Re-introduction of White Flat?

28 May 2024

i recalled this so-called "White Flat" was piloted in Punggol in 2000, but the initiative was unsuccessful then, so it was scrapped... if this idea was piloted before, how is this considered a 'pilot' again? but "White Flat" concept makes more sense now, as many crazy young couples like to tear down the internal walls of their BTO, something i'm sure they will regret years later. Response to: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/housing/open-concept-hdb-flats-without-partitions-or-beams-to-be-piloted-in-kallang-whampoa-bto-project

Labels: , , , , ,

Re-introduction of White Flat?   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

We Keep The World Laughing on ERP2.0

30 April 2024

On 27 April 2024, ROADS.sg uploaded a skit "Who is the CHAMPION who came out with this idea?" to question sarcastically on the usability of the new 3-part On-Board Unit (OBU), which the 3 components are installed all over the car (note: the driver has absolute no say on where these components will be installed), and the video demonstrated how the driver has to awkwardly adjust himself to insert the cashcard into the IU and remove it [watch ROADS.sg's video here].

Obviously, this went viral quickly. As of now (29 April 2024, this video has garnered 4.4k reactions (breakdown: 2.1k Like, 2.1k Laugh, 41 Wow, 41 Angry, 28 Sad, 14 Love). The video also has 1.3k comments and 1.7k shares.

Generally, from the comments, most netizens agree with ROADS.sg that the new OBU is a stupid invention that is not well thought and poorly designed without the end-user in mind. Technologically, it is also a downgrade from the current IU, and netizens called for a review of the implementation.

It makes me wonder who is the scholar that 'invented'/approved this brilliant idea lol! 🫣 Personally, i think the elephant in the room is, if motorcycle can do a 1-to-1 (i.e. single piece) IU replacement without compromising functions, why does the new IU for car needs to be split into 3 units (installed randomly all over the car)??

While this new 3-part OBU is already quite a bad running joke being ridiculed online and offline for the past 2 days, LTA surprised everyone with an even sillier 'powerpoint slide video' on 29 April 2024 as a failed attempt trying to rebuke why the motorbike single-piece IU cannot be installed in cars [watch LTA's video here].

Obviously, LTA's video went viral for the wrong reason, as most netizens do not buy the rationale. As of now (29 April 2024 11.55pm (13h after the video was uploaded), LTA's video garnered 703 reactions (breakdown: 133 Like, 306 Laugh, 7 Wow, 251 Angry, 6 Sad, 0 Love). LTA's video has 813 comments and 186 shares. Comments are generally quite negative. Similar negative feedback are also observed across news pages, forums and offline.

Similar to SimplyGo, the 'poor explanation is worse than not explaining' attempt by LTA is actually creating even more questions than clarifications...

1. LTA's explanation on why the motorcycle single piece OBU cannot be installed in cars is because the interior of car has a higher temperature than the ambient temperature outdoor raised eyebrows. It is like implying the original 1998 technology (in terms of dealing with the interior temperature) is much better than the new one. If this is the case, then why is there a need to change/upgrade? Furthermore, there are a lot of other equipments installed in cars (e.g. radio, dash-cam, taxi meter, etc.). LTA's explanation is simply not convincing.

2. Giving LTA the benefit of doubt that the motorcycle single piece OBU cannot be installed in cars due to the temperature issue, can this challenge be resolved? If not, is it due to technical or cost constraint?

3. If the motorcycle single compartment is not missing any function, why does the car version needs to be split into 3 separated compartments?

4. Why drivers cannot decide where these components should be installed in their cars?

5. If the compartment for the insertion of cashcard needs to be installed at the leg area, why cant it be installed at the driver's side?

6. Is there any trial for this? If yes, what is the sample size and feedback?

7. What is the intention of transiting to ERP2.0? (i.e. to further track our every movement?)

8. What's the benefit of ERP2.0?

Considering that ERP has an excellent track record of not breaking down once since 1998, we need more clarifications and transparency on this.

With so much hate on this online & GE coming soon, many wonder whether will we see another go-stan on this nonsense too. After all, it is not that easy for the same agency to make so much blunder within a few months lol. but well, We Keep The World Laughing.

Labels: ,

We Keep The World Laughing on ERP2.0   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

SimplyGo-stan

09 January 2024

On 9 January 2024, LTA announced that the current EZ-Link adult card will be phased out on 30 May 2024, and everyone will need to 'upgrade' to the "SimplyGo" system from 1 June 2024. However, concession card holders (e.g. students, NSFs, senior citizens) will not be affected by this transition, as the new system will still be able to read these concession cards that relies on the existing EZ-Link technology.

