Still on the topic of price discrimination, this time from the view of a consumer.

I’ve been searching hard for cheap airfares from Singapore to Canada for my exchange next year. However, so far I’ve met with much frustration, with all the fares w/ taxes for reliable airlines above S$2,000.

Probably the most ridiculous thing that I’ve encountered is that SIA’s airfares for SIN - YVR - SIN costs S$2,358 with taxes. However, a search on the reverse itinerary YVR - SIN - YVR on the same dates coughed up a fare of about S$2136 with taxes. These prices came right out of SIA’s online booking engine.

Why is it that flying SQ costs more from Singapore than from Canada? Taking into account higher living standards in Canada, shouldn’t fares cost more there? Also, being a flag-carrier for Singapore, shouldn’t SQ offer better deals from its home country?

Another issue that I came across is on student airfares. Many airlines offer attractive student fares for students from the airlines’ home country. However, SIA is one exception. While it does offer student airfares from Singapore to various destinations, the prices are oddly enough, higher than its promotional prices available to the general public. Even Cathay Airlines, a 5 stars carrier, offers very low fares for Hong Kong students.

It’s a shame that although Singapore Airlines is generally regarded as the world’s best airline, many Singaporeans like myself have never had an opportunity to board an SQ flight and experience the service that we’ve all heard so much about, because of its prohibitively high prices. Perhaps SIA should consider having better fares for students so that we can experience its services for ourselves and understand why we should be proud of our flag-carrier.

I don’t know whether it is Singapore culture or whether it works the same way elsewhere, but I’ve always been subject to price discrimination whenever I try to get some business as a freelancer.

When I first stepped out into providing freelance web design services, I was just in Sec 2. At that age, it’s quite understandable if clients discriminate against me and offer to pay peanuts. However, in recent years, whenever potential clients (I’m providing consultancy services now) come to know that I’m still studying, they would do the same, refusing to accept my quotations without a huge discount even though I know (and they know, too) that my prices are already lower than what they would get elsewhere.

Recently, a friend of mine approached me to get a quotation for the organisation that he was interning for. I promptly prepared one and sent to him. Weeks later, there was still no response. I felt it odd so I messaged him to ask him about what feedback his boss had. He told me that his boss felt “it was too much for a student”. S$1,700 for six weeks of work, too much for a university student who already has a poly diploma?

I feel quite insulted and demoralised, because in the first place I intended for this project to be something nice for my portfolio, so I in fact priced it lower than I would under normal circumstances. Thus, such a response really puts me off.

In the past, I would oblige with lower prices, but since the last couple of years, I refuse to budge from my position if I feel that I’m already giving a good price. I rather stick to my principle of not lowering the value of my work than price my services in such a manner that I would earn more as a sales assistant in some departmental store. I feel it is very basic business ethics to have respect for what a professional would charge for his services. For example, we don’t just go to the doctor’s, dentist’s or lawyer’s and bargain for discounts, right?

I wonder whether the boss would have felt it was a high price if she doesn’t know that I’m a student?

In its follow-up media release to clarify the number of foreign students offered places in local universities, MOE made an assertion that

This year, nearly 19,000 foreign students applied for local universities and did not get in, which translates to over S$480 million in lost revenue annually.

So, what is the point of making this statement? Is it to show how the government is losing out by according priority to subsidised local students?

Well, it may be a valid argument, if not for the fact that only about 5% of foreign students pay full fees in Singapore universities. The remaining 95% of them sign a bond to remain in Singapore to work for 3 years after graduation (thus also taking up jobs that should have rightfully gone to local graduates). 5% translates to about 200 students, and that means just S$5.2 million in lost revenue annually, while the government subsidises about 75% worth of fees for the remaining foreigeners. That translates into approximately 75% x $26,000 x 3,800 students = S$74.1 million annually.

Also, before making such a statement, they should consider how much taxpayers’ money were lost in the UNSW saga. S$32 million.

S0 who is really losing out? Singaporeans, the government, or the foreign students?

I may be lashed at for making such a statement, but I seriously believe that Singaporeans should be given more priority than what we are receiving now when it comes to education. Foreigners are displacing Singaporean students at all education levels. Also, the government should remove or reduce subsidies for foreigners - why use the taxpayers’ money to subsidise education for other countries’ citizens? Many of them will just move back to their own countries after the 3 years bond anyway - how much do we gain from the 3 years of work they’d done for us in jobs that could have gone to local graduates? They may continue to work and contribute to the economy here for many years after graduation, but when there is a national crisis, can we depend on these people to defend the nation? They will more likely go back to their home countries when that happens.

Also, MOE came up with all the wrong figures again, contradicting its policy of having a 20% cap on foreign student enrollment. MOE claimed that only 18.4% of foreigners who applied were offered places, thus it hasn’t breached the 20% quota yet. However, shouldn’t the 20% quota be based on total number of places offered rather than total number of foreign applications? Using the latter to calculate, it appears that 28.7% of places this year were offered to foreigners. Nearly 1 in 3 students in Singapore universities are foreigners, far from the 1 in 5 claimed by the authorities for so many years, and closer to what we see on ground level.

