Latest Forum Topics / User Research/Opinions | Post Reply |
&&&&&&&& PROFITS & PHILANTHROPHY &&&&&&&&
|
|||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
27-Sep-2010 09:42
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
WHAT does CRC want those between 13 years old and 16 years old to WATCH ? DO they have CONSCIENCE ? ? ? ? DO they have BLACK HEARTS ? ? ? ? Are there CONFLICTS OF PERSONAL INTERESTS [COPI] ? ? ? ? |
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
27-Sep-2010 09:36
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
She said the PG-13 suggestion would also be "helpful" to allow more audiences to watch a film that may otherwise be rated NC16. | ||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
27-Sep-2010 09:29
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
R21 films in heartlands?
#### Raffles 21 #### This is just one of the 80 suggestions by the Censorship Review Committee 05:55 AM Sep 16, 2010
SINGAPORE - The majority of the public may not approve of R21 films being shown in HDB town cinemas, but the Censorship Review Committee nonetheless recommended yesterday that such films be allowed in the heartlands, with restrictions on screening times and advertising.
The recommendation exemplifies the CRC's views on allowing "informed adult choice"; it also encourages debate between industry and community. CRC chairman Goh Yew Lin said a heartlands ban would simply drive people to download such films. A public outcry in 1991, when the Film Classification System was introduced, has kept R21 films to the city area, and they are also not allowed on video and subscription television. CRC's nationwide survey found 60 per cent of the public still do not want R21 films in housing estates, but only 42 per cent and 39 per cent were against R21 content on pay-TV and R21 videos, respectively. The results show an inconsistency in views, said Mr Goh. "If the product is available in one part of town ... and it's going to be available on Internet TV, which will be coming through your television screen before long, there should be no philosophical reason not to allow distribution through other channels," he said. This was among 80 proposals by the CRC, which spent nearly a year reviewing policies and frameworks. The 17-member committee, which included Films Consultative Panel chairman Vijay Chandran and Singapore Repertory Theatre artistic director Gaurav Kripalani, met 21 times and conducted nine focus groups. Their conclusion: Industry players, regulators and the community need to collaborate in content regulation to protect children, with "a mindset change involving greater trust and responsibility". Said Mr Goh: "The pace of change in new media is beginning to outpace our ability to cope from a regulatory perspective." "We need to move away from the prevailing reliance on Government as guardian and focus on the education and empowerment of parents to make appropriate and informed choices." To reach its long-term goals, the CRC has set out more immediate milestones. To empower parents, the committee suggested replacing the 100-website ban with a filtering service, offered by Internet Service Providers and, hopefully, subsidised by the Government. Mr Goh said people wrongly assumed the ban was adequate protection against unsavoury websites. The CRC also suggested harmonising and simplifying rating systems, where appropriate, so even laymen can understand. Among its recommendations to encourage industry to co- or self-regulate, the CRC suggested allowing the video industry to more efficiently self-classify videos up to a PG-13 rating, as a large volume of G and PG-rated content is submitted annually for classification. However, for the stakeholders to work together, there must be greater accountability and transparency in censorship decisions, believed the CRC. It proposed identifying any agency that has advised the Media Development Authority on a censorship decision, for instance. Singapore Internet Research Centre director Ang Peng Hwa lauded some recommendations, such as for the public to nominate advisory committee members and to harmonise ratings across platforms "provided they are the same content". But he had reservations on others. The CRC 2003 member said, "Public education is expensive. In Europe, there's some rethinking here. It may be cheaper and more efficient to simply regulate." Professor Ang pointed to little demand for parental lock systems for the Internet and TV: "I don't think we should try what has failed elsewhere unless we have good reason to believe our situation is different." To the CRC's suggestion of a regulatory framework that can be applied to any new media, he said new media forms should be allowed to develop first, as laws applied prematurely could become obsolete. While housewife Athena D'Souza, 48, was against having R21 content in the heartlands, "where there are more impressionable children" whose parents are often not home, a Cathay Cineplexes spokeswoman said it would "welcome the opportunity", as it offers more consumer choice and convenience. Cathay would be careful to implement measures for time-belting and advertising, "regardless of the location we're operating from", she stressed. She said the PG-13 suggestion would also be "helpful" to allow more audiences to watch a film that may otherwise be rated NC16. The Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts has received the CRC 2010 report and is expected to respond within a month. The report and feedback submitted can be found at www.crc2009.sg. |
