Creating a culture of complainers

I believe one of the reasons why Singaporeans get bad service and dangerous taxi drivers is because we complain to the wrong people. Singaporeans love to complain to each other in a coffeeshop over a cup of coffee. But you know what? Complaining like this does not change anything.

Complaining is a powerful tool that we are not harnessing in our fight for safety on our roads and for good service. All Singaporeans must start to complain through the proper channels and to complain often. Only then will the service providers have a database of complaints, and with that they can see trends, and hopefully take action to improve. Am I living in a fantasy? Probably, but if we did not try, how would we know?

Here is the thing, when you complain about a dangerous taxi driver in a coffeeshop, or the lately, in an internet forum, you will get many sympathetic and empathetic ears. But these complaints are generic, and they tar all the people of that profession in the same brush. There are no specifics, so it becomes discrimination. Complaining through the proper channels, however, is targeted. If that same taxi driver starts getting complaints thick and fast, I am quite sure that the LTA and the taxi company will take action.

Singapores hate making trouble, but what are we talking about here? Human lives. Do we wait until those taxi drivers actually kill someone before we take them off the roads? If a taxi driver is not fit to drive a taxi, he needs a new job. Simple as that. Too bad that taxi driving is a dignified occupation of last resort for Singaporean who are downsized. People should not pay for their lives for someone else’s dignity. There my Utopian syndrome kicks in again.

When complaints are targeted, the few bad eggs are identified, and the rest of the law abiding and hard working taxi drivers can continue doing their jobs with less discrimination. Good taxi drivers should encourage a culture of complaining properly, otherwise they are marred in the same brush stroke when we complain in general. Only bad drivers should be worried.

Here is an excerpt from LTA’s Taxi Driver Vocational License Point System

“How To Lodge A Complaint Against A Taxi Driver?
A commuter can lodge a complaint against a taxi driver by the following means:
1) By Phone :
Call to LTA Hotline – 1800-Call LTA or 1800-225 5582
2) By Email :
Access to LTA Internet Website – http://www.lta.gov.sg
3) By Letter or Fax :

Bus & Taxi Regulation Dept
Land Transport Authority
10 Sin Ming Drive
Singapore 575701
Fax No.: 6553 5329

Information You Need To Provide When Lodging A Complaint

To lodge a complaint, a commuter has to provide the following information:
1) Vehicle registration number of the taxi (with prefix and suffix) e.g. SHA1234Z
2) Date and time of the incident
3) Venue and/or origin-destination of the incident
4) A brief account of the incident

Additional information that will help in the investigation include:
1) Type and colour of taxi
2) Fare paid
3) Sign displayed
4) Brief description of the driver
Commuters may have to appear in court to support their complaint.“

Also can give feedback about bad service to the companies themselves.

Comfort Transportation Pte Ltd (ComfortDelgro)
Tel: 6555 1188 Fax: 6452 7742
feedback@cdgtaxi.com.sg
http://www.comfort-transportation.com.sg/survey.asp

CityCab Pte Ltd (ComfortDelgro)
Tel: 6552 4525 Fax: 6552 4125
feedback@cdgtaxi.com.sg

SMRT Corporation Ltd
Tel: 1800 3368 900
CorpComms@smrt.com.sg
http://www.smrt.com.sg/contact_us/contact_us.asp

Trans-Cab Services Pte Ltd
Tel: 6555 6666

Premier Taxi Pte Ltd
Tel: 6476 8880 Fax: 6473 9339
http://www.premiertaxi.com/commuters-feedback.htm

Smart Automobile Pte Ltd
Tel: 6485 7700 Fax: 6485 7711
http://www.smartcab.com.sg/html/feedback.html

Prime Car Rental & Taxi Services Pte Ltd
Tel: 6741 9292 Fax: 6746 1555

Is it so hard to belt up?

Following the death of Russell Koh in April 24, after he was thrown out of his school bus in a traffic accident, there had been calls for a law to make it compulsory for school buses to have seat belts. “Enough is enough. No other child should die.” was a particularly emotive rallying call for this implementation.