To exagerrate the effects of such a mistake - If there were 50,000 foreign applications for places, then 20% would be 10,000. This would effectively mean that Singapore students would become the minority group, with just over 4,000 places.

Clarifying the issue is a good thing, but they should have at least made sure that the figures and explanation were correct and valid this time. Instead, this clarification has opened up another can of worms for Singaporeans to wonder at.

A long time gripe of mine is how the service in Singapore sucks, and yet the government is frequently potraying Singapore as a place with good service to foreigners. Perhaps it is because service personnel here generally treat foreigners better than locals?

It’s quite ironic that despite being a first world country already, our service personnel are still seen as sucking up to caucasians who are generally thought to be more well-to-do and having higher standards than locals. I’ve heard many people talk about how SIA flight attendants are more friendly towards caucasians rather than fellow Singaporeans. I’ve also experienced such discrimination on many occasions while shopping or having meals in town.

One more thing I cannot stand is how service personnel in Singapore gauge people by the clothes they wear and provide service based on their perception of how well-to-do a person is. I often dress simply when I go out, because I find there’s no need to dress up except for special occasions. Very often when I go shopping, I get ignored by sales attendants, who seem to have a habit of flocking towards better-dressed customers and ignoring or giving half baked responses to people like myself.

This can be attributed to a very old-school thinking that if the person is well-dressed, he or she must be well-to-do and thus have a higher chance of spending more than that guy who is in t-shirt, shorts and slippers. Well I must say that this is a very wrong perception, because I know plenty of rich people who dress simply and lots of poor kids garbed in branded gear from head to toe.

Perhaps some people would argue that this is how things work across Asia. Well, I must say that we cannot blame people in poorer countries for being biased towards caucasians who are genuinely more well-to-do. However, here in Singapore we are already a first world country and have more well-travelled and educated people who earn respectable incomes.  So why the discrimination?

If Singapore really wants to become well-known for good service, then there must be some discipline instilled in service staff, to teach them to discard their individualistic ideas while at work. A company can proclaim to have a code of conduct for its staff, and perhaps even have written policies on non-discrimination - but if nothing is done to avoid individualism at the workplace, codes of conduct are just useless statements.

On my several trips to China, I noticed that many service establishments such as restaurants and hair salons conduct staff briefings every morning. Staff are expected to stand at attention outside the shop while attendance is taken and their uniforms are checked. Afterwhich a manager would brief them on certain issues and they would have to recite their company’s mission statements for example something like “I must maintain good service at all times!”. The best part was, many service staff there seemed genuinely sincere to customers and I felt happy to spend my money in their shops and leave with a smile… unlike in Singapore where very often, once I reach the cashier’s counter and handed over my money, service has ended and I become invisible to the sales person who attended to me earlier.

Of course, there are black sheep everywhere. However, the number of positive experiences I’ve had while in China far outweighed the unhappy ones. In Singapore, it’s the opposite. Singaporeans should really look towards China and learn from them. Don’t always think that since we are far more developed than China, we must be more superior in everything.

Perhaps the only consolation is that in several establishments in Singapore, we can really see good service. I’m talking about companies like Giordano, whose staff never fails to greet and bid goodbye to their customers, even if they buy nothing eventually. Service at Giordano is so good that competitors have been poaching their staff!

I noticed that these better examples are establishments that instil discipline as part of their workplace culture. At the same time, these companies are also the ones who appear to have better staff welfare and training. So I believe it all boils down to two things 1) Being professional - putting aside individualism while at work and embracing the workplace culture, and 2) Treating employees well so that they will be more motivated to do their best for the company.

The above is quoted from PM Lee’s son 2LT Li Hongyi, from his infamous complaint letter. Let’s have a whole list of demands!

Your inputs are welcome, just submit your “demands” under comments… only citizens are eligible to submit demands

For starters, here’s my demand…

As a citizen, I have the right to demand… FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

If anybody out there has frequent flyer miles to spare on any airline, let me know… I need enough miles for a 6 months return ticket from SIN - YVR.

I will pay the market price for a 1 month return ticket.

I’ve just got news that I’ll be getting an award for my exchange program in Canada. However, the amount I am receiving falls a bit short of expectation (OK, it’s very much lesser than what I expected). So I guess there is a high possibility I will not go on the exchange after all, unless I strike Group 1 or Group 2 Toto prizes tonight. Otherwise it’s just not financially possible to cough up another $6 - $7k by myself.

I guess I’m quite disappointed, since I’ve heard of people getting full sponsorship on the same award, and I expected a similar level of sponsorship for myself. I could perhaps ask for a review of my case, but I suppose there is a limit to others’ generousity and I should have a limit to how much help I expect to receive. I am already receiving free education, so perhaps I should try to be contented already.

On the other hand, now that it’s not financially possible to go on exchange, the problem of whether to leave my loved ones behind for half a year or so is automatically solved. That’s not much of a consolation, but I guess it’ll work for now.