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
25-Sep-2010 16:44
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
O V E R H E A R D : parents' vOIces On cOnseqUences Of "TEACH LESS LEARN MORE" - mOre teachers are speaking pOOr ENGLISH ? ? ? ? - mOre teachers dOn't knOw subjects [especIally SCIENCE] they are teachIng ? ? ? ? - mOre teachers are nOt gIvIng hOme wOrks ? ? ? ? - mOre teachers are nOt markIng schOOl wOrks sUbmItted ? ? ? ? - mOre teachers are nOt completing the textbook syllabus before the exam ? ? ? ? - mOre stUdents have deteriorated in their studies ? ? ? ? - mOre parents are worried and disappointed ? ? ? ? - mOre businesses for tuition centres ? ? ? ? - mOre expenditure for the family ? ? ? ? - mOre GST collected ? ? ? ? - increase in GDP ? ? ? ? WHY mInIstry Of education does not mail independent teacher assessment survey questionnaires to ALL parents at their home address for completion and return ? ? ? ? DON'T just pIck few parents recommended by the schools, principals themselves ? ? ? ? This approach is nOt INDEPENDENT ? ? ? ? |
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
25-Sep-2010 16:31
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Sep 25, 2010FOCUS ON GRAMMAR
Yes, teach primary pupils the rules earlyI AGREE that teaching English grammar should be reinstated in primary classes (Mrs Padmini Kesavapany, 'Reinstate grammar as a primary pillar'; Sept 18). The fundamental principles of grammar, if taught early, would make a sound foundation for speaking and writing correct and better English. But the Education Ministry must ensure that the teachers themselves are fully conversant with grammar. Old grammar textbooks are reliable and should be considered. Wren and Martin's High School English Grammar & Composition was used widely by many teachers in Singapore schools many years ago. Parents and tuition teachers found it useful as well in teaching grammar. I would also recommend that teachers and senior students be encouraged to refer frequently to the English Pronouncing Dictionary by Daniel Jones, to help them speak better English. English grammar is not the only subject whose reinstatement is overdue. To improve the standards of mathematics, oral arithmetic should also be reintroduced to Primary 1 pupils. Pupils today are too dependent on calculators. Doing oral simple addition, subtraction, division and multiplication would help pupils to sharpen learning capacity and make them self-reliant. N.T.S. Chopra |
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
25-Sep-2010 16:26
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
fIne prInt ? ? ? ? FRAUD tOOl ? ? ? ? WHY fIne prInt nOt BANNED ? ? ? ?
|
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
25-Sep-2010 16:24
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Sep 25, 2010No protection despite an InsUrance rIderRECENTLY, my car was damaged when my condominium's basement carpark was flooded. As my insurance policy with MSIG covered the total constructive loss, I received a claim equivalent to a new replacement car. But although I had bought a no-claim bonus (NCB) protector, the insurance firm told me that it would be reduced to only 20 per cent. I would be eligible for the full 50 per cent bonus only if I paid five times the previous premium with MSIG. Other insurance companies were charging only double the previous premium, with an NCB component of 20 per cent. What is the point of paying for an NCB protector when obviously there is no protection? How are customers protected when the reams of fine print contradict the perception they are given about full protection? I expect to pay a higher premium but I don't understand why I paid for an NCB protector, which is honoured only if I am penalised by having my premium raised by 500 per cent. Kelvin Pereira |
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
25-Sep-2010 15:05
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Goodness gracious? Campaigns to promote graciousness will not work Letter from Shasikala Kalai Silvan FIRST it was Phua Chu Kang, the yellowbooted contractor, and now it is the Dim Sum Dollies. One cannot help but wonder which local icon would be the next ambassador to teach us to be gracious. It has been over a week since the “Love Your Ride!” campaign was launched by the Public Transport Council to promote graciousness on public transport. The campaign features jingles by the Dim Sum Dollies which are played during selected times at stations and in trains and posters reminding commuters to queue up, move in and give up seats. In a survey conducted by the Land Transport Authority, one commuter felt it was a cheerful jingle and was entertaining, while another felt it was irritating and annoying. Some commuters even felt that the $400,000 campaign was a waste of money. Perhaps, the commuters surveyed were right indeed. How will repeatedly hearing jingles with phrases like “Makcik need your seat why you refuse?” and “Your attitude makes me want to scream my way home” change first-come-first-served mindsets? There have been previous campaigns but we come across commuters who pretend that they are asleep when they see a pregnant woman or an elderly person board the train. The point is, whether a commuter wants to give up his or her seat to someone who needs it more depends entirely on him or her. Will commuters become more gracious on hearing such jingles? If you have ever taken a crowded train and experienced being packed like sardines, no jingle can brighten your day or make you enjoy your ride. I strongly feel that no campaign can teach anyone to be gracious. Graciousness should come from the heart by practice and not by learning from jingles or posters. |
