the organising of this event. The spending by participants and the YOG staff all count as contributions to the economy, and this will trickle down to the needy eventually, through aid by the government in other forms.
Ticketing. I believe this was due to the kia si-ism of Singaporeans. When they realise that tickets are not snapped up fast enough, or for fear that the tickets would not sell, they sold most of the tickets to schools via MOE. of course, students are not able to stay throughout the event, and this will result in empty seats, which doesn't reflect well on us. they have corrected this by reselling the tickets, which I think is a good move other than the fact that it will mean double income for the organizers, which is unfair. I suppose the government needs to have more faith in the public - that Singaporeans will want to watch the Games and will buy tickets to watch them. Empty seats and lack of tickets really doesn't reflect well on us.
After reading so much on this hype, I think Singaporeans got lots to learn. We need to stop whining and complaining at every matter, and learn to look at things at the bigger picture.
as for the budget - it remains a fact that they have busted the budget. some of the money spent may or may not be necessary, and it is a mistake on the ministry's part. but we have proven that we could host an international event well (look at India and the upcoming Commonwealth Games), and you could imagine if we flopped in this event. there may not be a YOG anymore - and imagine the lost to the participants! we made a mistake, we learn from the mistake, and we move on.
on the argument that this sum of money could be better used to help the needy - let us put this argument on the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. China isprobably be more in need of that kind of money to help the poor in the countryside than us. But remember, there are economic benefits that come along with the organising of this event. The spending by participants and the YOG staff all count as contributions to the economy, and this will trickle down to the needy eventually, through aid by the government in other forms.
Ticketing. I believe this was due to the kia si-ism of Singaporeans. When they realise that tickets are not snapped up fast enough, or for fear that the tickets would not sell, they sold most of the tickets to schools via MOE. of course, students are not able to stay throughout the event, and this will result in empty seats, which doesn't reflect well on us. they have corrected this by reselling the tickets, which I think is a good move other than the fact that it will mean double income for the organizers, which is unfair. I suppose the government needs to have more faith in the public - that Singaporeans will want to watch the Games and will buy tickets to watch them. Empty seats and lack of tickets really doesn't reflect well on us.
After reading so much on this hype, I think Singaporeans got lots to learn. We need to stop whining and complaining at every matter, and learn to look at things at the bigger picture.
missing?
Sunday, August 15, 2010
been a long time since i posted.
it's getting more and more difficult to survive in camp, with the kind of 'intelligent' things i got to do. and i only realised that those were a 3SG's job. i'm not about to start ranting, so never mind...
had a great section outing on saturday. my bmt buddies never fail to cheer me up whenever we meet. haha. well, we decided on a backpacking trip to aussie, hope everything falls into place. it really sounds like great fun, with a group of awesome people. =)
before i get all emotional again, i wanna comment on the recent hype on the YOG games. although the government has exceeded its budget up to 2 times on this inaugural event, and there has been lots of negative feedback on the food served to the volunteers and how SAF personnel and students are 'activated' for the opening ceremony, i think the results of this event remains to be seen. After all, it's the first time the world is seeing such a big event hosted by a relatively small country. there's much anticipation and hope for it to be a success. so let us not jump into conclusions so quickly, and welcome this event with a open heart.
hmm. another long week in camp. with better and more meaningful things to do, i hope.
it's getting more and more difficult to survive in camp, with the kind of 'intelligent' things i got to do. and i only realised that those were a 3SG's job. i'm not about to start ranting, so never mind...
had a great section outing on saturday. my bmt buddies never fail to cheer me up whenever we meet. haha. well, we decided on a backpacking trip to aussie, hope everything falls into place. it really sounds like great fun, with a group of awesome people. =)
before i get all emotional again, i wanna comment on the recent hype on the YOG games. although the government has exceeded its budget up to 2 times on this inaugural event, and there has been lots of negative feedback on the food served to the volunteers and how SAF personnel and students are 'activated' for the opening ceremony, i think the results of this event remains to be seen. After all, it's the first time the world is seeing such a big event hosted by a relatively small country. there's much anticipation and hope for it to be a success. so let us not jump into conclusions so quickly, and welcome this event with a open heart.
hmm. another long week in camp. with better and more meaningful things to do, i hope.
inception
Sunday, August 01, 2010
i managed to find time to watch inception. and it was good enough to trigger this post.
i didn't particularly enjoy the movie; i found it more scary and overwhelming instead.
the concept of introducing a thought into your dream and subconscious mind, and allowing it to grow into something so strong that it cannot be removed at all...it's just too scary.
you see, throughout history, there had been many examples where a simple thought turned out to a radical and dangerous one, and much violence and conflict ensued. even for myself, i've been preoccupied by a certain thought for many years and until today, i have trouble trying to eradicate it.
i'm still at a loss of words now. we know how powerful thoughts can be, how thoughts can evolve into action and how actions can eventually evolve into habits. yet how it is portrayed in the movie...the mere reality of it is...overwhelming.
maybe i have lost my touch in words. or my ink doesn't flow anymore. whichever the case, we cannot and must not belittle the power of a single thought. it may or may not be expressed in words; it may be just floating somewhere in your subconscious mind. but when it decides to find a place in reality, you may find that the thought has planted its roots for so long a time that it is impossible to eradicate.
i didn't particularly enjoy the movie; i found it more scary and overwhelming instead.
the concept of introducing a thought into your dream and subconscious mind, and allowing it to grow into something so strong that it cannot be removed at all...it's just too scary.
you see, throughout history, there had been many examples where a simple thought turned out to a radical and dangerous one, and much violence and conflict ensued. even for myself, i've been preoccupied by a certain thought for many years and until today, i have trouble trying to eradicate it.
i'm still at a loss of words now. we know how powerful thoughts can be, how thoughts can evolve into action and how actions can eventually evolve into habits. yet how it is portrayed in the movie...the mere reality of it is...overwhelming.
maybe i have lost my touch in words. or my ink doesn't flow anymore. whichever the case, we cannot and must not belittle the power of a single thought. it may or may not be expressed in words; it may be just floating somewhere in your subconscious mind. but when it decides to find a place in reality, you may find that the thought has planted its roots for so long a time that it is impossible to eradicate.