Reading today’s papers make me feel that the government is right in one thing, and that is not everything is solved by the price mechanism. However, the funny thing is, one ministry think this way, but the other does not?

The article today speaks about why the government does not want to subsidise oil in the wake of the rising oil prices worldwide. Our Minister says that “cutting the duty of about 40 cents” “would send the wrong signal to consumers about the real price of oil”. Hmm. It makes perfect sense.

I quote:

“Subsidising oil will not be right as it would encourage consumers to use more oil, which would drive up the price even more. We want to make sure that we pay the correct price for oil and tackle the problem in a sustainable way.”

This involves changing lifestyles and habits by car-pooling, using public transport, or just turning off lights and air-conditioning at home when not needed.

I think this is great. When we come up with policies, we need to make sure the factors that does not involve price are taken care off. In this case, it would be great if we can save money by changing our own life styles isn’t it? The government will then have to decide on policies to make it more attractive to car-pool and use public transport.

However, recently in the history of the past few months, our transport ministry has been rather short-sighted. We keep seeing more ERP gantries being put up. We see more ERP gantries raising their “prices”, or the fees that they charge when we go under them and the stupid unit goes “beep!”.

So why are we still talking about solving congestion using prices? Is there no other way? We have to give them some credit because some plans are underway to make public transports more “ridable”, but if only they can come up with non-price policies as enthusiastic as they erect more gantries to charge money, then Singapore will improve.

In fact, did I recall the minister saying that ERP is there to charge for the pollution?

What I am trying to say is, there are more things that can be done other than raising ERP gantries and fees. The amount of news about new ERP gantries seem to be more than any type of news in the newspapers these days. There was once I thought about having wonderful maps linked to GPS units and subsidise car owners to install them. These smart GPS units will take into consideration the congestion of the area and give alternative suggestions to the road that once can travel to avoid congestion. I wonder if anyone ever thought about that, because it would be a great technology to have, and people will use them because we do not want to get stuck in traffic jams.

Well, it does seem that it is ok if policies are created to generate revenue, but not ok if policies are created to use revenue? That’s actually a joke, so don’t take this sentence too seriously. Just food for thought.

Before I proceed to talk about why I find the letter a not so clever one, let us take a look at the letter in question:

Why the need for so many copter flights?
I LIVE in Woodlands Drive 75 and in recent months, have noticed more helicopter flights coming from the Sembawang Air Base.

The helicopters pass very close to civilian buildings, and the noise from the rotors is loud enough to rattle the window grilles.

In the evenings, the noise level can get very stressful for residents who want some peace and quiet. It is even worse than living next to a busy highway.

I have given my feedback to the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) but nothing has been done to ease the concerns of residents here.

One afternoon, while working from home, I noticed that there were many flights taking place. Sometimes, a helicopter would pass by once every minute.

I looked out the window to check, and saw various helicopters taking off and landing after making one full circle.

At a time of escalating fuel costs and inflationary concerns, I wonder why there is a need for so many flights.

While I understand that the RSAF needs to be operationally-ready and that computer simulators cannot replace a real flight, surely the pilots can make more value-added, well-planned flights. After all, taxpayers here are paying for the higher fuel costs.

I wonder what is the real issue here. Is the citizen irritated because the window grills shook, and that the noise is unbearable, or that fuel costs are too high and hence flights should stop?

Actually there is no need for any SAF personnel to reply to him. Even I can point out a few things.

Firstly, stuff like these are supposed to be classified. You can’t expect the SAF to explain to you why they are making so many flights. Do they have to tell you who is using those helicopters? Let me just briefly use some common sense. Pilots use flights to gain experience. Helicopters can be used to ferry personnel? I believe that the Army uses helicopters too. Helicopters are more of a support unit as compared to fighter planes. Hence there is need for much training to get used to the helicopters.

Secondly, NDP is coming. They may be preparing for rehearsals of the route to take.

Thirdly, with connection to the first point, if you look at the Army website under the Guards vocation (^_^), we use helicopters for transport and even for heli rappelling. As and when possible, I suppose it is good to train us to be familiarized with helicopters, especially learning of communication with pilots blablabla? Sometimes the weather is not good and the helicopters fly back to base and we have to do the whole thing another day. That’s safety ma.

Lastly, the budget has been approved and whether fuel prices rise or not, the defense ministry got to work around the budget. Unless they apply for more funds, then we can come and question them to cut the amount of flights. As of now, they are using within their means like how they have been for the past few years. I don’t mind allowing them to train more, if that makes less accidents and problems during training. Imagine an entire chinook of army personnel dead. I rather spend more on training.

