If help my friend buy things. Meet up there to pass him the things and he passed me the money. Also cannot meh? This is not business, just helping my friend buy something and pass to him leh. :think:
Trading in MRT
- Thread starter cyquek
- Start date
- Status
omg sad news.... many good years ahead!!
admin, one suggestion: put this sticky in the WTB/WTS section
jus my 2cents
admin, one suggestion: put this sticky in the WTB/WTS section
jus my 2cents
I didn't say laws much be based on one's personal morals. What i say is that the "charge by gate exit" was done that way not because it has any natural common sense, but because it was technically more practical to do that. The company won't think it fine if everyone gets in to trains, travel and do business over the gates, get back and claim that their traveling few stops doesn't actually count because they exited at the same stop as per "contract". This is obviously a technical loophole in the system; At least I don't think is a logical way of charging. But I'm happy with this system because it's simple to implement and more convenient and possibly faster than, say, needing a ticket to enter the train or keep someone like bus captain in every train and charge us more to pay his salary. Hence I don't have any problems if the company makes additional refining laws to keep the "contract" in line with what they think is fair use. IMO, a rule that constrains the so-called "contract" is better than a more draconian system that will ensure that people pay for real use of trains which will most likely be costlier to commuter.
As I said, company made that contract, company also made the other rule against over-the-gate trading. So if one wants to stick to the contract by letter, then let's stick to the letter and stop questioning one part of the law. It is there to prevent people exploiting the other part.
I rest my case.
Last edited:
I have the same doubt as well..
Say: My aunt who stay in the North likes to eat the chicken rice from my place at West side. I help her buy a few packets, pass to her over at the corner where the gate is far off and she pays me. Illegal a not?
What classifies as a business(registerd business/complany)?
Is an errand a business?
I have a lens that is not in use any more..letting go of it cheap over here in CS. (No profit involved). Doing the buyer an errand, I pass to him at the MRT gate..:bsmilie:
Last edited:
If the buyer already paid via internet banking. On that day, I just pass them the thing, is it business transaction?
if it is a genuine friendship thing how? I pass my friend something , strictly no MONEY involved. Can or not?
also, can chit chat over the gate or not?
"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. "
Counts as trade.
Also:
"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."
So no chit-chat.
I thank you. So cheat is an "appealingly rude" word?
If I used the same SMRT resources (sans open/close electricity of the gate) as someone who did exit the gate, but did not exit so that i can pay a smaller amount by making the ticketing system believe that I didn't travel that far, (using EVEN MORE company resources than the guy who exited because I'm going back using the train system), then I think it's fair to say that I'm cheating the system, what ever the "contract" is. I traveled willingly, it's not like that I entered the station and later changed my mind and left the station without traveling. I think any company would be liked to be paid for what resources they spent on me. Only thing, this isn't technically convenient to implement for trains. So they have a workable system and a "contract" which is not exploit-proof.
Your reasoning or ethics may be different.
If the things go overboard, and everyone start dragging "contracts" to avoid paying for the resources they used, more draconian "contracts" and systems will be in place, at the higher cost + higher inconvenience of everyone.
V
vince123123
Guest
Since the current system is charge by gate exit, my contract is based on charge by gate exit. It is as simple as that.
MRT has already thought of the whole "travel round the world" loophole, which is why it imposes a time limit for each gate that you exit. For example, Entry & Exit at Gate 1 = x min, Entry at Gate 1, exit at Gate 2 = y min, and so on.
It does not matter if it is a techincal loophole because if I enter and travel to Gate 4, and then go back and exit at Gate 1, my legal liability is still the price for Gate 1.
The company may not think it fine, but as a business, it accepts certain shortcomings in the system. That is a business decision, nothing legal at all.
I draw your attention back to your original statement:
"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."
I am saying, that I am not legally bound to pay up, simply becuase there is no legal obligation.
If MRT decides to change the system tommorrow and impose a legal obligation, then yes, I become legally bound.
Once again, I am only taking issue at your statement that one is legally bound to pay up, which is not true. You can champion all you wish against or for the current system, but that is not what I'm trying to discuss. I am only discussing your statement that "I am LEGALLY BOUND".
ANd to correct you once more, company made the contract, but Company did not make the rule against Over The Gate trading. SMRT is not a legislative body and it cannot make Regulations , nor impose fines. The Regulations are done by LTA with the approval of the Minister.
