Trading in MRT


Status
Not open for further replies.

estel

New Member
Jul 17, 2006
344
0
0
#41
all I questioned was your assertion that one is LEGALLY BOUND to pay for the distance travelled,
I did not contest your legal opinion, vince. You may be right on that. In fact my emphasis there was on the ethical part, not legal part. My following argument was to show that your interpretation (legal/regulatory/contract) of what I said notwithstanding, my point of sticking to EITHER law(/regulation/contract)-to-the-letter OR fairness still stands. I hope this is clear.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#42
Hmm, actually I gave no legal opinion, just my comments. If you had conceded on the legally bound issue earlier, we will not having this amorphous discussion. I read your discussions on ethics to be supporting your stand that there is legal liability since you did not specifically concede that you were mistaken.

And I am still and have been sticking to the law, regulation and contract, I don't know what point you are making in your second sentence.

I did not contest your legal opinion, vince. You may be right on that. In fact my emphasis there was on the ethical part, not legal part. My following argument was to show that your interpretation (legal/regulatory/contract) of what I said notwithstanding, my point of sticking to EITHER law(/regulation/contract)-to-the-letter OR fairness still stands. I hope this is clear.
 

estel

New Member
Jul 17, 2006
344
0
0
#43
And I am still and have been sticking to the law, regulation and contract, I don't know what point you are making in your second sentence.
What i said was:

"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. "

with emphasis on "ethically". Legal or regulation or contractual wasn't my emphasis and I do not think my point relies on the academic difference.

since you did not specifically concede that you were mistaken.

You quoted me and said that what is legal and I took this to be an argument "contractually conforming hence OK" for the above reason. I replied to show that my stand wasn't that "one must be ethical" or "one must follow the law to the rule" but if one uses the excuse "I'm abiding by the contract" to NOT PAY FOR TRAVELING (on the basis that the "contract" implies the "charge at gate") then one must not question other regulation as well because he goes by regulations, not ethics. On the other hand, if one calls that it's "unfair" to prohibit over-the-gate transaction, one must question whether the behavior that leads to over the gate transactions is fair in the first place.

As I said, I continue to abide by the reasoning that I pay for using the train, not using the gate, however this is technically and contractually implemented. Hence I think it's not fair to do over the gate transactions in the intention of avoiding card payment, at least in the clear case of A -> B -> A. Hence the contractual conformance and "have been sticking to the law" notwithstanding, I think one doesn't have an ethical right to question the additional regulation on the ground of fairness as per the "extra money" post I quoted. I wanted to show that your answer to my post doesn't invalidate the point I wanted to raise originally.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#45
Simply put, I'm not legally bound to pay extra for the round trip, but if I contravene Regulation 31, I'm liable for an offence, but that, still does not make me legally bound to pay extra for the round trip.

As stated on many occassions, I was only merely commenting on the legally bound part. All others are smoke and mirrors.

I quote my post 17 for you again just in case you keep trying to get me to discuss ethcis:

vince123123 said:
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.
What i said was:

"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. "

with emphasis on "ethically". Legal or regulation or contractual wasn't my emphasis and I do not think my point relies on the academic difference.




You quoted me and said that what is legal and I took this to be an argument "contractually conforming hence OK" for the above reason. I replied to show that my stand wasn't that "one must be ethical" or "one must follow the law to the rule" but if one uses the excuse "I'm abiding by the contract" to NOT PAY FOR TRAVELING (on the basis that the "contract" implies the "charge at gate") then one must not question other regulation as well because he goes by regulations, not ethics. On the other hand, if one calls that it's "unfair" to prohibit over-the-gate transaction, one must question whether the behavior that leads to over the gate transactions is fair in the first place.

As I said, I continue to abide by the reasoning that I pay for using the train, not using the gate, however this is technically and contractually implemented. Hence I think it's not fair to do over the gate transactions in the intention of avoiding card payment, at least in the clear case of A -> B -> A. Hence the contractual conformance and "have been sticking to the law" notwithstanding, I think one doesn't have an ethical right to question the additional regulation on the ground of fairness as per the "extra money" post I quoted. I wanted to show that your answer to my post doesn't invalidate the point I wanted to raise originally.
 

