A joint study by the National University of
Singapore (NUS) and Stanford University aims to reduce the volume of commuters
during peak hour on the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit system. This is done by encouraging
off-peak travel (between 6.30 and 7.30, or 8.30 and 9.30) by incentivising
commuters with credits that are redeemable for rewards, or money transfers
straight into your EZ-Link card for more travel.
The $450, 000 research study that is financially
supported by the Land Transport Authority and private companies is seeking to
enlist about 20, 000 commuters in Singapore to take part in the research.
Commuters who wish to participate in the study can
visit https://www.insinc.sg
for details.
We Say….
We Say….
There may not be any immediate significant impact in
the alleviation of peak hour congestion in such a short time, but we predict
that this scheme will eventually be beneficial in the long run as it simply
takes time to effect a change in the mind-sets of commuters.
Many would say that the scheme is not effective
because working adults would not choose to “compromise their quality of life”
just to save a mere 30 cents on transport. Furthermore, these people would not
want to arrive earlier than their usual work time. However with the possible
slowdown in Singapore’s GDP and an elevation in the inflation rate for 2012,
Singaporeans would come to appreciate incentives like this—which not only help
them with saving in the long run but also ease the problem of peak hour
congestion.
“No
offences but I find is very amusing.
To
solve the problem caused by the massive expansion of our population and the
lack of action by the policy makers in decentralising our workforce from the
South/CBD, the powers from above now seeks to encourage Singaporeans to forgo
an hour of their private time to go to work early. How many people out there
reports to work at 7.45am? Rather, how many companies out there are flexible
enough to allow their staff to report early and leave work early?
Well,
on the bright side, at least something is done. On the flip side, it plainly
compromises our quality of life. Again.
What's
next? The same old blame game and finger-pointing back at commuters if we don't
want to forgo an hour of private time to kindly help ease MRT congestion?
Spoilt Singaporeans, need to stuck spurs on our hides?
So
much responsibility we have here bearing the brunt of failed policy-makers.
Wish they can share their pay-cheques with us.” – Guest
Ethos: Credibility (through personal
character)
“To
solve the problem caused by the massive expansion of our population and the
lack of action by the policy makers in decentralising our workforce from the
South/CBD, the powers from above now seeks to encourage Singaporeans to forgo
an hour of their private time to go to work early.”
I feel this comment lacks ethos and hence might not
be as persuasive to the readers. While it is true that pathos and logos are
used in the source, ethos still plays a very big part in ensuring that readers
do not feel that the writer is being too bias or one-sided. Aristotte has
theorized that pathos cannot be used alone as it will be seen as being too
emotional and thus reduces the credibility of the source, and hence ethos
should be present to show the objectivity.
Pathos: Emotional
“The
same old blame game and finger-pointing back at commuters if we don't want to
forgo an hour of private time to kindly help ease MRT congestion? Spoilt
Singaporeans, need to stuck spurs on our hides?”
Pathos
is a very powerful tool in the arts of persuasion. In this case, we can see
that the writer has incorporated pathos throughout his text to allow the
readers to identify with his stand on the subject and hence feel what he is
feeling. By stating that the following scheme “plainly compromises our quality
of life. Again.” we can see the writer’s unhappiness with the project,
especially when the word ‘again’ is used to emphasize his frustration. Furthermore,
the use of sarcasms coupled with rhetorical questions throughout his text—‘What’s
next?’—also shows his dissatisfaction and resentment.
Also,
the commenter is persuading readers by appealing to their emotions. After-all,
this comment of spoilt Singaporeans need to stuck spurs on our hides’ said by
LKY have outraged many. By reusing this crude comment to support his or her
views, the commenter could once again reignite the fury or disagreement felt in
many people, making them believe his or her view is acceptable.
“How
many people out there reports to work at 7.45am? Rather, how many companies out
there are flexible enough to allow their staff to report early and leave work
early? “
“Well, on the bright side, at least something
is done. On the flip side, it plainly compromises our quality of life.”
By using logos in the speech, people will be much
easier to be won over by the logical arguments. It’s true that just because
there is a discount, commuters would not necessary want to travel early when their
work starts late. Furthermore it is logical to argue that companies would most
probably not be willing to make any changes to the working time, as it would
mean that they have to pay their workers more.
“I
think that this is a step in the right direction.
I
agree with many comments that most people do not want to get into office early.
However, this fare is not trying to change everyone's behaviour. If everyone
rides earlier, the peak hour will become earlier and the problem stays.
This
solution takes advantage of the fact that people have different schedules and
constraints. Some people are more flexible with their work hours; some people
don't mind getting breakfast after the ride. The idea is, out of 100 people, as
long as 5 people change their behaviour the problem is alleviated.
…
I
recommend that more be done to stretch the impact of the discount…” - Clay
The commenter was able
to identify the purpose with ease. In fact, he also provided his personal
opinion on the issue, agreeing to SMRT’s new initiative. His opinion was not
something crafted after 10seconds of face-value judgement; his opinion held
value and many would find it relatable or agreeable.
He has interpreted and
evaluated the information provided based on its merit and intentions. Not only
did he make evaluation, he also went the extra mile by recommending possible
measures that may aid in the implementation of the scheme. It is constructive
feedback as shown? above which most service providers like SMRT would
appreciate.
Understanding of
effective communication between the service provider and customers is desirable
and can be achieved. In the above comment, he has to a certain extent achieved
effective communication by decoding SMRT’s message and was “of the same mind”.
In short, constructive
and objective comments of this type are insightful but scarce.
Credits:
No comments:
Post a Comment