However, reality on the ground, is that the cost is going to be so prohibitive that some school bus operators might decide to leave the industry if such a law is implemented. They might then be replaced by large conglomerate bus companies who are likely to hire Mainland Chinese drivers, and charge a much higher premium, further eroding the lower income Singaporean’s sense of being a stakeholder in their own country.

Questions are now being raised about why Land Transport Authority has taken two years to study whether it is feasible to implement this. Surely it is a straight forward issue, how can the LTA let another child die?

I have a suspicion if a law was enacted to enforce the installation of seat belts on school buses, there would almost immediately be a new round of letters from the public that might go something like this:

“My child travels to school on public buses, is his life not as valuable as the lives of richer children traveling in school buses? Do we have to wait until a child dies in a public bus traffic accident before we act? Enough is enough. No other child should die.”

Already the question is being asked about foreign workers on lorries. Are their lives less valuable than a Singaporean child’s? Is it racism or nationalism that motivates our refusal to give them decent and safe transport? Or are Singaporeans too money minded? These are human lives we are talking about!

What about the elderly on public buses? What about pregnant women? And teenagers? And adults? Are they worth less than a child whose parents can afford the school bus? Is standing room safe on public buses? These are all possible questions that can be raised, and they can be equally emotive when case studies are dragged out of history and plastered on the front pages.

In the end, it is all about whether it is economical for the operators to implement the rules, and how these rules would change the competitive landscape of the industry. With inflation being the keyword of the year, whether this is the right time to hammer the final nail into our wallets.

It does not help the case of the transport operators that they are currently complaining that high fuel costs have driven their profits down. ComfortDelgro, parent company of SBS Transport, saw net profits fall 9.4% to $50.2 million in the last quarter. $14 million of which was made by SBS Transport. Bear in mind that in our tiny nation of 4 million residents, ComfortDelgro is the world’s second largest land transport operator.

It is understanable why your average Singaporean might see where the problem lie with this industry. If a law to install seat belts is passed on school buses, and it does indeed drive the business into the hands of ComfortDelgro, it would look worse. If a similar law is not enacted for public buses, it might be deemed that the LTA can arm wrestle small bus operators but is impotent against the juggernauts.

Are the lives of individual Singaporeans worth $14 million a quarter? Maybe we need to ask Russel Koh’s mother. Should what we ostensibly consider our “public transport” company be profiting enough to be the world’s second largest land transport operator? At the expense of our lives? It is easy to make an emotive argument, but there is a reality to life.

Motor Insurance in Singapore

Insurance companies in Singapore have lost three times more in motor insurance in the first quarter of 2008, than they have at the same time in 2007. They were still profitable in 2006. So what caused the big change? GIA Motor Insurance Statistics.

The Police has stopped handling non-injury motor accidents since 1999, so that should not be the reason for the sudden spike in insurance fees.

A quick glance at the Singapore Police Force website shows that there were 6,845 fatal and injury traffic accidents in 2004, and 8,323 in 2007. Quite an increase, definitely much higher than the population growth percentage. 94 motorcycle rider and pillion deaths in 2004, and 103 in 2007, close to a 10% increase. Drink-driving accidents have moved from 237 in 2004, to the high of 288 in 2006 and dropped to 188 in 2007 even though it had the high of 4,009 arrests. Traffic 2007 Overview.

The specifics have not really changed dramatically, but the overall situtation has seen an increase of 21% of fatal and injury traffic accidents. Of course, missing from the Traffic Police statistics are the non-injury accidents, which must have had a significant increase as wel.

The government adopted a policy of allowing more people in Singapore to fulfil their aspiration of owning cars by releasing more Certificates of Entitlements. This policy change might have been derived from interviewing Singaporeans emigrating, many whom cited the fact that they cannot own the car of their dreams as one of the factors for leaving. Of course, increased cars means more drivers are buying insurance, it should all even out, unless the quality of drivers have reduced.

