• XENNEC Camera Bags GIVE AWAY - SHARE & TAG your Friend to WIN one XENNEC Stylish bags. Visit this thread thread for more information.

Trading in MRT


Status
Not open for further replies.

Ajimey

New Member
Dec 30, 2007
84
0
0
Howgang
#2
Its a lame rule man... :bigeyes:

Thanks for sharing!
Will share wif my frenz... :)
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#5
Not wanting to believe everything I read, I went to do a little digging.

Apparently there really is such a law:

Rapid Transit System Regulations

Hawking, begging, touting, etc., prohibited
21. No person, while in or upon the railway premises shall, without the written permission of the Authority or its licensee —

(a) tout or solicit alms, rewards or employment of any description;
(b) sell or offer for sale any article or goods, or carry on any business; or
(c) display, exhibit or distribute any book or printed, written or pictorial matter or any such samples for the purpose of advertising or publicity.

31(2) No person shall for the purpose of any trade or business transfer any article or goods between the paid area and unpaid area unless the article or goods is taken by a person through a ticket gate.

The parts in red were only added via amendment in 2004.

Then again, if they really meant to enforce such rules, many people would have already run afoul of this daily:

Loitering prohibited
18. No person, not being a passenger or having business in or in connection with the Authority or its licensee or its tenant, shall loiter or remain in or upon any part of the railway premises.


There are many more other funny rules in the Regulations which is good to know and read up on - you never know when you may get hit :). Even things like sitting on the escalator as it is going up (especially when one wishes rest their feet for two stories worth of escalator) is also an offence.
 

Last edited by a moderator:

Pinoy

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,702
1
38
ClubSNAP East
www.flickr.com
#7
I've done a lot of deals over the years -- with peeps from other forums like HWZ, VRZone and CS (etc) -- and an MRT station is the preferred place of meet up for closure of a transaction. More often than not, the transaction takes only a couple of minutes -- a quick check on the item and handing out of the cash -- and usually done in a corner where we are mindful not to inconvenience anybody.

While that rule sounds silly to me, guess we have no choice but to bear it in mind in future dealings.

:Later,
 

redmonsoon

Senior Member
Aug 6, 2004
843
0
16
Sg
#8
Maybe must take acting class....:bsmilie:
Buyer to seller after checking items: "Oh, u dropped some $$"....
 

estel

New Member
Jul 17, 2006
344
0
0
#10
This is ridiculous. Cannot believe this man. SMRT is just wanna earn extra money so that pple will tap their cards to go out instead of doing transaction over the gate. LAME!
What's the purpose of doing these "over the gate" transactions in the first place without coming out? If it were the case ALWAYS that you are going from point A to point B and do the transactions in a point C which is *midway* then you may claim that you don't want to get out and pay "unnecessary" EXTRA charge. But even here, whether it's an unreasonable charge is questionable: You voluntarily terminated your ride. However I don't think most transactions would fall in to this "mid point" case in the first place. Pray tell me, what's the point of "over the gate" transactions in cases like this? :think:
 

Del_CtrlnoAlt

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2003
16,267
0
0
Outside the Dry Box.
Visit site
#11
V

vince123123

Guest
#14
If for example, you travel from Station A to Station B, say 3 stations away, you do an over-the-gate transaction at Station B.

You then take the train back to Station A and exit there. Provided you can complete the round trip within the prescribed timing, you will only need to pay the minimum fare.

On another example, if you travel from Station 1 to Station 6, do the transaction, then go to Station 7 where you need to go. It costs less to pay for Station 1 to 7, than it is for Station 1 to 6, and 6 to 7.

Do a bit more research and you will realise why there is cost savings involved in over-the-gate transactions.

What's the purpose of doing these "over the gate" transactions in the first place without coming out? If it were the case ALWAYS that you are going from point A to point B and do the transactions in a point C which is *midway* then you may claim that you don't want to get out and pay "unnecessary" EXTRA charge. But even here, whether it's an unreasonable charge is questionable: You voluntarily terminated your ride. However I don't think most transactions would fall in to this "mid point" case in the first place. Pray tell me, what's the point of "over the gate" transactions in cases like this? :think:
 

Shen siung

Senior Member
May 21, 2008
2,597
0
36
#15
without clicking that link, i thought someone ran off with a L lens during a transaction.
Ha ha, I have the same impression.
Anyway, I feel safer to transact out of control station... Just one or two dollar for the train fare what...
 

estel

New Member
Jul 17, 2006
344
0
0
#16
Do a bit more research and you will realise why there is cost savings involved in over-the-gate transactions.
I knew what you wrote already. In case you saw the part i highlighted, you would have understood that my question was rhetorical.

In the case you mentioned, at least in the A -> B -> A case, you are not only legally, but also ETHICALLY bound to pay up what you owe the company for the service you used.

Hence the question.

Second case was the case I mentioned myself.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#17
Actually, it is not clear to me that your question is rhetorical. You may wish to just make the point rather than to ask questions in such a manner.

I will be not discussing ethics because each person's values, principles, thoughts and therefore ethcis differ.

However, I'm not sure if I am "legally" bound to pay up. From my understanding, the contract and hence fare, is calculated based on entering and leaving of fare gates, not based on the distance I travel. The fact that MRT provides for a fare when one enters and leaves by the same station supports this statement.

I knew what you wrote already. In case you saw the part i highlighted, you would have understood that my question was rhetorical.

In the case you mentioned, at least in the A -> B -> A case, you are not only legally, but also ETHICALLY bound to pay up what you owe the company for the service you used.

Hence the question.

Second case was the case I mentioned myself.
 

estel

New Member
Jul 17, 2006
344
0
0
#18
I think the "charge by gate exit" mechanism in MRTs were implemented in order to make the card payments more flexible and convenient for users, while not having costlier and more sophisticated systems to catch every single entry to the train (cost of which would eventually be passed in to commuters). This has its benefits to the commuter as well, such as the cases where one forgets/misses the alighting station where he or she can take the train back without paying any extra.

However if people misuse the system to cheat what they ethically owe, I don't have any issues of a company making a rule to discourage such practice.
 

estel

New Member
Jul 17, 2006
344
0
0
#19
The fact that MRT provides for a fare when one enters and leaves by the same station supports this statement.
My rule of operation: I used a train service - I need paying up the right amount.

If one makes hair-splitting law points to say that one can LEGALLY pay less, then IMO one doesn't really have any right to question the "unfairness" or "strictness" of other laws that tries to cover the original legal loophole. Like ethics, "strictness" is also subjective.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#20
Uh, the law is the law, there's no splitting hairs or strictness or laxness involved. As I said, the system is charged based on fare gates, I contract based on fare gates, and hence the legal liability is based on fare gates.

Not liking the legal position or trying to exploit what you consider as "legal loopholes" is another issue altogether.

Trying to correlate one's own personal value system or rules of operation to what the legal position is, is also another issue altogether.

My rule of operation: I used a train service - I need paying up the right amount.

If one makes hair-splitting law points to say that one can LEGALLY pay less, then IMO one doesn't really have any right to question the "unfairness" or "strictness" of other laws that tries to cover the original legal loophole. Like ethics, "strictness" is also subjective.
 

Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom