Know What You Are Defending, Mr Khaw
[h=2]Know What You Are Defending, Mr Khaw[/h]
July 9th, 2012 |
Author: Contributions
MND boss Khaw Boon Wan had spoken (‘Khaw defends NParks’ purchase of $2,200 foldable bicycle‘).
Did Khaw really understand NParks’ justification on their purchase? Let me summarise them,
1) NParks cited buying foldable bikes will increase staff productivity.
2) I quote word for word, the reasons that NParks gave on their choice.
With that, Khaw concluded,
Productivity
In the article, Mr Khaw explained that a foldable bicycle was chosen because such bicycles “would eliminate the need for an office van to transport the bikes and the staff to the areas of their daily rounds”. The NParks staff would also be able to carry them onto buses and trains where necessary.
How does staff travel faster and further riding on bicycles the whole day, “using public buses and trains where necessary”, as compared to a company van dropping staff and bikes? If you are talking about cost cutting, maybe. You can make that van driver jobless and save a good few grands per year. Fair. Productivity? Pure cycling is faster than a van reducing most distance for the staff? Public buses and trains? Increased productivity? This is Brompton, not Nimbus 2000. Some people have to go back to school. Especially you, Mr Khaw.
At least do some studies and provide some facts instead of spurting some airy figures on national newspaper, people. This isn’t the Industrial Revolution, even the Millennium had came and went. People are not receiving drones as before.
Choice
Just because only one vendor responded to the tender, we have to accept their bid? If NEA or AVA tenders for company cars and BMW happens to be the only vendor who offered a fleet lower-than-retail price, are we going to see health officers doing their rounds in BMWs? Do you know what you are talking about, Mr Khaw?
Have you questioned NParks about the specifications? What kind of routine NParks staff have to go through everyday for the need of such specifications? What are the specifications in the first place? Please be transparent and release them. There will be many Singaporeans who are more than capable to find you a fitting substitute with a competitive price. First, please run through the feasibility studies to find out of the specifications are over-stated.
Lastly, if there wasn’t a budget of around S$2,200 set for each bike, how can a bid be accepted whether or not there was one participating vendor? Where did the extra money come from if the intended budget was lower? Who was the person who approved this purchase, the Parks Management Director or NParks’ CEO? We need the answers that the media failed to supply.
Maintenance
Do you know how many common bicycles you can buy with that budget, Mr Khaw? You guys have spent S$57,200 on bicycles. How many common bicycles costing S$100 each you can buy with that budget? 572 bicycles. You can get so many of these that you can virtually plant one bicycle all over Singapore. Since NParks staff claimed that they will use public transport, there will always be one bicycle waiting for them at every corner of Singapore to assist them with their daily patrol. Do we have 572 parks in Singapore? You can have 3 bicycles per park, spaced strategically if you like, even in small neighbourhood parks.
Will 26 finely crafted bicycles costing S$2,600 outlast 572 common bicycles costing S100 each? Want to make a bet how many bicycles of each category are left standing after ten years of usage? Tell me these Brompton bicycles come with a lifetime warranty. Tell me how cheap Brompton imported spare parts cost and how easy it is to replace worn parts? Any commoner with a slight mechanical aptitude could service a common bicycle. Even sending the bicycle to a heartland mechanic will not break anyone’s bank. Less maintenance, you are having a laugh.
Conclusion
“It looks like NParks has bought the right equipment.”
Looks like.
Looks like Mr Khaw was not really sure. Come on, do you think we are really disputing the fact that NParks needs foldable bicycles? There are many good reputable foldies out there which cost less than one grand each. Talk to Mr Brown, the cycling nut. He should be more than happy to be your sales consultant. It doesn’t even take much effort to acquire a model that looks better than that thing NParks bought. Talk about creating a hip image for the company!
If productivity and convenience is what NParks wanted, give them one of these electric scooter:
Electric scooter is much cheaper and gives more productivity.
It is much lighter than a lousy foldie. You can take as many public buses and trains as you want. It is small and handy and can go up to 35km/h, covering a maximum distance of 60km per charge. How are these specifications compared to NParks’ needs?
You can get one of these for US$200 a piece. How many of these can you buy with S$57,200? Don’t get me started, Mr Khaw. Don’t like electric stuff because it costs more to run? I’ll love to see you replacing the tens of buggies parked in Botanic Garden with foldable bicycles.
.
A Singaporean in Australia
* The author blogs at http://asingaporeanson.blogspot.com
[h=2]Know What You Are Defending, Mr Khaw[/h]
MND boss Khaw Boon Wan had spoken (‘Khaw defends NParks’ purchase of $2,200 foldable bicycle‘).