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
25-Sep-2010 14:57
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Saturday: 25 SEP 2010 TODAY ONLINE Staff cannot approach passers-by Letter from Phoebe Low Manager (Corporate Communications) Public Affairs & Corporate Social Responsibility Singapore Pools (Private) Limited THE temporary Singapore Pools booth in Change Alley (“Are these gambling booths allowed?”, Sept 24) was part of our contribution to the festivities surrounding the third Singapore night race. It was only operational during the season from Sept 20 to 24. The location was chosen for its proximity to the Singapore night race circuit as well as the higher concentration of night race visitors. Our responsible gaming framework disallows our staff to approach passers-by. Consistent with our policy of not promoting gambling, we do not offer sales commission, hence there is no incentive for staff to push sales. We thank Mr Yeo En Wee for bringing the matter to our attention. We have taken the opportunity to emphasise to our staff to adhere to our high standards of responsible gaming policy and practices at all times. |
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
24-Sep-2010 21:01
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Bugs in baby formula? Parents worry over recall Worried parents have bombarded the maker of Similac with phone calls and peppered Facebook and Twitter pages over fears about insects in the top-selling baby formula after millions of cans were recalled. |
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
24-Sep-2010 10:53
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
frOm the peOple tO the peOple WALK the TALK ACTIONS nOt SPEECHES
|
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
24-Sep-2010 10:50
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Facebook founder to give $133m to Public schools Facebook founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg will donate US$100 million ($133 million) to the public school system in Newark, New Jersey, It is by far the largest publicly known gift by Mr Zuckerberg and will be the first instalment in an education endowment he will be starting. The New York Times reported.Forbes His donation comes a week ahead of the release of the film magazine yesterday named him the 35th richest person in the United States surpassing Apple’s Steve Jobs, after his wealth grew 245 per cent to US$6.9 billion last year.The Social Network, a Hollywood take on the birth of Facebook that casts a harsh light on its founder. AFP |
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
22-Sep-2010 12:20
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
|||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
21-Sep-2010 21:00
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
CPF SMRA minimum interest rate extended for another year
SINGAPORE
In a statement yesterday, Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong said that, despite Singapore’s strong economic recovery, interest rates have remained low.
He added that a sharp drop in interest rates at the expiry of the four-per cent floor rate may impact CPF members who have yet to benefit fully from the economic recovery.
Since January 2008, SMRA savings have been invested in 10-year Singapore Government Securities (10YSGS), a market-based rate — plus one-per cent — for instruments of comparable risk and duration.
To provide for the transition, the Government had committed to the 4-per cent floor rate for SMRA interest up to last December.
This was first extended a year, due to global economic conditions and the exceptionally low interest-rate environment last year.
Citigroup economist Kit Wei Zheng told MediaCorp the latest move would protect CPF savings from being “eroded” should the inflation rate rise from its current level of “over three per cent to four per cent by the end of the year”.
From 2012, the minimum interest rate will be 2.5-per-cent per annum.
When he explained the CPF changes in 2007, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said the peg to long-term bond rates would offer members “better returns over time with slightly higher interest rate risk” on their SMRA.
The 10YSGS is now 2.15 per cent. In January last year, it was 1.7 per cent.
Mr Kit said Singapore bond yields are influenced by United States bond yields and that interest rates are “near historic lows” and expected to remain so for some time with the “sluggish” US recovery.
So does the decision to peg SMRA rates to long-term bond rates hold?
“It appears it’s not working well. Back in 2007, no one anticipated the 10YSGS yield would fall or that the US would be hit by a deep recession,” said Mr Kit, who suggested adding two per cent to the 10YSGS instead of the current one per cent.
Interest rates could rise, though, if the US economy improves. “How fast and when depends on global economic outlook,” said Mr Kit.
