Ministry: MP Low wrong on lift upgrading

I REFER to last Saturday’s letter by Member of Parliament for Hougang Low Thia Khiang, ‘No basis for MP not to announce lift upgrading’.

The joint letter last Friday by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the People’s Association (‘Why grassroots advisers announce lift upgrading’) should be read in conjunction with Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan’s explanation to the media last Wednesday.

As Mr Mah highlighted, HDB’s upgrading programmes are carried out and funded by the Government. This is no different from other government programmes such as the building of roads and schools.

These programmes have to be implemented through government channels. In the case of HDB upgrading, this channel is the advisers to grassroots organisations, who are appointed by the Government. Opposition MPs are not answerable to the Government, nor are they obliged to carry out and explain the Government’s policies.

The Government pays up to 90 per cent of the cost of the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), with the rest shared between the residents (5 per cent) and the town councils (5 per cent). Funding for LUP is possible only because of the Government and the Budget surpluses it has generated through prudent policies.

Opposition MPs are not responsible for generating budget surpluses. There is therefore no basis for opposition MPs to lead the LUP – a national programme funded mainly by the Government. Mr Low is mistaken when he cites the ‘will of the people’ expressed in general elections to justify why he should play a leading role in the LUP in Hougang. The will of the people expressed in general elections is to elect a government for the country as a whole; and not to elect separate local governments for each constituency.

Singapore has a one-level system of government. MPs, whether People’s Action Party or opposition, do not constitute a local government in their constituency.

However, MPs do have a role in running town councils. Their role in town management and maintenance is clearly defined in the Town Councils Act, and does not extend to implementing government programmes such as the LUP.

Lim Yuin Chien
Press Secretary to the
Minister for National Development

In it, the secretary mentions that the opposition MPs are not qualified to head the upgrading programme because:

1. The opposition MPs do not have credit in helping the government create a budget surplus.
2. The opposition MPs are not answerable to the government.
3. The upgrading programme is a government programme, and it is up to the government to appoint its agent.

The secretary also clarifies that the votes cast in the general elections are to:

1. Elect a government of state as a whole, instead of for separate local governments in each ward.
2. Elect a Member of Parliament in each ward for the purpose of town management and maintenance as defined by the Town Councils Act.

I call bullshit on this letter.

The opposition MPs do not have credit in helping the government create a budget surplus.

Firstly, it is the executive branch of the government’s job to run the country and manage the state’s funds. There is no way that any MPs, PAP or not, would be able to influence or command in any form, how the Cabinet manages the funds, except at the annual Budget debate. Thus, this point is a red herring.

The opposition MPs are not answerable to the government.

It is interesting to read about the second point. Why are Member of Parliaments supposed to be answerable to the government, when it’s actually the other way round? The government cabinet is accountable to the people via their elected representatives in Parliament; and for Hougang and Potong Pasir, it is Mr Low Thia Kiang and Mr Chiam See Tong.

The upgrading programme is a government programme, and it is up to the government to appoint its agent.

Another red herring. Surely if the government is all about accountability, it can appoint its own agent to helm the project; but is it so untenable to have the ward’s elected MP make the project announcement? Is it so hard to have the agent work with the elected MP just because he is a member of the opposition party?

Elect a government of state as a whole, instead of for separate local governments in each ward.

Wrong again. The General Elections are meant for the people to elect their representatives into Parliament. When the representatives have been elected, the President invites the majority party to form the government, consisting of elected Member of Parliaments. The government as a whole is being elected, but not directly.

I’m not opposed to the government appointing its own agent to head the project, but the agent should be working with the elected MP to conduct the works, despite his party affiliation. In this situation, the two MPs have been lobbying for many years to have their wards upgraded. When it finally comes, the people to announce the upgrades are the 2 losing PAP candidates for the wards; and the way it is portrayed makes it seem as if they were the ones who were responsible for getting the HDB to change its policy.

In fact, much of the outcry on this issue has always been on why the MPs are not the ones to announce the projects, when the government knows consciously that Mr Low Thia Kiang and Mr Chiam See Tong have been the ones most vocal and active about this issue. It’s very much a side-lining of the two politicians, as much as I can see from here. This letter appears to explain the situation, where in fact it is a distraction from the actual question that we have been asking:

Why aren’t the elected Member of Parliaments for Hougang and Potong Pasir the ones announcing the lift upgrades?