When the walls of your world come tumbling down

When your heart starts breaking and there’s no one around

Just look over your shoulder wherever you roam

And remember, you’re never alone

After losing out to the Workers’ Party at the last general elections, Mr. Eric Low “decided that he would stop being taken for granted by Hougang residents.”

I like to believe that in the world of politics, there are few self-sacrificing politicians willing to continue wasting time and money on communities that would not vote for them despite receiving many benefits off them. As in what happens in economics, transactions only take place if it would make both parties better off.

Obviously, Mr. Low had made the wrong calculations during his campaigning. He probably did not realise that what the residents needed were something more meaningful than little food treats and promises of upgrading. As a result, the residents benefitted from his free breakfasts, while he did not get his much coveted seat in parliament. Since these tactics didn’t work, there was no point carrying on doing it, as the residents of Hougang were just gaining at his expense.

If I am a Hougang resident, after reading such a statement I would be less inclined to vote for him. What is meant by taken for granted? Mr. Low was obviously a willing party, doing all sorts of things for the residents out of his own accord. Nobody had forced him to provide his services (and free food). I am sure no resident in Hougang had ever asked him to dish out free food. While it was commendable that he was willing to dish out free food and services, he should also be willing to accept the fact that Hougang residents had more integrity than to vote for him based on these little acts.

In my opinion, rather than complaining that he’s not being treated the way he should be (being voted for) in return for his kindness and services, he should be more graceful and admit defeat as a sportsman would. The election was supposed to be a fair competition (in fact some people would even argue that the ruling party had some upperhands, but I will not comment on this), and if one lost out in a fair competition there should be no grouses.

What is more important, is to learn from defeat - why hadn’t the little acts of generousity worked? What went wrong? Was it that the residents weren’t interested in free breakfasts? Was it that it was just too superficial? Was it that promises of upgrading weren’t attractive enough? Was it something else?

So it appeared that after the elections, on top of stopping the free food giveaways, Mr. Low also stopped his Meet-the-People sessions, and slapped a fee on previously free health screenings. One wonders that if he can take these actions just because he lost in the elections, what would happen if he had won? Would he have stopped those services too, since he’d already gotten what he wanted?

Well, maybe he’s finally realised that it wasn’t a wise game he was playing by stopping his activities. Recently he’s announced a comeback in the constituency, with a 5 year plan towards the next elections. This is a rather commendable spirit, although it leaves to be seen how long he can push on for.

Maybe his compatriot over at Potong Pasir should learn from him. Mr. Seetoh had similarly stopped providing his services after losing in the last election. Till now, he has not resumed any of his activities. If he intends to contest the next elections, he should not have stopped at all. Instead, he should have stepped up his campaigning right from the next day after his defeat. Maybe he should have dished out his famous abalone porridge and sharks fin soup for free rather than for $2. Just kidding, I’m sure the people of Potong Pasir has more integrity than to vote based on their palates. I don’t believe any politician will dish out cheap abalone porridge and sharks fin for 5 years after winning the elections. Maybe the voters realised that too.

I haven’t updated this blog for quite a while. I reckon my regular readers looking for my regular government bitching articles have already deserted me.

Well, I’m now back from my one month exchange in China, with a lot of valuable lessons learnt about the Chinese economy and society. The reason I’d stopped updating my site on a day-to-day basis while there was ‘cos I went down with a high fever that lasted nearly a week. I was even sent to a local hospital that looked like a slaughterhouse.  So I hadn’t the mood to blog anymore for the rest of the trip.

Now that I’m back and with some time left before the new semester starts, I’m taking some time out to think about my future. I’m quite tired already, at just 24 years old. I like that think that from the moment we were born into this world, we begin our journey towards death. Sometimes, everything we do seem to be so futile.

Honestly speaking, life has been rather good to me. I wasn’t born into a well-to-do family, but I’ve all along been rewarded well for the hard work that I put in my past businesses and studies. But things never come easily… somehow, I feel that I’m always being forced to give up one thing for another. 2 years ago, I gave up a rewarding business in exchange for more time to spend with my ailing father and for some peace of mind. Last year, I gave up starting my own business to come to NUS on a scholarship. At this point, I’m being presented with another game of trade off - an award to go to Canada on an expenses-paid semesteral exchange or to stay in Singapore with my loved ones. While it has always been my dream to live/study/work overseas, it means that I have to leave my mom and GF in Singapore for 6 months. Of course, 6 months will pass quickly, but it still isn’t fair to them, especially to the GF.

I can anticipate, when I finally graduate, I will have another decision to make - whether to go ahead and try to start my business again or to just get a job for the sake of having some financial security so that I can start planning for a family. A huge part of me really wants to do what I’ve always wanted to do - to carve out my own business and be my own boss. Another part of me really wants to settle down and start a family. But it’s not going to be easy to do both at the same time - how can I have financial security to start a family while starting up a business? Also, I think my GF is in the opinion that I should just get a job upon graduation.

I feel so tired with these games life is playing on me. The worst thing is, no matter which path I chose to take whenever presented with crossroads in life, there would surely be some regrets. It has happened before, and it will certainly happen again and again.
Why can’t I just have my cake and eat it?