Sion
Senior Member
YOu exceeded my expectation. I was hoping to see this:
The taxi has to provide ashtray to burn the note? :bsmilie:
YOu exceeded my expectation. I was hoping to see this:
The taxi has to provide ashtray to burn the note? :bsmilie:
Why should a taxi driver get punished for following the law? The sign and the phrases are legally correct.TS can report the taxi driver to the authority in charge of issuing taxi licenses.
If taxi driver is lucky, he gets warning.
If taxi driver is not lucky, he gets taxi license revoked.
It's legal to put up such notice.
It would have been better to phrase nicely and polite instead of putting up a pamphlet of this kind.
Are you becoming a hobby lawyer now, telling people that they don't need to obey the law? Be careful with such claims and use the same common sense that you ask for from the taxi driver who put up this notice.It can be legal to put this notice, but using some decent common sense and business acumen, the cab driver will not know how the customer going to pay until he renders the service, ie until he drives the passenger to the destination.
So this means that cab driver is always at the disadvantage end. The customer do not need to obey his notice. Either the cab driver take the money or he doesn't.
Pointless ranting. The law does not ask for the options that a person has who is suffering from someone else violating the law. The options are provided by other laws. Obviously a police report and Small Claims Tribunal would be the next course of actions based on the fast that taxi fares are commonly below SGD100.00What can the cab driver do? Drive the customer to the police station? To the high court? To the small claims court? Oh come on......
That's what taxi driver are doing right now and that is how it works perfectly well million times a day (with maybe a few exceptions): taking the money, returning change and done. That's why I question the need to put up this notice and the need to rant about in length here whether it is legal or not. Wrong question.He just suck thumb and accept whatever money the passenger gives, as long as the amount is correct to the fare.
The cab driver is unlike a shop cashier. The shop doesn't need to give the product to the customer until he pays accordingly.
Are you becoming a hobby lawyer now, telling people that they don't need to obey the law? Be careful with such claims and use the same common sense that you ask for from the taxi driver who put up this notice.
Secondly, it simply does not matter for the law whether it is a veggie booth at the wet market, a taxi driver or the housing agent. The rules are laid out for all kinds of business and nobody can claim an exception from this. And strangely, nobody does and millions of transactions go well every day. The taxi driver is just putting up a notice, reminding people about the law, likely with the Intent of not getting flooded by $100 notes where he cannot return the change. (I hope that makes sense to you.) And suddenly, you make a bit fuss over it? Why?
Pointless ranting. The law does not ask for the options that a person has who is suffering from someone else violating the law. The options are provided by other laws. Obviously a police report and Small Claims Tribunal would be the next course of actions based on the fast that taxi fares are commonly below SGD100.00
That's what taxi driver are doing right now and that is how it works perfectly well million times a day (with maybe a few exceptions): taking the money, returning change and done. That's why I question the need to put up this notice and the need to rant about in length here whether it is legal or not. Wrong question.
The question is: why is there a sudden focus on this? In other countries it's s simple sign in the taxi saying: We do not accept notes of EUR 100, EUR 500 and EUR 1,000. Everybody understands that a taxi driver does not like to have a lot of change in the car, making him attractive to robbery. It's simple as that and nobody pulls out the law to check whether the taxi driver is legally entitled to put up such notice.
You will be charge an admin fee for coin banking unless the account is a children account.
Some people may try to use up their coins by paying Taxi driver $20 worth of 10 cents coins.
Taxi drivers don't have coin counting machine like the bank so they need to manually count like hell to ensure they got the correct amount.
It become worst when Malaysia coins are mixed with SG coins.
Are you becoming a hobby lawyer now, telling people that they don't need to obey the law? Be careful with such claims and use the same common sense that you ask for from the taxi driver who put up this notice.
Secondly, it simply does not matter for the law whether it is a veggie booth at the wet market, a taxi driver or the housing agent. The rules are laid out for all kinds of business and nobody can claim an exception from this. And strangely, nobody does and millions of transactions go well every day. The taxi driver is just putting up a notice, reminding people about the law, likely with the Intent of not getting flooded by $100 notes where he cannot return the change. (I hope that makes sense to you.) And suddenly, you make a bit fuss over it? Why?
Pointless ranting. The law does not ask for the options that a person has who is suffering from someone else violating the law. The options are provided by other laws. Obviously a police report and Small Claims Tribunal would be the next course of actions based on the fast that taxi fares are commonly below SGD100.00
That's what taxi driver are doing right now and that is how it works perfectly well million times a day (with maybe a few exceptions): taking the money, returning change and done. That's why I question the need to put up this notice and the need to rant about in length here whether it is legal or not. Wrong question.
The question is: why is there a sudden focus on this? In other countries it's s simple sign in the taxi saying: We do not accept notes of EUR 100, EUR 500 and EUR 1,000. Everybody understands that a taxi driver does not like to have a lot of change in the car, making him attractive to robbery. It's simple as that and nobody pulls out the law to check whether the taxi driver is legally entitled to put up such notice.
chinese say: "law is dead", human is alive"
as so many have pointed out, it's not practical.
or are we becoming a litigious nation like the States?
Authority to have sole right to issue currency; legal tender
13.—(1) The Authority shall have the sole right to issue currency notes and coins in Singapore and only such notes and coins issued by the Authority shall be legal tender in Singapore.
[11/82; 25/2002]
(2) Currency notes issued by the Authority, if the notes have not been illegally dealt with, shall be legal tender up to their face value for the payment of any amount.
[3/91; 25/2002]
(3) Coins issued by the Authority, if the coins have not been illegally dealt with, shall be legal tender up to their face value in Singapore as follows:
(a)in the case of coins of a denomination exceeding 50 cents — for the payment of any amount;
(b)in the case of coins of a denomination of 50 cents — for the payment of an amount not exceeding $10 ; and
(c)in the case of coins of a denomination lower than 50 cents — for the payment of an amount not exceeding $2.
[2/69; 11/82; 3/91; 25/2002]
(4) Where a payee has given written notice to the payer that he would not accept as payment all or any of the denominations of currency notes or coins in satisfaction of a debt, subsection (2) or (3), as the case may be, shall not apply to the payment of the debt to the extent specified in the notice. [25/2002]
(5) Where no written notice under subsection (4) has been given by the payee, payment by the payer in accordance with subsection (2) or (3), as the case may be, in satisfaction of a debt, shall be deemed to have satisfied that debt.[25/2002]
(6) For the purposes of this Act —
(a) a coin shall be deemed to have been illegally dealt with where the coin has been impaired, diminished, or lightened otherwise than by fair wear and tear, or has been defaced by having any name, word, device or number stamped or engraved thereon, whether the coin has or has not been thereby diminished or lightened; and
(b) a currency note shall be deemed to have been illegally dealt with where the note has been impaired, diminished or affected otherwise than by fair wear and tear, or has been defaced by writing or impressing on any note any mark, word, letter or figure or by perforation, cutting, splitting or in any other manner, whether the note has or has not been thereby impaired or diminished. [3/91]
(7) In any criminal proceedings in which the genuineness of any currency note or coin may be in question, a certificate signed by an officer of the Authority authorised for that purpose that he is satisfied by personal examination that such note or coin is or is not forged shall be held to be conclusive evidence of the same. [3/91; 25/2002]
(8) No officer of the Authority shall be cross-examined with regard to the contents of such certificate unless the court otherwise orders.
chinese say: "law is dead", human is alive"
as so many have pointed out, it's not practical.
or are we becoming a litigious nation like the States?