goondo dickheads series eps. 2

here comes episode 2. however, i think this series is inappropriately named - it should be called pet peeves series. but most of the time my pet peeves have to do with goondo dickheads, so... i admit the relationship is rather forced.

today's goondo dickheads... no, it should be pet peeves... center around the favorite topic of many singaporeans: public transport.

public transport does not, in my opinion, include taxis. this is because they are nothing more than paid chauffeurs engaged by time-pressed people who have the necessary economic power to purchase their services but are largely still susceptible to jams and the phenomenon where "taxis are always around when you don't need them, but always not around when you need them the most."

we have heard of calls for raising the service standards and bus / train frequencies in the press. furthermore, with the spike in oil and thus, petrol prices (perhaps a little more "help" from COE), the authorities have been asking citizens to switch to public transport in order to help them cut down on the costs of living amidst rising inflation and a slowing economy.

i have no problem with rising inflation, but i have my doubts about a slowing economy. that is, if you look at it from a very broad perspective, singapore seems to be still doing ok - with the financial crises plaguing so many renowned financial institutions stealing the limelight in the headlines and all - moderate, steady GDP growth, with a rise in jobs available. wait - you ain't seen it all.

i was drafting a post on reading behind the numbers and statistics a few months back, but apparently the connection went bonkers on me and my draft was gone. i wasn't exactly excited to go back and complete it, but the main ideas would be reiterated here.

the latest figures show that there is a rise in the number of vacancies available in the private sector, but another report stated that an approximate 100 people are fighting for 87 jobs. that's right - a rise in jobs, but just not enough to go around. i'm pretty sure i'm in the 13 who happen to not receive part of the pie. so, i'm still frictionally unemployed (if you have no idea what this is, it simply means that i'm still unemployed, but i'm still looking for a job, so i form part of the "natural rate of unemployment." that's really "encouraging" because it means that my skill set is still relevant and i have not become depressed yet. i'm part of a statistic).

in any case, i should get back to the main topic before i drift to the pacific ocean. so what does the government's call for switching to public transport mean? from the corporations' point of view, it's more profits. from the consumers' - and therefore mine - it means congestion.

i would not even begin to say how congested it can get, because i think you know it pretty well. it's still endurable if you are traveling for short distances, need only a straight bus / change only once - the time waiting and the congestion, if any, are still bearable. however, it does not make any sense when frequencies are supposedly increased, then you still have to fight your way into a carriage, and realize that the time you need to travel to a place by MRT takes the same time if you take a straight bus - WTF is that?!

switching to public transport does have its benefits - you save on petrol, it's reliable, *quite* comfortable, and green (that's the buzzword). however, these benefits go poof! when you are stuck like canned sardines. then you have idiots shoving their large asses into the train and a lingering "aroma" in the trains - luckily for me, i am tall enough to tower above the others and hence, have the opportunity of getting some fresh air at the top. yes, the air up there is better. sometimes, there'll be air-con blowing in your face, too.

and when these benefits dissipate into the air like smoke, you contemplate if switching is a smart choice after all. i'm sure i'm speaking for many in the trains who do not yet own a car but would get one immediately once they have the means to do so... never mind the high petrol prices and steep COE. i'm getting a car and escaping from this BS the minute i can.

so it seems, it has come full circle. people switch to public transport, current users switch to private. i suppose the authorities have already taken this into account, and i speculate that their assumption is that, at the end of the day, the net change in public transport users would be positive - that is, there is more people switching to public than people switching to private.

i for one, is going to switch to private at first available opportunity. but i do not know much about cars, though i have a friend who does. at present, i'm thinking of a second-hand manual transmission - i just have not much idea how it costs, what i should be looking out for, and how i should go about acquiring one. the resale value is not exactly my top priority.

and now you ask, what's the goondo dickhead thing about this post? there isn't much actually, i merely thought that we are simply values in a numbers game - at least to the corporations and authorities - who excel, as usual, in calculation. i suppose the corporations would, like, estimate how many people there are at a given time at a given station, and decide how frequent the trains should come in order to maximize revenue. the whole process ought to be pretty complicated, with stats and linear programming and what-not.

which isn't really my concern... i'm still a user of public transport until the day comes when i don't really have to. that day, i get to choose if i want to take it.

no wonder many singaporeans aspire to having their own transport... it not only is a sign of success and accomplishment (prestige perhaps), but also signals the fact that they don't have to endure so much of that public transport BS.