I believe the thing that should be asked is if the helicopters can be less of a nuisance to them. Rattling window grills is quite serious. Perhaps they could fly higher? That, I cannot answer. Operations classified, lah.

I got to say, initially I agreed with the letter when it questioned this: “What is wrong with our education system today, where we are so reliant and dependant on private tuition and enrichment classes?”

There are two kinds of people who ended up going for tuition:
1) Those who are too weak in a particular subject
2) Those who are too kiasu

It is the (2) people that I am worried about. Those so called top school students who have tuition teachers coaching them on plenty of subjects when they should be able to cope by themselves, being “top school” students. Ultimately, if they decide to choose coaching over other activities, there is nothing we can do about it. Technically, it is not wrong. After all, you either study yourself, or get someone to study with you isn’t it?

Anyway, the letter begins to deviate into creating illusions when the writer talks about enrichment classes like MindChamps and Adam Khoo, saying that they cost a lot. The writer also says that poorer families are at a disadvantage because they cannot afford. Or are they?

To put it simply, does your child need to go for these so called motivational camps? The answer is fairly simple. No. It’s not compulsory and you do not need it to do well. Tuition and enrichment classes, by default are not these camps. You can get a fairly cheap tutor to coach your child in a few subjects, and if your child puts in the required effort, he or she can improve. Simple as that. It is not required to go for motivational camps. Hence, what disadvantage are there? From my point of view, the writer is kiasu and jealous because his son’s friends go for Adam Khoo whilst he has no money to afford.

The writer goes on to say: “The present education system is counter-productive to producing well-educated and well-balanced students. Instead of enjoying studying, students are stressed out and failing in too many subjects.” I agree that Singapore is a stressful place, where you have to put in effort to excel, but you do not need to put in plenty of effort to pass. Passing is easy. Getting that A is not. To put things in perspective, if the writer’s son is failing in too many subjects, perhaps he is trying too hard to be well-balanced, in the sense that he is over-balanced in trying to have other “outside” activities like games and hanging out. We have to take responsibility when we fail. Blaming the education system is not good because tens of thousands of us have already gone through the system and we do not see what the big deal is.

In the real working world, is the boss going to say “It’s ok that you cannot do this, just do slowly and try your best? Don’t forget to knock off early and have some exercise at the gym.”? Of course not.

Besides, whether it is stressful or not depends on your personal attitude. My friend can be happy and contented with B’s, but I may not be. Hence I may be stressed out whilst they are not. I guess the question is, “What are you trying to achieve?”

Hence aim well. Don’t reach for Pluto when you can only touch the edge of the Earth’s atmosphere. Tuition is not a big deal if you want your son to pass. Tuition does not cost 2 to 3k a month. Some parents need to wake up.

Schools should not rely on it and ministry should act

WHEN I attended a teacher-parent meeting because I was told that my Secondary 4 son had fared poorly in his school examinations, I was shocked. I expected to see a handful of parents and their children. Instead, it seemed as if the school had summoned all the parents.

When I questioned several teachers why so many of his classmates had also fared poorly, the standard responses were along the lines that my son’s class was ‘a very challenging class to teach’.

My son needed more help, I was told. Their suggestion was that ‘he sign up for tuition lessons and attend all the remedial classes we have planned for the holidays’.

What is wrong with our education system today, where we are so reliant and dependant on private tuition and enrichment classes? This is great news for tuition centres and the enrichment centres like Mindchamps, Adam Khoo, SuperCamp for kids, Lorna Whiston, Julia Gabriel, Shichida and the lot, who charge very high fees and make big bucks due to the very real fear and desperation of parents who want their children to do well.

But what if you are not in the ‘privileged group’ who can afford the thousands of dollars needed for tuition? What if you are a heartlander struggling to make ends meet?

Will your child be able to keep up with children from more privileged backgrounds, whose parents shell out $2,000 to $3,000 every few months for various extra private tuition classes?

The present education system is counter-productive to producing well-educated and well-balanced students. Instead of enjoying studying, students are stressed out and failing in too many subjects.

The Ministry of Education must be more proactive in ensuring that students are less reliant on external tuition or enrichment classes, and ensure a well-balanced education for all.

Tan Eng Hong

Singtel has written a response letter today to The Straits Times forum, explaining why there’s a 20 cents extra charge for a charity show. Apparently, it has to do with the 1900 telepoll service.

After reading this, I think this is a big smoke. Bottom line is, “As a business, we exercise care and prudence in meeting the needs of all our stakeholders.” What this means is Singtel cares about its profits.