Last edited by a moderator:

estel

New Member
Jul 17, 2006
344
0
0
#46
I quote my post 17 for you again just in case you keep trying to get me to discuss ethcis:
I do agree that it would be a pointless endeavor to try to "discuss ethics" with you, as I already acknowledged. I was simply commenting to elaborate on my original point by showing that even your "legally bound" position does not invalidate my answer to original poster because

1. my emphasis was on more on ethical ground then, because I thought the original posters were protesting it in the ground of "fairness" which is essentially a question of ethics,
2. even if legal conformity is the line of reasoning one (not necessarily you) adopts, then one doesn't have any point in complaining against the SMRT staff in the first place, who were conforming to equally valid regulations.

Your point was already used by Pinoy:

I am paying SMRT based on gate entry/exit (as per vince's post) charging process.
Hence the need to address the point.
 

Last edited:

Lenscapes

New Member
Apr 28, 2004
942
0
0
#47
someone working for LTA or smrt here? :bsmilie::bsmilie:
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#48
It is pointless only because Im not discussin ethics. Your whole essay on ethics is better directed at the TS and not me. I've only raised one small issue, and you blown it into so many other issues. As I said before (but you somehow don't get it), you can discuss ethics al you want, but you do not need to put it in a post directed towards me and quoting my text. I'll skip past the whole thing as it does not contain an issue of interest to me.

Since we already settled the fact that you have conceded and withdrawn your claim on being legally bound, lets just leave this as that. You can continue the rest of the discussion on ethics with the others.

On point 2, yes, I never contested this, but merely made the difference between teh two types of legal obligatiosn clear. Just becuase you flout one does not mean you cannot rely on the other. Simple as that. You lump everything together, thatn's not how the legal system works.

I do agree that it would be a pointless endeavor to try to "discuss ethics" with you, as I already acknowledged. I was simply commenting to elaborate on my original point by showing that even your "legally bound" position does not invalidate my answer to original poster because

1. my emphasis was on more on ethical ground then, because I thought the original posters were protesting it in the ground of "fairness" which is essentially a question of ethics,
2. even if legal conformity is the line of reasoning one (not necessarily you) adopts, then one doesn't have any point in complaining against the SMRT staff in the first place, who were conforming to equally valid regulations.

Your point was already used by Pinoy:



Hence the need to address the point.
 

Last edited by a moderator:

estel

New Member
Jul 17, 2006
344
0
0
#50
It is pointless only because Im not discussin ethics. Your whole essay on ethics is better directed at the TS and not me.
It wasn't directed at you, albeit a part of it was my to explain my position on YOUR LEGAL POINT which others could also use to justify their protest. Hence quoting your point.

After I said this:
I did not contest your legal opinion, vince. You may be right on that. In fact my emphasis there was on the ethical part, not legal part. My following argument was to show that your interpretation (legal/regulatory/contract) of what I said notwithstanding, my point of sticking to EITHER law(/regulation/contract)-to-the-letter OR fairness still stands.
you asked this:
And I am still and have been sticking to the law, regulation and contract, I don't know what point you are making in your second sentence.
hence I clarified what point it is that I'm trying to make. The point wasn't directed at you personally however I addressed that points (lack of) relevance on my point.

In case the LTA jokes were alluded to me, my line of work is science/research, neither LTA nor SMRT. :) I don't have any financial stakes in any Singapore-based enterprise.
 

Last edited:

afbug

Senior Member
Aug 19, 2004
482
0
0
Planet SG™
#51
Din know bout this rule till I read on papers. Did a few transactions a few times but I prefer to exit the station thou not everyone likes it.
 

estel

New Member
Jul 17, 2006
344
0
0
#52
Just becuase you flout one does not mean you cannot rely on the other. Simple as that. You lump everything together, thatn's not how the legal system works.
Yes i WAS lumping everything together on the grounds of consistency. I mentioned the word CONSISTENCY earlier. If you say that one is fine with using your legal rights while protesting others right, I won't have any personal issue with you, but I have a right to question the inconsistency involved in this case:

One may use one's "legal right" to avoid paying SMRT. SMRT is using their "legal right" to prevent one from possibly avoiding payment. HENCE, One's using one's own right and questioning SMRT's right isn't consistent in this case. They are just trying to stop one cheating the money from them which they must consider as "due" as evident from the regulation itself.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#53
I never said you can use one right to question another, please quote me chapter and verse.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#54
I never said brought up any cpncept of a legal point which others can use to justify their protest. Please quote me chapter and verse.