Strong burst of public outcry and negative reactions from Singaporeans within a few hours
This news is not well received by Singaporeans from almost all demographic groups, with huge public outcry and negative reactions across various platforms. The official announcement posted on LTA facebook page received overwhelming negative reactions (i.e. 279 angry face out of 426 reactions, that is a whopping 65.49%) within a few hours after this news was publicized. Similar negative reactions was also observed on relevant news article posted by various mainstream media outlets (e.g. "Straits Times", "CNA", "Today", "Lianhe Zaobao", "Shin Min Daily News", "8 World News"). Comments from netizens and ground sentiments offline are generally very negative too.

SimplyGo-stan? Why remove existing functions/features??

[note: Go-stan is a singlish corruption of 'go astern', which means reverse or u-turn.]

SimplyGo is simply a huge step backward in terms of innovation, technology and user-friendiness.

What puzzled most Singaporeans is, why does the "SimplyGo" system removed the display of trip fare and card balance from the reader? Displaying of trip fare is a basic essential function that is present since the TransitLink magnetic card days (via printed receipt). Plus, I think as a paying commuter/customer, it is not too much for us to know how much we are paying for a particular trip/service instantly, especially since this feature is currently available.

Mumy used to have a SimplyGo card (which she purchased wrongly; Mumy wanted to buy a normal EZ-Link card as a back-up, but she was given a SimplyGo card by the TransitLink Ticket Office staff) that does not shows the fare and balance upon tapping. She got so fed up with that SimplyGo card till she refunded it the moment she received her Senior Concession Card last August.

Lastly, this so-called 'upgrade' does not make logic sense, because the "SimplyGo" system is still able to read concession cards, which relies on the EZ-Link technology. Therefore, it is natural for Singaporeans to question why is there a need for this replacement when the EZ-Link system is still running concurrently.

"Simply PR disaster"
Information pertaining to the new "SimplyGo" card and system are presented in a damn confusing manner for this press release. The news announcement does not explain convincingly why is there a need to phase out EZ-Link and how the new "SimplyGo" is actually better than EZ-Link. This is because, whatever feature/function of SimplyGo that is announced in this news, EZ-Link can already do it, and perhaps done it even better (i.e. allowing the display of fares and card balance). In fact, the news created more doubts and confusion than solving something that is not broken. The infographics accompanying the press releases and news article is also not helping. Personally, after reading these so-called info, I still cannot differentiate what is the differences between the old EZ-Link and this new SimplyGo, what are the benefits/advantages I am supposed to enjoy from the so-called "upgrade"...

In addition, I do not know that SimplyGo has actually been launched for so many years. This is unflattering from someone who surfs social media, and watches local TV programmes and local TV News daily.

This 'mandatory switching' feels like it was forced upon us due to low adoption rate, so LTA had to force it onto us to meet KPI. It also reminds me of the infamous tracetogether, which was forcefully shoved down our throat (but at least that was pitched as a pandemic control measure, whether it is a good measure is up for debate).

To be honest, to the layman like me, I am really not interested in whether the card is a Card-based card or an Account-based card. These are really technical back-end stuff that I am not interested to know. I just want to know how much I am paying and what is my current card balance. It really makes me wonder whether this (displaying of fares and balance) cannot be done is due to oversight, budget/cost or technical feasibility? If a new system needs to remove an existing feature due to technical feasibility, then this new system is not an 'upgrade'.

Please, do not forced me to download another app!
Like many Singaporeans, I do not like and do not want to be forced to download another app on my mobile phone. I am curious why authorities and event organizers enjoy forcing people to download their app that we will likely use once, twice or just a few times only. I really hate my phone to be cluttered with apps that I seldom use. In fact, I rather not enjoy a discount than to download an app that I won't use often. With the neverending increase of scam techniques and cases, I am even more averse towards downloading more apps and linking everything to my phone.

Lastly, if an app is truly innovative, convenient, or useful, there is no need to force people to download your app. For example, there is no need to force people to download and use Whatsapp, Paynow/Paylah, Grab, or even ActiveSG. People just automatically download and use these apps because these apps improve their life!

In fact, I am surprised that authorities did not learn their lessons from the backlash and unhappiness of 'mandatory download' of SGSecure (2017), TraceTogether (2020), LifeSG (2022).

Furthermore, to put it crudely, a 'smart nation' does not need to be obsessed with tracking, digitalization and technology. In fact, a true smart nation should focus on improving processes, instead of digitalization for the sake of digitalization.

Listen, or give people the option to choose
I feel, authorities and business entities should always keep in mind that they exist to serve, and they should also give people/customers the option to choose.

I am someone who likes to keep track of my expenses, I do request for receipts. I prefer hardcopy bills, as the letter reminds me to make payment. I also do not want to use my credit card(s) for public transport purposes. This is because it will just create more ambiguous lines of transactions in my credit card bills and I need to spend more time verifying whether these transactions are indeed made by me or fraud. I am lazy to top-up my pre-paid cards frequently. Therefore, I have the habit of topping $80-$100 into my EZ-Link monthly, which is enough to cover my public transport expenses each month. Furthermore, I will usually charge my card in the beginning of the month, which is pretty aligned with my salary pay day. Hence, it is easy for me to monitor my personal monthly cash flow and expenses.

