Distance Based Fares kicked in since the 3rd of July this year, and so far it has generated plenty of discontent among passengers. I had been very supportive of distance based fares, because in a logical manner, distance based fare would make everything more fair. The move to distance based fares was said to help those who travel long distances, and is probably step one of any plan to remove long distance buses. It is said that about a third of the passengers would see an increase in fares, with the rest either maintaining or having a reduction in the fares.

But yet if Distance Based Fares were supposedly fairer, why are we generating much complaints? For the purpose of this discussion, let us ignore complains that the current statistics involving people with increased fares is much higher than 33%. This is because, surely, people with a reduction in fares would be less inclined to share the information, and people who saw an increase would be unhappy and hence be more proactive in dishing out the info. In addition, most of us do not really remember the fare before. We only have a bit of a rough idea, and hence we cannot be sure the exact increase / decrease in the fare.

The sad thing about the Distance Based Fare in Singapore is that it is really not entirely distance based. There seems to be some other variable that affects the fares. For one, it seems that amongst my circle of friends, that multiple transfers is better than a single bus trip. I am not entirely sure if the distance covered in both instances are the same, but assuming that they are roughly the same, then it makes no sense that we are encouraging multiple transfers, unless it is part of a wider plan to remove long distance bus services.

However, I do have proof that the formula does involve something other than distance. If distance based fares are only based on distance, then my MRT trip from Clementi to Lakeside should have the same cost. This is not the case. I have two scenarios drawn out, with both scenarios requiring me to take bus 96 from two parts of NUS to Clementi Interchange before changing to the MRT to go back to Lakeside. Assuming it is entirely distance based, I should get the same cost for the MRT part of the journey, and different costs for the bus leg.

The above shows the fares if I took the bus at the first stop in NUS, at Engineering LT7A.

The above shows the fares if I took the bus from Computer Center, 3 stops away from LT7A. Hence this is the one with the shorter bus journey. Looking at the bus fares, it seems to be distance based. However, why is the MRT fares different? Although I still pay cheaper for shorter distance travelled (as compared to scenario 1), it makes no sense that the MRT fares would differ.

Surely this is proof that there is some other variable at work?

I took the above screenshots from the Distance Fares Calculator provided at PublicTransport.sg.

The idea behind distance based fares is noble. The anger against distance based fares has, honestly, nothing to do with the concept of distance based fares, but how distance based fares were implemented. Surely, when transparency is touted as one of the pillars of our governance, that we should see some transparency in how the fares are being calculated? This is because when a noble idea is tweaked, it would cease being noble and become unfair instead.

The ethics of insurance agents have always been in question, ever since we hear stories of how bad agents sell policies to people who dont really need it, just so that they can earn the commission. Whilst such cases are now few and far between, they still do exist. Thankfully the measures undertaken to regulate this industry worked to some extent.

I did write about the lousy standards of testing done to ensure an agent understands any new plan rolled out by their company. Hence, I would not touch on it further although this is one issue on the integrity and ethics of the insurance agent.

The view I am going to write about might not be really an ethical issue, as it depends on peoples opinion. I find that it is an important issue to raise, and I would try to explain my stand. Hopefully at the end of this post, people will concur.

The issue I am raising was talked about in the papers yesterday. In it, agents were reportedly poached by rival agencies with cash incentives. The paper acknowledged that it is an agents right to switch companies, which I have to reluctantly agree. But I feel that it would be good for agents to keep to their parent company.

Back when I was in the Great Eastern internship programme, I remember an agent telling me that he chose to work full time and not part time as a form of responsibility and commitment towards his client. Financial advisory is not only just a product being bought and sold; it includes the relationship aspect.

Most of the time, we buy policies from relatives and friends; not so much the man on the street. We trust our relatives and friends to give us the best advice, more so than the person cold calling my house or approaching me at mrt stations. This belief is not accurate, but that is the topic for another post.

Additionally, the policies of the company might not be very different than what other insurance companies are offering. Hence what we are buying is not a policy, but a responsible agent or advisor we can trust. An agent that we can trust to settle our hospitalization claims when the need arises.

Hence, isnt it unethical for agents to jump ship, resulting in our policies beig transferred to someone that we do not know of? That sense of trust is being betrayed, especially when the next agent is unwilling to provide the same service the original agent provided? This is not surprising because the new agent will not earn any commission on the premiums the policyholder pays! As such, why would he want to spend time explaining the policies when we are not going to buy a policy from him?

In such a case, changing of company or even changing of a career is unethical. It would be even more so when the agent who jumped ship then asks his friends to end the old policies and take up new ones.

For sure, if you end a life policy prematurely, it wouldnt be in the clients best interest. This is accepted to be unethical by the regulatory bodies. But they do allow the agents to change companies.

Perhaps when one day all agents are dedicated and responsible, this issue would cease to be unethical.

Recently my friends elder brother graduated from university and he got hired by a Singapore company. Sadly, as he is a foreigner, MOM has to approve his employment pass before he could officially work here.