As for your last point once again you choose to direct it at my posts, but it is obvious in this case you are referring to others. maybe you want to be more specific who you are responding to so that others do not misunderstand you.

It wasn't directed at you, albeit a part of it was my to explain my position on YOUR LEGAL POINT which others could also use to justify their protest. Hence quoting your point.

After I said this:


you asked this:


hence I clarified what point it is that I'm trying to make. The point wasn't directed at you personally however I addressed that points (lack of) relevance on my point.

In case the LTA jokes were alluded to me, my line of work is science/research, neither LTA nor SMRT. :) I don't have any financial stakes in any Singapore-based enterprise.
 

estel

New Member
Jul 17, 2006
344
0
0
#55
I never said you can use one right to question another, please quote me chapter and verse.
i took your "Just because you flout one does not mean you cannot rely on the other." as justifying the people such as Pinoy who called the rule "stupid" while claiming that they abide by rules in not exiting on cases of A -> B -> A. If that wasn't what you meant, fine.

Whatever else that means, as long as it wasn't addressed to my points, I can't possibly be interested, but thanks for the very fine point.
 

Last edited:
V

vince123123

Guest
#56
Nope, what I meant is merely a summary of what can be found in post #45.

i took your "Just because you flout one does not mean you cannot rely on the other." as justifying the people such as Pinoy who called the rule "stupid" while claiming that they abide by rules in not exiting on cases of A -> B -> A. If that wasn't what you meant, fine.

Whatever else that means, as long as it wasn't addressed to my points, I can't possibly be interested, but thanks for the very fine point.
 

Pinoy

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,702
1
38
ClubSNAP East
www.flickr.com
#57
i took your "Just because you flout one does not mean you cannot rely on the other." as justifying the people such as Pinoy who called the rule "stupid" while claiming that they abide by rules in not exiting on cases of A -> B -> A. If that wasn't what you meant, fine..
Just to be clear -- in case somebody misreads your post -- I have never done and will never do an A -> B -> A route. That will be silly on my end to do that.

My transactions/dealings have always been A -> B -> C (i.e. City Hall -> Paya Lebar -> Tampines). Being forced to exit station B in order to comply with *that* rule is for me, stupid.

:Later,
 

estel

New Member
Jul 17, 2006
344
0
0
#58
Just to be clear -- in case somebody misreads your post -- I have never done and will never do an A -> B -> A route. That will be silly on my end to do that.

My transactions/dealings have always been A -> B -> C (i.e. City Hall -> Paya Lebar -> Tampines). Being forced to exit station B in order to comply with *that* rule is for me, stupid.

:Later,
then what was the point of getting so worked up? what i said was:

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?

Anyway, even in "mid point" case, I don't think you have a very solid stand. Whether one takes "only few minutes" or not is not what matters. What matters is whether your termination of the travel was voluntary. You can't say you didn't terminate the travel just because you "took only few minutes" or you have other "future plans in mind". What your ultimate destination at the end of the day isn't what a company must care about.

Having said that, I was talking on the clear case of A -> B -> A in particular, if you cared enough to read.
 

Pinoy

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,702
1
38
ClubSNAP East
www.flickr.com
#59
Haha. I rest my case. My stand stays. For me, that rule is stupid (especially considering that SMRT makes millions in profits year in and year out). Of course, you can disagree as much as you like, for whatever reason you think is "right". :)

:Later,
 

Last edited:

estel

New Member
Jul 17, 2006
344
0
0
#60
For me, that rule is stupid (especially considering that SMRT makes millions in profits year in and year out). Of course, you can disagree as much as you like for, for whatever reason. :)

:Later,
In the latter case, the reason could be phrased as "Robin Hood economy". I don't measure what I am due to someone or how justified not paying is, based on how rich one already is.

A due is a due.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom