Want to Fcuk, But Donch Dare to Fcuk FAPee TRAITORS. Result? Half-Fcuk Letter.

[makapaaa]

Jul 22, 2010

A question of communication
Why a fairer fare policy is facing undue criticism

<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
I REFER to last Thursday's editorial ('Fare system deserves fair chance') and Second Minister for Transport Lim Hwee Hua's comments to Bukit Gombak residents ('Fare changes: Look at the big picture'; July 12).
I welcome the new fare policy which is fairer than when transfer penalties were imposed.
However, there is debate and unhappiness on the ground. Many commuters believe they must pay more now.
This unhappiness can be traced to the Land Transport Authority's (LTA) estimate that one-third of commuters will have to pay 31 cents more a week on average, while two-thirds will save 48 cents. How did LTA derive these figures? What evidence was used in formulating them? Is it true in reality?
In implementing new policies, the Government must communicate better publicly how such policies are formulated and evidence collected, how estimates are calculated and whether estimates are on target.
These will help the public understand policies better and generate quality debate and feedback.
The same is true of transport operators. SMRT chief executive officer Saw Phaik Hwa stated last month that at its most crowded, each passenger train carried 1,400 passengers, which is less than the crush load of 2,000. How were calculations done? How was evidence collated? Do the figures hold during morning peak hours?
Explaining these details can narrow contrasting perceptions of commuters and transport providers and generate a more productive discussion of service quality.
Ultimately, there must be more transparency over formulation of estimated statistics, on which so many important decisions are based.
Elvin Ong

 

[makapaaa]

Jul 22, 2010

A question of communication
A quality chief executives must demonstrate

<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
IN AN extract of his speech ('Fish rots first from the head'; March 3), CapitaLand chief executive officer Liew Mun Leong described a CEO as an officer who must ultimately be responsible for service excellence in the company.
So I commend the chief executive of DBS Group, Mr Piyush Gupta, on taking responsibility for his company's service standards ('We failed you, DBS chief apologises to customers'; July 14).
In his apology for the recent disruption in banking and ATM services, one can infer a resolve to set things right. Mr Gupta also laid down the service standards customers would require of DBS, saying: 'You have every right to expect uninterrupted services 24/7, 365 days a year from us.' I hope he will deliver on that promise.
By contrast, SMRT CEO Saw Phaik Hwa's cavalier and insensitive remarks ('SMRT: Tighter security will not mean higher fare'; June 27) about crowded trains leave one wondering about commitment to improving service standards.
It also makes one wonder about SMRT's customer charter, which promises, among other things, safety, security, comfort and openness to customer feedback.
The recent security breaches at SMRT's Changi depot could not have underscored this more emphatically.
The importance of having a CEO who does not merely pay lip service to service is further heightened in the case of SMRT, where there are wider implications of overcrowded stations and trains.
Teo Kok Thye