His company has also kindly agreed to wait until the proper approval is given, but MOM kept rejecting his application. Even a letter from the MP couldnt help.

Now, he studied in university paying the same fees that we Singaporeans do. Hence he actually had the same MOE tuition grant as us. The only difference is that he has to work in Singapore for 3 years, something like a bond.

I think this is absurd. You subsidise his education, but you do not allow him to work in Singapore. The guy has got a job offer, and the employer actually waited until they decided not to hire him anymore. Why deny him a chance to work here? I rather we not subsidise his education in the first place. MOM told him to go back to his country and work for a Singapore company.

Are the policies of MOM and MOE out of sync? If we want to tighten our intake of foreigners in our workforce, then dont give out so many subsidies! Whats the point of subsidizing and then not allowing him to do his duty in the contract? Its not as if no Singapore company wants to hire him here.

Bleah. Why not subsidise my MBA instead? I would continue to work here. Isnt it better?

I saw a video from razortv and they were discussing about a stomp post where a girl was found asking her maid to take out the beansprouts from her bowl of noodles. When the maid didnt do her job properly, she scolded the maid?

Is this wrong? RazorTV seems to think so. Yet since when can our media claim that a particular action is right or wrong? Morality in plenty of cases are not so clear cut.

One thing for sure, plenty of bosses scold their employees too when they make mistakes. Unless we censure such actions too, Im afraid its plain wrong to suggest that reprimanding a maid be wrong. In the eyes of the law, reprimanding is not maid abuse!

Stompers also took the moral high ground and said that such princesses are spoilt. Whilst I would not allow my future children to do this, I doubt I can say that it is wrong. Is it in the maids job scope or is it not?

Can we safely accuse someone of being spoilt just like that?I mean its just a different way of living, and is it called being spoilt? Women who hire part time maids to clean the house cause both husband and wife are at work, are they spoilt? What if their jobs are very important and many peoples survival depends on them running the company properly? As such time is better spent on business and recharging rather than slogging on housework during the weekends?

Can we honestly claim a moral high ground based on an aspect of the truth?

It often puzzles me on how we refuse to see the right person when we have troubles. When we are sick, we go to the doctor right? Using his expertise, were able to gain a deeper insight on the problems that plague our body, and he might send us to a specialist if need be.

However this is not the same for our financial health. We do not see a financial advisor when we have questions regarding our insurance and financial planning aspects of our lives. Once I read on hardwarezone, a local popular forum, that someone has questions regarding purchasing of private shield plans. A financial advisor offered to help, but the threadstarters reply was that she dont need or want to see a financial advisor. And this reply of hers garnered popular support.

It sure is sad to see how the reputation of a financial advisor stink like that, but unfortunately I think that the smart man or woman would consult an advisor rather than asking clueless people on forums because they do not have any idea on the clauses in the insurance contract.

Whilst it is sad, nobody can blame these people for feeling that financial advisors are just out there to con their money. To put it simply, the name stinks. How many advisors are genuinely there to help a client? The number of people who do a fact find before proceeding to recommendations are considered to be extremely rare.

There are a couple of reasons why I would think that financial advisors have a hard time, and I believe that the industry has to improve for its reputation to go up. But the smart move now would be to find a trustable advisor to begin advising you on any matters.

1. It is easy to be a financial advisor
A doctor has to undergo specific training up to 6 years in duration before he is allowed to practise. An advisor only needs a pass in o levels? Furthermore, how convinced can you be of an advisor selling you an investment plan in a mutual fund if he has no qualifications regarding finance? Only a handful of financial advisors proceed on to get their CFAs. Can you imagine your advisor recommending you to select a fund, but he does not really understand how it works? Telling me it will go up does not convince me at all.

2. Lousy standards with respect to learning about new products
I have participated in the launch of new financial products. Advisors have to sit in for a few hours of lessons and then take a mcq test. Throughout the lesson, certain words are emphasized in a different colour to signify that it would be tested. When the mcq is being taken, people discuss despite being told not to. If our A levels are conducted like this, Im sure no one would have any faith in our qualifications. Similarly, how much faith can I put in my advisor if their knowledge on new products are built on shaky foundations?

3. Not following proper procedures
Do you know that advisors are supposed to get your financial details like salary, CPF contributions, dependents details, monthly expenses, existing insurance plans etc before recommending you any product? However, how many advisors truly adopt such a measure? How many times has your advisor called to say that theres this new product and arranges for a meeting? As opposed to having yearly reviews before saying I think this product suits your current needs or I have a new product, but I dont think it suits your needs at all. This layer of transparency and integrity would go a long way in improving the reputation of financial advisors.

Although there are many black sheep in the industry, there are good ones too. Ask your trusted friends if they have any advisors they trust. I do not like talking to agents on roadshow particularly because I do not know them enough to trust them. But the main lesson of the day is to seek proper help and never ask a completely untrained person for financial advice.