When that happens, the Government would probably not extend the floor rate of 4 per cent since the formula of 10YSGS plus one per cent would give better returns, he added. |
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
21-Sep-2010 20:39
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
When they say ‘we’, they mean ‘you’ paul krugman Anger is sweeping America. CRAZINESS HAS GONE MAINSTREAM The rage of the rich has been building ever since Mr Obama took office. At first, however, it was largely confined to Wall Street. Thus when Now, however, as decision time looms for the fate of the Bush tax cuts — will top tax rates go back to Clinton-era levels? — the rage of the rich has broadened, and also in some ways changed its character. For one thing, craziness has gone mainstream. It’s one thing when a billionaire rants at a dinner event. It’s another when When it comes to defending the interests of the rich, it seems, the normal rules of civilised (and rational) discourse no longer apply. At the same time, self-pity among the privileged has become acceptable, even fashionable. New York magazine published an article titled The Wail of the 1 Per Cent, it was talking about financial wheeler-dealers whose firms had been bailed out with taxpayer funds but were furious at suggestions that the price of these bailouts should include temporary limits on bonuses. When the bi l l ionaire Stephen Schwarzman compared an Obama proposal to the Nazi invasion of Poland, the proposal in question would have closed a tax loophole that specifically benefits fund managers like him.Forbes magazine runs a cover story alleging that the President of the United States is deliberately trying to bring America down as part of his Kenyan, “anti-colonialist” agenda, and that “the US is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s”.A BELL IGERENT SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT Tax-cut advocates used to pretend that they were mainly concerned about helping typical American families. Even tax breaks for the rich were justified in terms of trickle-down economics, the claim that lower taxes at the top would make the economy stronger for everyone. These days, however, taxcutters are hardly even trying to make the trickle-down case. Yes, Republicans are pushing the line that raising taxes at the top would hurt small businesses, but their hearts don’t really seem in it. Instead, it has become common to hear vehement denials that people making US$400,000 ($534,000) or US$500,000 a year are rich. I mean, look at the expenses of people in that income class — the property taxes they have to pay on their expensive houses, the cost of sending their children to elite private schools, and so on. Why, they can barely make ends meet. And among the undeniably rich, a belligerent sense of entitlement has taken hold: It’s their money, and they have the right to keep it. “Taxes are what we pay for civilised society,” said Oliver Wendell Holmes — but that was a long time ago. The spectacle of high-income Americans, the world’s luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity and self-righteousness would be funny, except for one thing: They may well get their way. Never mind the US$700 billion price tag for extending the high-end tax breaks: Virtually all Republicans and some Democrats are rushing to the aid of the oppressed affluent. You see, the rich are different from you and me: They have more influence. It’s partly a matter of campaign contributions but it’s also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So, when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 per cent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain – feel it much more acutely, it’s clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses and their hopes. And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices. But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people. THE NEW YORK TIMES The writer is a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. He received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2008 .True, this white-hot rage is a minority phenomenon, not something that characterises most of our fellow citizens. But the angry minority is angry indeed, consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away. And they’re out for revenge. No, I’m not talking about the Tea Partiers. I’m talking about the rich. These are terrible times for many people in this country. Poverty, especially acute poverty, has soared in the economic slump; millions of people have lost their homes. Young people can’t find jobs; laid-off 50-somethings fear that they’ll never work again. Yet if you want to find real political rage — the kind of rage that makes people compare President Barack Obama to Hitler, or accuse him of treason — you won’t find it among these suffering Americans. You’ll find it instead among the very privileged, people who don’t have to worry about losing their jobs, their homes or their health insurance, but who are outraged — outraged — at the thought of paying modestly higher taxes. |
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
21-Sep-2010 20:19
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Tuesday: 21 SEPT 2010 $100,000 fee cut for CK Tang directors Jo-ann Huang joannhuang@mediacorp.com.sg SINGAPORE This was approved by shareholders at its annual general meeting and the extraordinary general meeting held yesterday at the RELC International Hotel. A spokesperson for CK Tang said the fees were cut because of fewer directorship duties since delisting. Currently, there are four directors on CK Tang’s board, two of which are chief executive Foo Tiang Soei and chairman Ernest Seow. At yesterday’s meeting, the other two directors, Mr Cecil Wong and Mr Michel Grunberg, were also re-elected into the board. Meanwhile, some minority shareholders told MediaCorp after the meeting they remained unhappy at how the company had been handling its deteriorating financial position. CK Tang posted a net loss of $10.2 million for its financial year ended March 31, larger than the $5.6 million loss a year ago, which was in turn bigger than the $2.2 million loss in 2008. Some of the minority shareholders told MediaCorp that a sale of CK Tang’s property, which is currently the retail space at Tangs Plaza in the prime Orchard Road shopping belt, could have resolved its financial woes and boosted its balance sheet by about $80 million. CK Tang occupies about 28 per cent of Tangs Plaza which is valued at about $350 million. Meanwhile, Tangs Plaza, which is situated between Far East Plaza and Lucky Plaza, is owned by the Tang brothers — Wee Sung and Wee Kit. Some shareholders had suggested that the company could rent out the retail area as prime commercial space instead. “If they don’t want to sell it off, why don’t they lease it out? It will still make some money,” said long time shareholder Toh Peng Ting. CK Tang’s spokesperson said the directors planned for the company to continue as a retailer. The Tang brothers had attempted to privatise the company three times, more than 30 years since it was listed. Its delisting last year saw its directorsbuying back its shares at 83cents each, despite trading at 88cents a few days before. About 98 per cent of the shares are owned by the board, with the remaining 2 per cent held by minority shareholders. — Directors of homegrown retailer CK Tang will have their fees for next year reduced by $100,000 each, following the company’s delisting from the Singapore Exchange (SGX) in August last year. |
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
15-Sep-2010 13:20
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
FREE TURB CLUB BUS SERVICES ABSOLUTELY PURE INCENTIVES fOr HORSE RACE BETTING
|
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
15-Sep-2010 13:10
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
VerY VerY VerY lIkelY ALL 100% FREE Riders Of PAID TURF CLUB BUSES are pUnters
|
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
15-Sep-2010 13:04
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Yet, the Singapore Turf Club is allowed to provide paid bus services from certain destinations. Why do people go to the Turf Club? To admire the horses and smell the hay? |
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
15-Sep-2010 13:02
|
||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Yet, the Singapore Turf Club is allowed to provide paid bus services from certain destinations. Why do people go to the Turf Club? To admire the horses and smell the hay?