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

So… the money belongs to the government now, eh?

Meanwhile, Mr Wang has posted some comments on the IDA’s creative manipulation to artificially boost Singapore’s Internet penetration statistics. I’m not surprised; after all, we’re talking about the same agency that made the $388 million “honest mistake” where the entire country’s tax-payers paid for this incident, while bureaucrats carried on their lives as if nothing had happened.

Angry Doctor analyses MOE’s statistics, and shows just how irrelevant the race-based breakdown on the recent PSLE results really are, and how that MOH exhibits same said creativity through its AIDS statistics.

If, after you have read the two articles, you still feel that Singaporean tax-payers are paying good money for competence, Molly is here to wake you up from dreamland. Like they say in the army, “wake up your bloody idea!”

Here’s my wishing to you a Happy New Year in advance!

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

No updates until January 2008

Here’s another one, this time on the issue of overcrowding on the North-East line.

Increase frequency of trains on North-East Line
I TAKE the North-East Line, from Boon Keng Station to Dhoby Ghaut, to work in the morning. It is almost impossible to get into a cabin by the time the trains reach Boon Keng Station.

At Farrer Park and Little India, only those who dared to push themselves (and others) can get aboard. The journey is extremely uncomfortable for everyone.

The seven minutes-a-train schedule was set when the flats in Punggol and Seng Kang were not filled, and when the country had a smaller population. Now, there are more people living in Punggol and Seng Kang – in fact, everywhere on our tiny island, contributing to our economy and making it ‘vibrant’. Unfortunately, a more vibrant Singapore is also a more crowded one.

Before SBS Transit starts comparing our trains to Tokyo’s, may I repeat the point a Singaporean who had lived in Tokyo made a couple of years ago when the crowded-trains problem was brought up: Our standard of personal hygiene is not on par with the Japanese’s. In addition, our humid climate makes us perspire and smell. It is no fun being pressed against bodies wet with perspiration and body odour early in the morning.

I hope SBS Transit will look into increasing the frequency of trains during the morning peak hours. If this is not possible, perhaps it could do what the Japanese did: designate a few carriages for women.

Kuah Kar Yoke (Ms)

Ms Kuah, I was happily reading your letter in hope that The Straits Times has finally decided to post something that makes sense. And then I saw your last paragraph.

Are you telling me that designating a “few” carriages for women will solve the problem of overcrowding on trains?

So we decide to take up this suggestion in its infinite wisdom and do just that. The ladies take up two or three carriages out of six on the train, and the smelly men are all packed into the other three cabins. How does that enable more people to pack into the same MRT train? We still have the same number of commuters trying to squeeze into the same train; designating sections for ladies will at its best improve the situation for the ladies. Men would have only 3 cabins to go to, compared to all 6 for the ladies. If that doesn’t sound sexist, her implicit declaration that men perspire and smell does.

I myself board the train at Boon Keng station, and I travel to Outram Park for my line transfer to the West line. What I’ve seen is that wait times for the next train will always be at least 5 minutes during the morning peak hours. Unless the train interval is there for the sake of safety (in which case I would have rather had the safety officers in the train manually operate the train during peak hours to enable more trains to operate at one time), I don’t see any other reason for operating that few trains, except perhaps SBSTransit is trying to get away with packing as many people like sardines into a can as it can get away with.

This is yet another example which shows that the competition situation in the transportation arena is sorely lacking. Without either competition or governmental regulation, passengers are the only losers in this game.

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

Yet more stuff that doesn’t make sense

Remember how the PTC and the PAP government keeps expounding on the merits of small incremental hikes in bus fares to “minimise the impact of eventual fare hikes” and that “it is better than having one big price increase a few years down the road”? Well, the sad truth is, you pay more during these incremental increases than you do if the increase was done at one shot.

