The following is an appeal letter sent to the Public Transport Council today by CAN!, a network group of people with disabilities.

Mr Gerard Ee
Chariman
Public Transport Council

Dear Mr Ee

Although the fare adjustment would be another added burden for the people with disability, we welcome the news that now concession hours for the elderly is extended to the full-day, throughout the week.

Once again, we write to you to appeal for subsidy of fares for people with disabilities on public transportation. Not all people with disabilities are children, students or senior citizens, to enjoy the subsidy given to these by the public transport operators.

The various other help schemes highlighted by you in your letter dated 7 December 2009, has limitations of scope and capacity, and besides the assorted constituency-based targeted financial help, all the other schemes do not address the need for public transportation for the people with disabilities to be subsidised. As for the constituency-based targeted financial help, not all CCCs provide such financial assistance for transportation purposes, and even if they do, it is limited.

Many people with disabilities who are not children, students or senior citizens, work as buskers, masseuse or telemarketers. Many more are unable to work, due to their severe disabilities but would have to travel to hospitals and other places of necessities or leisure, and the unsubsidised fares on our public transportation are a major burden to these group of Singaporeans.

Most more able people with disabilities earn no more than $600 per month working full-time; and to spend more than $100 of this hard-earned money for transportation would mean that we would have very little to take back home after all the other deductions.

We are not asking for sympathy, even if charity is most welcomed, we are not asking for charity. We are asking for dignity with this appeal for concession on our public transports.

With the implementation of distance-based fare system and with the progressive decision made by PTC to extend all-day concessionary travel for the elderly, the PTC has now got to reconsider more carefully the issue of subsidy for the less able members of our country.

The measure of civilisation is how it treats its weakest members. We ask PTC to recommend to the public transport operators that subsidy be extended to the people with disabilities who are not children, students or senior citizens as well.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours sincerely

Reena Rajesvari
CAN! Coordinator

Copy to:

Mr Lui Tuck Yew
Transport Minister

Ms Sylvia Lim
MP for Aljunied GRC

The following is PTC’s reply to CAN! on their earlier appeal.


CAN!’s website is HERE.

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

Mother of NUS student filmed in shower says trust in the school “is now broken” following light punishment given to the perpetrator

The mother of an undergraduate student of National University of Singapore (NUS)…

Opposition is becoming mainstream with more professionally and academically ‘qualified’ candidates like in PAP: WP’s Yee Jenn Jong

While speaking at a forum organised by Mothership on Saturday (6 February),…

烟霾困扰多年,何处是个头?

回溯2016年1月28日,工人党非选区议员贝理安,在国会提问财政部,政府可有监督,国家主权基金淡马锡控股和政府投资公司是否有投资在涉及烟霾问题的公司? 如有,政府投资公司(GIC)和淡马锡,在这些公司又投资多少?又如何确保他们的投资,不被用来用在支持导致霾害的活动? 当时的财政部长王瑞杰作出书面答复,是这么回答的:GIC和淡马锡的投资是相关公司的责任,政府则监督他们整体表现。两家公司“纯商业基础上运作,以最大化长期的经调整风险回酬。至于公司投资决策,完全独立于任何政府干预。 这是我们致力维持的管理原则。” 声明中称,淡马锡和GIC的投资活动,旨在持续性的基础上确保长期回报。而投资在缺乏环境永续性行为的公司,将对长期投资带来负面影响。 “淡马锡已声明全力响应零焚烧的开垦政策,也呼吁油棕公司和业者这么做。至于GIC也告知政府,GIC在印尼投资的油棕公司,已确认他们遵循零焚烧政策。”   从有关答复,再对比贝理安质询,究竟国家主权基金公司有无投资在这些涉及霾害公司?只能说答复是何等委婉迂回,仅表示两家企业“独立于政府干预”、“需最大化长期回酬”、以及淡马锡和GIC都已响应、或确保所投资油棕公司已响应零焚烧政策云云? 所以,究竟淡马锡和GIC,在印尼投资的油棕或种植园有多少?那些新加坡投资的公司涉及霾害? 工人党也配合最近烟霾问题,重新其中一个工人党脸书专页One WP, One…

Lui Tuck Yew: Transport fares to go down by 1.9% by end of year

Commuters will enjoy a reduction in train and bus fares of up…