And if I were to stick to the letter of the law, yes I cannot do trading over the gate, but I can, and am legally entitled to, travel to A, do whatever I want at B's paid area, and then go back to A and exit. That is what I'm legally entitled to do.
I suspect you are mixing up the whole idea of legality and morality, what are laws (legislated) and what are company policy (made by non legislative bodies)
MRT has already thought of the whole "travel round the world" loophole, which is why it imposes a time limit for each gate that you exit. For example, Entry & Exit at Gate 1 = x min, Entry at Gate 1, exit at Gate 2 = y min, and so on.
It does not matter if it is a techincal loophole because if I enter and travel to Gate 4, and then go back and exit at Gate 1, my legal liability is still the price for Gate 1.
The company may not think it fine, but as a business, it accepts certain shortcomings in the system. That is a business decision, nothing legal at all.
I draw your attention back to your original statement:
"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."
I am saying, that I am not legally bound to pay up, simply becuase there is no legal obligation.
If MRT decides to change the system tommorrow and impose a legal obligation, then yes, I become legally bound.
Once again, I am only taking issue at your statement that one is legally bound to pay up, which is not true. You can champion all you wish against or for the current system, but that is not what I'm trying to discuss. I am only discussing your statement that "I am LEGALLY BOUND".
ANd to correct you once more, company made the contract, but Company did not make the rule against Over The Gate trading. SMRT is not a legislative body and it cannot make Regulations , nor impose fines. The Regulations are done by LTA with the approval of the Minister.
And if I were to stick to the letter of the law, yes I cannot do trading over the gate, but I can, and am legally entitled to, travel to A, do whatever I want at B's paid area, and then go back to A and exit. That is what I'm legally entitled to do.
I suspect you are mixing up the whole idea of legality and morality, what are laws (legislated) and what are company policy (made by non legislative bodies)
V
vince123123
Guest
It seems the chicken rice thing may fall outside Regulation 31 hehe
I doubt that selling a second hand item counts as trade or business, but that can be subject to interpretation.
I doubt that selling a second hand item counts as trade or business, but that can be subject to interpretation.
This is what I say too. If one talks about "fairness" then one must first be "fair" oneself. Else, if one talks about "laws" or "contracts" then one must abide the law or contract or regulation including the clauses/exceptions one doesn't like. BE CONSISTENT. EITHER WAY, it doesn't make sense doing business over the gate.
I agree on your point that it may be LEGAL to do that, and that I shouldn't have used that word. However, the point of my argument is still valid regardless of whether its legal or not, as long as you are consistent in choosing your basis. It isn't legal or is against regulation to trade over gates. It isn't ethical to evade payment.
(For the sake of completeness: Of course this assumes that the ethical system used considers traveling more and paying less as unethical: otherwise one can argue that traveling thus is ethical and any law that prevents it is unethical. I agree with your point that everyone's ethical systems do not necessarily have such a clause. Mine does.)
Last edited:
V
vince123123
Guest
Okay, in that case, that's all I needed to know (the parts in bold). That was all I was taking issue with (see my post #17 above). At no time was I questioning the rights and wrongs, but merely the issue of being legally bound.
The remaining points you have about being fair and not doing the whole Gate A exit thing is really not for me to say or comment on in this thread and hence, you are entitled to your view.
All I was discussing was the issue of "legally bound", lest people misunderstand that there is indeed a legal obligation.
I do add a small comment that I was trying to abide by the law or contract, and hence I work within that parameter. If the law/contract says I can, then I will, regardless of what others may think is morally right or wrong or what things SHOULD be.
The remaining points you have about being fair and not doing the whole Gate A exit thing is really not for me to say or comment on in this thread and hence, you are entitled to your view.
All I was discussing was the issue of "legally bound", lest people misunderstand that there is indeed a legal obligation.
I do add a small comment that I was trying to abide by the law or contract, and hence I work within that parameter. If the law/contract says I can, then I will, regardless of what others may think is morally right or wrong or what things SHOULD be.
Last edited by a moderator:
If I do the transaction out of convenience -- as is the case always -- I'm now labelled a cheat? Stupid. Not to mention that apparently, not everybody is AWARE of such a rule (or law or whatever stupid stuff you call it). The point is that you were quick to pull the trigger and label everybody as CHEATERS blindly.