Anything below that sentence is just to show how charitable Singtel actually is, which is not really needed because they are profiteering from charity calls. Of which is a huge ethical issue.

The main question in my head is, who does Singtel pay for the 1900 telepoll service? Do they pay some global body or the government? Or it a service they provide themselves? Hmm. After knowing this answer, perhaps we can then decide for ourselves how we look at Singtel.

SingTel explains call charges for charity show
I REFER to Wednesday’s letter, ‘Charity show - pay to donate’ by Mr James Wong. We thank Mr Wong for this opportunity to clarify the charging principle of the Telepoll service.

Event organisers pay a fee for using the 1900 Telepoll service.

The fee comprises a fixed charge and a usage fee.

The organisers decide if the usage fee is to be borne by themselves or the callers.

As a business, we exercise care and prudence in meeting the needs of all our stakeholders.

Under SingTel’s umbrella philanthropy programme, the SingTel Touching Lives Fund, we donated $2.4 million to charities last year.

Since its launch in 2002, we have raised a total of $12.7 million for 18 charities affiliated to the National Council of Social Service.

We have recently donated S$200,000 to help China’s relief and reconstruction efforts after the earthquake in the Sichuan province.

SingTel, through our wholly owned subsidiary NCS which has operations in Chengdu, is working with the local authorities to help families and those affected by the earthquake.

We thank Mr Wong for his feedback and support for the quake victims.

Cheam Tze Hui (Ms)
Corporate Communications Manager,
SingTel

Today’s Digital Life touched upon the opportunities for bloggers to earn some advertising revenue through their blogs. Overall, the article just touches the surface of the whole issue, that is, the article is probably helpful if you are a newbie in the advertising on my blog system. You get just the bare insight on how things can work, not how things work.

In fact, there are a few things that I think should or should not be asked.

Firstly, I don’t see the point in asking about the member count. Digitial Life pointed out, which I agree, that the member count will overlap because some, like me, mix two advertising companies and put their ads on my blog. In my case, its Advertlets and Blog2u. Personally, I feel that this member count does nothing except to brag about how much “command” or “market share” one has, except that the whole count is a fake number. Why do I say that? Other than overlaps, one fails to take into account disgruntled bloggers. That is, bloggers who fail to see the vision of a particular company and decide to leave. Now I may be biased from the stuff I read from Ping.sg, because, as far as I am concerned, there only seems to be one company that is steadily losing members, and in a big way too, declaring on blogs and those posts end up on the top 10 in Ping.sg. Now more people seem to be leaving this company, and ironically, this is the company that is declaring the largest number, or 13000, compared to its rivals of 12000 and 5000. How many people of the 13000 are still staying, I do not know, but if we take into account that every company has disgruntled bloggers, then perhaps the 12000 company may end up commanding the larger market share?

The other problem relating to this article is that it seems to portray that anyone can earn money from online advertising. I must give them credit though, because they recognize an important fact that some groupies do not, that is, only those popular bloggers commanding a strong and steady amount of page views per day earn better. The problem though, is that somewhere in the article, it chooses to spread a false ideology from the sales pitch by a certain company, to say that you only need 20 unique visitors a day to share the moolah. Or the money.

Now, if you have been in this advertising arena for some time, you would have realized that it is completely questionable. On first read, you may feel that as long as I have 20 unique visitors, I can join them and earn money. However, the real statement is, if I have 20 unique visitors, I can join them. Period. The earning money part does not come into play as effectively. It all depends on how much visitors you have. If you just meet the bare minimum, sad to say, you will probably not be earning enough to even cash out.

What Digital Life should have asked, is the amount of earnings PER member. This effectively tells you, on average, how much money you can earn if you join. Of course, you have to do a little decrement because the popular bloggers will take the bulk of it. But you end up with a better number than member count.

What they can ask is also, how many ads are served to members, PER member again.

Now if those questions are asked and answered positively and truthfully, the leading advertising provider won’t really be leading, isn’t it? It MAY not be leading. So far, it is leading on member count, that is members who joined, without taking into account members who left.

The point of writing this is that the article just barely scratches the surface of advertising revenue opportunities. In fact, more could come out of this, and more space could be given to competitors like Advertlets and Blog2u? Perhaps Digital Life can come out with some neat comparison, which will definitely be more useful than the current article.

Advertising is not easy. Earning money is not easy. All is but a dream, and we can all just hope to collect enough money to cash out. So peasants, no matter which company you are loyal to, lets just wait and collect. But for those who have not yet joined, perhaps, you may want to see if your daily unique visitors is good enough. 20, is definitely NOT good enough.