The following letter has been sent to SBS Transit. We are awaiting its reply.

Kimmy Tan

I have never seen anything like that in all my 20 years of taking public bus.

On 28th July 2009, at about 7.15pm, my mum and I were waiting for bus service number 80 along Upper Serangoon road. The bus finally came at about 7.40pm (SBS9281Y). As we always take this bus service to catch a charity show at 8pm, we noted that the bus seemed to have arrived slightly late. We boarded the bus.

On nearing our desired destination along MacPherson road, a passenger pressed the bell. We readied ourselves to alight. However, to our alarm, the bus veered off from first lane to the second. Other passengers who wanted to disembark at the same stop started asking the driver why he had not stopped at the bus stop. The driver quietly replied that he “forgot” to stop. I found that hard to believe.

The bus stop between the last one (which he has stopped) to the bus stop in dispute is very near. The driver would only need to keep to the first lane for the next 200m or so. I noticed that the traffic was quite congested near the bus stop that we wanted to alight at. Was the driver behind schedule, and in his haste to play catch up, “overlooked” one bus stop? I requested the driver to issue complimentary tickets so that we could take a bus back to our destination but he refused, challenging us to make a complaint against him with no apology whatsoever.

Subsequently, he abruptly stopped his vehicle by the roadside and opened the doors without another word. My mum, eager to catch the 8pm show which she was already late for, beckoned me to get down. We had to walk about a hundred metres back. Four of the five alighting passengers, including my mum, were senior citizens aged above 60 years.

I urge SBS Transit to look into this matter seriously and give me a satisfactory answer.

—-

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

新加坡政府指彭博社、《南华早报》报导有误

我国财政部、内政部、人力部和教育部等部门,自去年11月底开始,就四次援引《防止网络假信息和防止网络操纵法案》(POFMA),要求政治人物和一家时政网络媒体更正贴文。 我国政府动用《防假消息法》也引起外国媒体注意,包括《华盛顿邮报》、《经济学人》、彭博社和《南华早报》等,都跟进报导。 不过,日前通讯与新闻部长新闻秘书何慧玲,则致函彭博社和《南华早报》,抨击两家媒体对于我国《防假消息法》的报导不实,也重申我国没利用该法钳制言论自由。 彭博社指我国代表积极驳斥外媒报导 彭博社在去年12月27日,刊载一则《新加坡为捍卫防假消息法采全球攻势》(Singapore Goes on Global Offensive to Defend ‘Fake…

Brief shutdown of Hougang MRT station, man left bag unattended arrested

On Sunday afternoon (2 April), Hougang MRT station experienced a brief shutdown…

Elderly infected with Covid-19 after sharing ward in SGH with patient who later tests positive

A 77-year-old Singaporean elderly man, who shared the same ward with another…

【武汉冠状病毒】3月8日本地增12病例 九起与歌唱班团拜晚宴有关

根据新加坡卫生部文告,截至本月8日中午12时,本地新增12起武汉冠状病毒(COVID-19)确诊病例,其中九位新增病患,与早前在裕廊战备军人协会俱乐部(SAFRA)举行的歌唱班团拜晚宴有关联。 这意味着,上述在上月15日举办的团拜晚宴感染群,累计确诊病例已增至30起。本地累计确诊病例也已飙增至150例,仍住院病患多达60人,大多情况稳定或有起色;有九人病况严重,需待在加护病房。 九例与团拜晚宴有关的新确诊病患包括:第139、140、142、144、145、146、148、149和第150例。 第139例是71岁男公民,与团拜晚宴感染群有关联,也是第140(62岁女公民)和142例(26岁男公民)是家庭成员,同住在位于裕廊西81街的住处,他们近期都未曾到过境外感染重灾区。 不过第140例在入院前曾到过位于裕廊港路(Jurong Port Road)的美妆产品批发公司 Landom Distributions工作。第142例则曾到罗敏申路的First Page Digital公司上班,并到过Aperia商场。 第141例则是69岁男公民,是一名清洁工,入院前曾到南洋理工大学创新中心工作,住在裕廊西64街。 第143例则是42岁男性新加坡永久居民,本月4日至6日曾到泰国,也是第132例的家属。第132例是昨日发布的确诊病例,37岁女性永久居民,曾在上月23至27日到过英国伦敦。…