Did Khaw really understand NParks’ justification on their purchase? Let me summarise them,
1) NParks cited buying foldable bikes will increase staff productivity.
2) I quote word for word, the reasons that NParks gave on their choice.
“Brompton was picked because only one vendor responded to the tender with a bid price lower than the listed retail price of the same bicycle.”
3) While a Brompton bike costs more than foldable bicycles with similar specifications, Mr Khaw said cyclists told him the bike was durable and would require less maintenance after heavy usage.
With that, Khaw concluded,
“It looks like NParks has bought the right equipment. However, it also looks like NParks might have gotten a better deal if there was greater participation in this quotation.”
I’ll tell you, as a citizen of Singapore, why you should not accept this slipshod justifications by NParks and Khaw’s support of his underlings despite an obvious weak understanding of what was going on.
Productivity
In the article, Mr Khaw explained that a foldable bicycle was chosen because such bicycles “would eliminate the need for an office van to transport the bikes and the staff to the areas of their daily rounds”. The NParks staff would also be able to carry them onto buses and trains where necessary.
How does staff travel faster and further riding on bicycles the whole day, “using public buses and trains where necessary”, as compared to a company van dropping staff and bikes? If you are talking about cost cutting, maybe. You can make that van driver jobless and save a good few grands per year. Fair. Productivity? Pure cycling is faster than a van reducing most distance for the staff? Public buses and trains? Increased productivity? This is Brompton, not Nimbus 2000. Some people have to go back to school. Especially you, Mr Khaw.
At least do some studies and provide some facts instead of spurting some airy figures on national newspaper, people. This isn’t the Industrial Revolution, even the Millennium had came and went. People are not receiving drones as before.
Choice
Just because only one vendor responded to the tender, we have to accept their bid? If NEA or AVA tenders for company cars and BMW happens to be the only vendor who offered a fleet lower-than-retail price, are we going to see health officers doing their rounds in BMWs? Do you know what you are talking about, Mr Khaw?
Have you questioned NParks about the specifications? What kind of routine NParks staff have to go through everyday for the need of such specifications? What are the specifications in the first place? Please be transparent and release them. There will be many Singaporeans who are more than capable to find you a fitting substitute with a competitive price. First, please run through the feasibility studies to find out of the specifications are over-stated.
Lastly, if there wasn’t a budget of around S$2,200 set for each bike, how can a bid be accepted whether or not there was one participating vendor? Where did the extra money come from if the intended budget was lower? Who was the person who approved this purchase, the Parks Management Director or NParks’ CEO? We need the answers that the media failed to supply.
Maintenance
Do you know how many common bicycles you can buy with that budget, Mr Khaw? You guys have spent S$57,200 on bicycles. How many common bicycles costing S$100 each you can buy with that budget? 572 bicycles. You can get so many of these that you can virtually plant one bicycle all over Singapore. Since NParks staff claimed that they will use public transport, there will always be one bicycle waiting for them at every corner of Singapore to assist them with their daily patrol. Do we have 572 parks in Singapore? You can have 3 bicycles per park, spaced strategically if you like, even in small neighbourhood parks.
Will 26 finely crafted bicycles costing S$2,600 outlast 572 common bicycles costing S100 each? Want to make a bet how many bicycles of each category are left standing after ten years of usage? Tell me these Brompton bicycles come with a lifetime warranty. Tell me how cheap Brompton imported spare parts cost and how easy it is to replace worn parts? Any commoner with a slight mechanical aptitude could service a common bicycle. Even sending the bicycle to a heartland mechanic will not break anyone’s bank. Less maintenance, you are having a laugh.
Conclusion
“It looks like NParks has bought the right equipment.”
Looks like.
Looks like Mr Khaw was not really sure. Come on, do you think we are really disputing the fact that NParks needs foldable bicycles? There are many good reputable foldies out there which cost less than one grand each. Talk to Mr Brown, the cycling nut. He should be more than happy to be your sales consultant. It doesn’t even take much effort to acquire a model that looks better than that thing NParks bought. Talk about creating a hip image for the company!
If productivity and convenience is what NParks wanted, give them one of these electric scooter:
It is much lighter than a lousy foldie. You can take as many public buses and trains as you want. It is small and handy and can go up to 35km/h, covering a maximum distance of 60km per charge. How are these specifications compared to NParks’ needs?
You can get one of these for US$200 a piece. How many of these can you buy with S$57,200? Don’t get me started, Mr Khaw. Don’t like electric stuff because it costs more to run? I’ll love to see you replacing the tens of buggies parked in Botanic Garden with foldable bicycles.
.
A Singaporean in Australia
* The author blogs at http://asingaporeanson.blogspot.com