Take an example:
2007: Stage 1-4 bus fares: $0.60
2008: Stage 1-4 bus fares: $0.61
2009: Stage 1-4 bus fares: $0.62
2010: Stage 1-4 bus fares: $0.63

Ignoring leap years, assume that somebody makes two trips a day, the total amount forked out by one person for the bus fare would be: 0.60 * 365 * 2 + 0.61 * 365 * 2 + 0.62 * 365 * 2 + 0.63 * 365 * 2 = 438 + 445.30 + 452.60 + 459.90 = 1795.80

Now, if things were different, and the price was increased in chunks – as and when it is really required: (we’ll assume that the price was hiked by 3 cents in 2010 because fuel prices went into stratospheric )
0.60 * 365 * 2 + 0.60 * 365 * 2 + 0.60 * 365 * 2 + 0.63 * 365 * 2 = 438 + 438 + 438 + 459.90 = 1773.90

Total savings for consumers had price hikes been done as and when it is required in this scenario: 1795.80 – 1773.90 = 21.90

Now, the scenario I put out here is unrealistic. Firstly, the “small increases” referred to are in the ballpark of 5 to 10 cents, secondly, it assumes that the cost of maintaining the transportation system can only go up. Passengers stand to save a lot more than the cumulative $21.90 if the PTC only approved fare hikes only when it is needed.

I won’t go into the other areas in this issue, as the point I merely wish to highlight is how the public is being led to believe that small increases are beneficial to them. This is also an important lesson to me: the dangers of mis-information is very real. Having The Straits Times as the main staple diet of local news will lead to a biased grasp on the issue at hand. Thank goodness for the Internet.

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

Small increases reduces pain? Rubbish

Update: Molly has decided to give out some awards. Head on over to participate in the ceremony.

The legislation of morality is a hallmark of a country of inequality. Seen an extreme example yet? Try Nazi Germany. What NMP Thio is suggesting is to enshrine the morality of “The Majority” into the laws of the country, as a yardstick of the country’s stand on a particular issue. Wait a second… Just which “Majority” are we talking about?

Are we talking about “The Majority” who believe that non-believers of their religion will burn in hell? “The Majority” who believe that the government has no business using their money to buy compulsory annuities? Or “The Majority” which believes that casinos should not be legalised in Singapore?

That’s right: there is no single issue on which there is a set “Majority” that would agree with you on any issue. No country can properly define a set of moral rules that sets out a country’s acceptance of any issue in the world, unless you are running a theocracy. In this case, democratic countries set out laws that protect the liberty of a person to pursue his own life, on the condition that any actions taken do not harm another person’s liberty to pursue their own private life. This forms the basis why robbery, murder, rape, paedophilia, drug smuggling are all illegal.

Of course, we all know that Singapore is far from being a democratic country – there is no better way to explain away how “The Majority” failed to have their say on the issue to have gambling outlawed in the country. Repealing 377A holds no tangible economic benefits to Singapore that introducing casinos to Singapore would, and the government has taken extreme care to over-ride the concerns of “The Majority” in favour of attracting the foreign dollar. Like the Prime Minister has implied, the retention of 377A without active prosecution is a compromise – though this compromise is not what he makes it out to be. It is a compromise by the PAP government in the face of ramming issues like compulsory annuities down the country’s throat as a “democratic” measure. After having so many bread and butter issues go their way, they probably feel that there is a need to show that the opinion of a vaguely defined “Majority” actually matters.

In a way, things get more complicated. The country gets entangled in a fight between the people who want this discriminatory law to be abolished, and the ones who want it to stay in order to police the private lives of individuals. Both parties forget that short of significant economic benefits, none of the sides get their way. Even “The Majority”, celebrating their victory against the gay-rights movement do not realise that the shrewd government has just bought political will for another few more rounds of policy throat-ramming. Ideology in any form has no place in Singapore, unless it can bring in money, like how integrated resorts can.

Already, Shianux is urging people to migrate from Singapore. While you might be able to earn a living here, people of ideology are unable to thrive in Singapore. Even Sim Woon Hoo, often trumpeted as the shining beacon of Singaporean Entrepreneurship, did not make his fortune in Singapore. If you find that Singapore life is not for you, I am suggesting that you go elsewhere; there is no use fighting the system the way it is. I would say more, but short of a change in the local social climate, it would be hard for true democracy to be realised in this country.

I wish you all the best.

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

Ideology can’t pay for your bills, but is good political currency

NMP overstepped role in championing gay cause
I AM writing in response to the article, ‘NMP to submit Parliamentary Petition to repeal gay sex law’ (ST, Oct 12).

As a Nominated MP, Mr Siew Kum Hong is supposed to be non-partisan and should not be affiliated with any particular political group.

However, he has chosen to be the sponsor of a parliamentary petition to present the homosexual agenda.

While he is free to present his personal views on any issue, Mr Siew has overstepped the boundary as an NMP when he chose to represent the homosexual interest group.