The decision by the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) to stop the free bus rides provided by the two integrated resorts here, except from certain destinations like the airport and hotels, appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to complaints from the anti-gambling lobby. The CRA’s action followed a probe by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) to ascertain that Singaporeans are not being enticed to the casinos. This in turn resulted from concerns raised by certain MPs, including Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC) that the free shuttle rides from 19 destinations across the island, mainly to and from the HDB heartlands, amounted to providing incentives to Singaporeans to gamble at the casinos. The two resorts had been providing the free shuttle rides since June having obtained permission for the service and the routes from the Land Transport Authority. If the service was in violation of the casino rules, why did it take some three months for the CRA to act? Is this also another case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing, given that the LTA had given the go ahead? Resorts World Sentosa’s (RWS) vice president for resort operations Noel Hawkes had been quoted as saying that the resort had been working with government agencies to ease congestion at the junction of Telok Blangah Road and the Sentosa Gateway by providing bus services. He is said to have further stated that services to the heartlands was part of its overall transport plans “so that we would bring people here by public transport and avoid people having to take their cars and jam up the junction”. What’s going to happen now? What if the jams get worse? Erect ERP gantries? It is not as if everyone using the service went to the casinos to gamble. In fact, the vast majority used them to get into Sentosa or the various outlets at the integrated resorts. According to a survey by RWS more than 60 per cent of the 2,500 people who made use of the free bus rides daily did not end up at the gaming tables or the jackpot machines. Remember the whole idea of naming them integrated resorts and not just casinos? So, the majority are being punished for the sins of the minority. What makes the authorities so sure that the minority will not end up at the casinos in any case? Die-hard gamblers will find their way to the gaming tables by hook or by crook. Isn’t the $100 levy per person for entry to the casinos supposed to dissuade Singaporeans and permanent residents from making wagers at the gaming tables? Perhaps, the discriminatory levy is not high enough and should be raised? And not forgetting we also have the casino exclusion measures as additional safeguards to stop problem gambling. Members of the family or the gambler himself can apply to have him or herself excluded from entering any of the casinos. Why did Marina Bay Sands, which claimed not to have provided buses to the HDB heartlands, have to stop its paid bus services as well as its free shuttle services to the hotels? Yet, the Singapore Turf Club is allowed to provide paid bus services from certain destinations. Why do people go to the Turf Club? To admire the horses and smell the hay? There also appears to be some hypocrisy — at the very least a turning of blind eyes — to the gambling in the heartlands, be it on soccer matches here and abroad, Toto, Four-D, and the races at the numerous betting shops of the Totalisator Board. As a result of the cessation of the free rides, the bus owners stand to lose heavily on their gamble to buy two dozen new buses to service the routes. And a number of bus drivers may be out of job following the CRA move. Can they claim compensation from the CRA considering that initial approval had been given by the LTA? Why not then let the CRA be the final authority on all matters pertaining to the integrated resorts — as the casinos are within the premises? People should not be left wondering if approval from other authorities could be at odds with the CRA. Perhaps it is time that the authorities stop treating Singaporeans like kids and let them decide for themselves what is good for them — within the bounds of the law. If they want to use a free bus ride to go to the casinos, why not? The writer is editor-at-large at Today.
|
||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me |