Anyway, as far as I am concerned, I am paying SMRT based on gate entry/exit (as per vince's post) charging process. It's from Point A to Point B. Doesn't matter to SMRT if I take the train from Tampines to Boon Lay by taking the red line route. At the end of the day I pay SMRT my dues.
Similarly, if I were on my way to Tampines from Raffles Place and decide to make a transaction in Paya Lebar, why in the world do I have to exit my ass off the fare gate knowing it's gonna be a quick 1 or 2 minute transaction? Geez.
:Later,
Anyway, as far as I am concerned, I am paying SMRT based on gate entry/exit (as per vince's post) charging process. It's from Point A to Point B. Doesn't matter to SMRT if I take the train from Tampines to Boon Lay by taking the red line route. At the end of the day I pay SMRT my dues.
Similarly, if I were on my way to Tampines from Raffles Place and decide to make a transaction in Paya Lebar, why in the world do I have to exit my ass off the fare gate knowing it's gonna be a quick 1 or 2 minute transaction? Geez.
:Later,
Last edited:
I thought it was clear by my post #18, that my point is that one must stick to "fairness" of oneself if one questions the fairness of a law/regulation/rule/clause etc. I should probably have been clearer. AND if one brings the "contract" to assert ones own "fairness" and derive the ethics from the contractual conformity, then one mustn't question the "unfair" regulation/law/contract as the adhering to the word of regulation/law/contract, by definition, is fair under this system of reasoning.
I do not want to enter in to a polemic on what constitutes a law/regulation etc beyond what's necessary for my argument, which, in short: be consistent.
Of course I wasn't going to say that you must not. I was just questioning the moral consistency on the "unfair" cry according to what I think is fair and unfair, because that crutial question wasn't discussed in the (what I thought was) sensational article. You may have a different way of thinking what's fair and unfair and I need not say that it's not necessarily better or worse than mine. However, that doesn't not stop me from expressing my view of fairness, which isn't irrelevant to the question discussed.
V
vince123123
Guest
Nope, 18 doesn't make that point clear. 19 challenges my challenge to your point.
I didn't question or say anything about being fair or unfair - please quote me chapter and verse.
I don't want to enter into a amorphous discussion where the goal posts keep changing - all I questioned was your assertion that one is LEGALLY BOUND to pay for the distance travelled, regardless of the fare gate exit system currently in place. I don't know why you needed to expand into so many other topics when it is only that one single lone issue that I was discussing.
If you wanted to disuss a separate issue, a better way is not to quote my post (and therefore lead me to think that you are responding directly to it), but to start a new post. You will notice that I did not respond to such lone posts such as 18 because you are making yoru views on its own and hence, to me, not relevant to the discussion on "legally bound".
I didn't question or say anything about being fair or unfair - please quote me chapter and verse.
I don't want to enter into a amorphous discussion where the goal posts keep changing - all I questioned was your assertion that one is LEGALLY BOUND to pay for the distance travelled, regardless of the fare gate exit system currently in place. I don't know why you needed to expand into so many other topics when it is only that one single lone issue that I was discussing.
If you wanted to disuss a separate issue, a better way is not to quote my post (and therefore lead me to think that you are responding directly to it), but to start a new post. You will notice that I did not respond to such lone posts such as 18 because you are making yoru views on its own and hence, to me, not relevant to the discussion on "legally bound".
Last edited by a moderator:
If you do that just because it's "trouble" to come out of the gate, then, according to me, cheating wasn't in your mind, despite the fact I don't see what the big "trouble" is.
If you do that in a A-> B -> A travel thinking that would prevent you from paying the SMRT, that, BY MY REASONING, constitutes cheating because you used the resource for what it is intended for. Trains don't charge for the use of gates alone.
You may ask from your heart what of the above two applied in your behavior.
I clearly defined what I think is cheating. You may disagree. I still abide by my stand. I will not do A -> B -> A travel and do the transaction behind the gate because I think that constitutes cheating because I pay for the travel not gate use. I don't think this is a "blind" labeling.
If you, sir, cared to read what I wrote, you'd have possibly understood that I covered this case in my very first post as a fair enough reason.
Bit rich coming from someone for whom the word cheating is "harsh", "appalling" and "rude".
Then again, my argument was about the want of consistency.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