Bear in mind that there are people who still prefers simpler low-tech ways of doing things. Call me Old School by all means, but if a method is already efficient, there is no need to deliberately digitalized if there is no true improvement or benefit to users.

Is there any research, survey, engagement conducted before the design process and forced implementation?

Finally, does LTA and the SimplyGo Team conduct any survey, engagement or focus group discussions to understand from commuters what they like or dislike about EZ-Link, what are the pain points of EZ-Link, what are the existing features to be retained/removed/enhanced, what are the desired enhancement that commuters need/want, what new features users hope to see? Does LTA even walk the ground and understand what are the needs and wants of commuters? Furthermore, does LTA did comprehensive case study on overseas public transport card system? Besides being a huge PR disaster, this saga just shows there is a huge problem with the design process.

Will SimplyGo be improved like how EZ-Link was enhanced?
I recalled EZ-Link started as a rather buggy system in 2002 and early EZ-Link cards spoilt easily. I remembered I need to replace my EZ-Link card frequently, as the card will randomly failed and cannot be detected by the reader on buses and MRT stations. However, I recalled there was a nationwide replacement exercise, and the 2nd generation EZ-Link card (think it is formally known as CEPAS) resolved this bug. Nevertheless, EZ-Link card is still a lot more reliable than CashCard, as the chip on CashCard gets damaged easily and becomes unreadable. In fact, EZ-Link improved tremendously over the years, with more functions available. As a student, it is a very welcomed move that EZ-Link card eventually replaced CashCard as the preferred pre-paid card for DIY photocopy machines and printing services in schools and libraries. Not forgetting that the main function of CashCard is actually for drivers and motorists to pay for ERP and carpark charges via the In-Vehicle Unit (IU). As a driver, EZ-Link can also be used in IU for motoring purposes too. Therefore, EZ-Link card can be used for public transport, printing, vending machines and motoring. Furthermore, with the combined function of CashCard (for photocopy and printing), it means 1 less card to carry in the wallet.

As SimplyGo is designed without the end-user in mind, I highly doubt it can or will be improved drastically to meet the satisfaction of the average Singaporeans. I doubt! This "SimplyGo" saga is a PR disaster at best and poor design thinking process that is not end-user-centric at worst.

I hope I am not paying 1% additional GST or public transport fare hike for this stupidity; kinda absurd.

In response to the forced transition from EZ-Link to the "SimplyGo" system from 1 June 2024.

Labels: ,

SimplyGo-stan   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

East Coast Long Island (finally?)

29 November 2023

aiya, not sure why many Singaporeans are complaining about this East Coast Long Island, when it is not exactly 'news'. this reclamation proposal was first conceptualized in Concept Plan 1991, widely published on newspapers and discussed in the 90s & already announced by PM in NDR2019... [my sec2 geography teacher already mentioned about this Long Island in class back in 1999.] in fact it has been pretty much a '只闻楼梯响 不见人下来' hypothesis for 3decades & finally some 'details' of implementation now.

Long Island will just be a 'repeat' of the East Coast reclamation project in the 60s, where the waterfront/beach shifted from East Coast Road to where it is now & to the shore of Long Island in the future. from Concept Plans, it seems likely the NSL or other MRT lines will be extended to this island.

i'm actually just more annoyed by the boring name 'Long Island', which reminds me of that 'Long Island' at New York. cant it be given a better name? the same applies for many road names (eg Park Street, Commerce Street, Union Street, Utility Street) at Marina South area. in the past (i mean 60s-80s), reclaimed land seems to have better names (e.g. Marine Parade, Bayshore), but the standard of naming just dropped ard 2000s (e.g. Marina Bay, Sentosa Cove, Tuas View). i also hope the agencies stop 'murdering' local names in favour of atas-sounding English names like what LTA did for many CCL, DTL & TSL MRT stations (e.g. Mayflower instead of Kebun Baru, Marymount instead of Shunfu, Havelock instead of Bukit Ho Swee). guess Bulim is really the only exception where JTC revert 'Wenya' to its original name when developing JID.

Response to:
- "Long Island to be reclaimed off East Coast could add 800ha of land, create Singapore’s 18th reservoir" by "Straits Times" (original article at https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/long-island-to-be-reclaimed-off-east-coast-could-add-800ha-of-land-and-singapore-s-18th-reservoir);
"Reclaimed 'Long Island' will be about twice the size of Marina Bay, tripling length of existing East Coast waterfront: Desmond Lee" by "Today" (original article at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/reclaimed-long-island-will-be-about-twice-size-marina-bay-tripling-length-existing-east-coast-waterfront-desmond-lee-2313716);
"两个滨海湾般大可防洪 东海岸外填海造“长岛”建蓄水池" by "Lianhe Zaobao" (original article at https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/singapore/story20231128-1452967).

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

East Coast Long Island (finally?)   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.