The market situation that encouraged cars to be scrapped early also ensured that Singapore cars are mostly new and in good condition. The economy and sentiments were kept bouyant with the money generated by new cars being bought. The pros of this situation is that the air is less polluted, and there are less breakdowns. Newer cars are also better able to cope with emergency situations with brakes and steering in better conditions. The downside, however, is that it is very expensive for insurance companies to pay a claim against a newer car because it is worth more. If you own a third-party insurance, you are not paying your premium for your own vehicle, but for the vehicle you are likely to knock into. If the overall value of cars on the road rise, your premium will rise.

Has the population mindset changed enough that more people now have the “claim them for every single cent” mentality, as opposed to the old “I do not want any trouble” mentality? Anecdotally, I would think so. “Suffering a whiplash” to call for an ambulance, so that the accident is classified as an injury accident seems to be a favoured tactic. This allows the scope for claiming for medical costs as well as vehicle damage.

Owners also take the opportunity to upgrade their vehicles and workshops bloat the claims. It is not uncommon for them to claim $700 for a little scratch to a bumper that would take $70 worth of paint work. Here lies the conundrum that the insurance companies find themselves in. I would believe that the vast majority of motor vehicle claims, as well as medical claims, are below the $5,000 mark, and another large chunk are below the $10,000 mark.

Insurance companies are left with this difficult mathematical problem: Do they pay $700 of blatantly fraudulent claims, or pay $5000++ to their lawyers to dispute those claims? And so they all add up to $35,300,000 loss in the first quarter of 2008.

Foresight, anyone? The General Insurance Association, and the authorities must know very well that the most motor insurance claims are below the cost of opening up a case file with a lawyer. For them to ignore or overlook this reality is irresponsible. They need to work together to create a legal framework similar to the Small Claims Tribunal in the Subordinate Courts, to pursue legal actions against fraudulent claims without the need for lawyers.

Of course, there is the other side of this solution. Firstly, the need for more judges, but more importantly, because we, the customers, do not trust the insurance industry. We will fight tooth and nail if they resist paying out our claims. However, I feel that this is the best situation in the long run. A few workshops will be closed down for fraudulent claims and contempt of the courts, and the rest will tow the line. It is the most realistic solution, and hopefully can seperate the true claims from the fraudulent.

There is a conspiracy angle to this as well. More cars means more import taxes, and more mandatory insurance bought for them. The operating costs of owning a vehicle can shoot sky high, and still the authorities can say that we are now able to fulfill our dreams of owning a car. But the reality is this, those emigrating out of Singapore are dreaming of owning a BMW, not a Chery QQ.

Vehicle thefts in Singapore

There was a small article in the May 3 2008 Straits Times about an IT consultant who lost her car having parked it four days ago. Ordinary enough an article, but it came with it a few statistics.

“Accord to the police there were 63 cases of car thefts last year and 72 in 2006. This compares with 818 cases of motorcycle thefts last year and 647 in 2006.”

If you had told me that one car was stolen every 10 days in Singapore, I would not have believed it. I think Singaporeans are so sold on the low crime image that we forget sometimes. Yes, I am quite sure its a really commendable statistics compared to other cities, but its still noteworthy.

Compare that with 2 motorcycles stolen a day, car drivers can be quite relaxed about not buying their Third Party, Fire and Theft insurance. Motorcycle owners tend not to buy TPFT because the premiums are quite ridiculous and they come with many clauses that are stacked against the owners.

Motorcycles are a lot easier to steal than cars for a variety of reasons, starting from the fact that a couple of guys can carry a motorcycle up a lorry if they so pleased. Forgetting your keys in the ignition of a motorcycle is also more obvious than for a car. Drivers must have forgotten to lock their cars occasionally and have seldom been punished for their carelessness. It is also much easier to hide a motorcycle than a car.

I also found a Ministry of Home Affairs speech by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs Mr. Wong Kan Seng dated 21 April 2008.

“Over the last 5 years, an average of 590 cases of bicycle theft were reported each year, with a peak of 790 cases in 2005 and a low of 580 cases last year. For the first two months this year, there were about 80 cases of bicycle theft reported, which is the lowest number when compared to the corresponding periods from 2005 to 2007. Bicycle thefts have been on a downward trend since 2005.”

The numbers are suprisingly similar (to me, anyway) to that for motorcycles. Considering that there is, in theory, more theft deterrence in a motorcycle. I guess the relative different values play a big part.

This is relevant to me because I am thinking of getting a motorcycle, and if I get a new one, I would prefer to get a TPFT insurance for it, at least for the first few years. Combining that with a higher premium for being a new rider, might make the insurance prohibitive. So I might opt for an older used bike for the first year.

Stuff I have never looked up before

Having started on my motorcycle course and hanging out in the motorcycle forums, I had encountered a few threads about concerns of motorcyclists. Apparently these should be concerns of all road users, but they have never been forefront in my mind before as a driver or a cyclists. Of course, all this information is only relevant to Singapore.

Injury Accidents

I found this link about when and how an accident will be classified as an injury accident. The main reason is this, an accident with an injury has to be reported to the police, while a non-injury accident need only be reported to one’s insurance company.

http://driving-in-singapore.spf.gov….q.htm#accident

Generally speaking, if one party is sent to the hospital in an ambulance from the accident site, and secondly if one of the parties get a 3 days or more medical leave from work.

There are subtle things at work here, because by calling an ambulance to an accident site, there is a very high chance that a traffic policeman will arrive as well. If a party believes that he would be in favour when the responsibilities for an accident is handed out, he might well want the traffic police to assess the site and write a report in his favour. The truth is, there are always two sides to every traffic accident, and often both reports are poles apart. That ends up with a 50:50 split of insurance claims.

So the funny business begins, drivers might complain about a whiplash and request an ambulance. While after visiting your vehicle workshop, some people might advise you to see a doctor to get a 3 day medical certificate. There are positives about this, motorists who know the law and their rights will less likely be bullied by other motorists.

Motor Insurance

One of the motorists in the forum encountered a situation where he had reported his accident to his insurance company, while the other party had not, and the other party’s insurance company has a policy of not processing claims if their insuree has not reported it. In theory that seems to be a good idea, but it opens up a huge can of worms. People would be thinking, no one can claim from me if I never report it to the insurance company.

http://www.getformesingapore.com/Inf…_accidents.htm

“Motorists are advised to report the accident to their insurers as soon as possible. If one of the drivers does not report to his insurer and the latter comes to know of a claim by the other party involved in the accident, the insurer has to contact the insured and request him to lodge a report. If the assured still refuses to lodge a report with the insurance company, the matter will be referred to the police.”

It appears that the insurance company has the responsibility to get the insuree to file a report, but it is not in the interest of the insurance company for that to happen, because they would end up having to settle the claim. There is a conflict of interest in this matter.

When is a traffic offense a crime?

Some guy was worried that he might get a criminal record for being brought to court for a rather serious traffic offense. From a quick reading of the Singapore Penal Code, I believe there are only very few circumstances of that happening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Penal_Code

Causing death by rash or negligent act. This seems to be the most common circumstance, if someone is killed in a traffic accident, the responsible party might be charged under this.

Contempt of the Authority of a Public Servant. This charge might be placed if the motorists commits contempt of court by refusing to submit to its ruling. Might also involve situations with law enforcers.

False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice. Pejury, essentially. Lying to the police and the court about an accident situation.

Passing on

For all my years of driving and cycling, I have never thought about dying on the roads, but apparently it is a situation familiar to motorcyclists. They see their friends passing on, and they worry about their loved ones. I found a few links about how one’s assets would be distributed upon one’s death. Since I have not got too much assets nor any dependants at the moment, I have not put much thought into this. I must in the future however.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_versi…st&method=part

The Intestate Succession states how my assets will be distributed to my remaining dependants and family if I do not have a will. There are plenty of lawyers happy to show me how to write my will. This Act does not apply to Muslims.

http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/awareness/faraid.htm

Muslims are covered by the Faraid or Muslim Inheritance Law.

http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/awarene…ing_a_will.htm

Here is some guidelines to drafting a will. Also has specifics pertaining to Muslims.

http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/page03.aspx?id=1186

How Estate Duty is calculated to one’s assets, might be scrapped soon though.