MPs in Parliament have to run for election, look after their constituents’ interests and represent their views. As an NMP, Mr Siew bears no such burden.

He should not adulterate the NMP role further by becoming the proxy representative of the homosexual interest group.

This is especially so as the Government has already taken one year to review the Penal Code, with input from various consultation channels, and taken into consideration the views of the majority of Singaporeans who are for maintaining family values and preserving Section 377A of the Penal Code.

Jenica Chua Chor Ping (Ms)

… and what a low-blow that was. Uncontent with just claiming that gays are forming political groupings (I don’t see any evidence of that), Ms Chua is accusing Mr Siew Kum Hong (who submitted a parlimentary petition for the repeal of 377A) of overstepping the boundary as an NMP, by aligning himself with the gays.

The last I’ve checked, gays are not forming themselves into political groups; neither have they been campaigning for the repeal of 377A. In fact, the people Ms Chua is talking about belongs to a group of Singaporeans who believe that the law has absolutely no place dictating a person’s actions.

In an exchange with xizor2000 yesterday, I outlined an example of how the 377A is absurd. The fact is, that law is also unconstitutional (see section 2 of the Open Letter in the link for more information). As a Member of Parliament, and a Singaporean, it is his duty to fight and uphold the Constitution. Therefore, his action is definitely above board.

Now, let’s examine why the anti-gay faction reacted in this way.

Fear of gays
The anti-gay faction didn’t want the law to go away, because it was either unconscionable from their religious point of view, or they fear that gays would have sex everywhere in the streets, and turn the whole world into a world of perpetual homosexuality.

Let’s get a reality check: It is a logical fallacy to say that gays will manage to turn people into homosexuals if they could. That statement alone implies that human beings can be educated to change their sexual orientation. If there is such a power existing in the world, it would be disastrous. It is also irrational to believe that gays would have sex everywhere in the streets if there is no law prohibiting it, simply because the police will arrest anybody who attempts to have any kind of sexual activities in public.

It is a slippery slope argument to say that making sexual activities between two males legal will cause pro-gay groups to lobby for more rights. Even if there are pro-gay groups doing so, are they so different from the AWWA (Asian Women Welfare Association) and industry lobbies?

Low blow a knee jerk response
I would classify Ms Chua’s letter as an attempt to galvanise outsiders of their cause to join in the fray. However, is the cause to discriminate against a minority of the country whom has no capacity to harm anybody the right one? Whenever Ms Chua recites the pledge, “To build a democratic society, based on Justice and Equality”, does she realise how contrary her views are to this sentence?

The majority can be wrong sometimes
Galileo Galilei, the inventor of the telescope was persecuted for claiming that the earth revolves around the sun. Later on, he was vindicated… years after he died. While the newspapers in this country may claim that the majority of the country are still against gays, the fact doesn’t change that 377A is still a discriminatory law, a contravention of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

Let’s repeal this, and stop telling a person what he can’t do with his personal life. Repeal 377A Now!

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

Anti-gay faction launches low-blow at Mr Siew Kum Hong

I am very much disheartened by the reactions of the anti-homosexual bigots. I do not understand why they cannot listen to properly reasoned arguments, and instead choose to continue beating the straw man.

In fact, here’s the latest volley of rubbish.

Students are very impressionable and prone to hero-worshipping teachers that they like. By admitting that he is gay, Mr Otto Fong has issued an open invitation to students to find out about his lifestyle and perhaps some of them might want to follow in his footsteps.

Mr Fong’s sexual lifestyle is his own to live. As a teacher, as his ex-students have already testified, he has maintained a separation of his personal life and his profession. The author is very rude to question Mr Fong’s professional integrity, and his ability to keep his personal life separate from Teaching.

It is the gay lifestyle and its implications that most people are wary of.

“It is Patricia Maria De Souza’s battle cry for discrimination against another person’s lifestyle and its implications that most people are wary of.” Any person who looks carefully can see that both statements are similarly unsubstantiated.

There are gays who live their choice of lifestyle quietly but there are others who aggressively try to influence people to follow suit.

I don’t understand why this is wrong. Christians aggressively attempt to convert people to Christianity all the time.

These are the ones who, if they are teachers, may cause the most harm in schools and elsewhere.

In so, we can also conclude that Christians cannot become teachers, because they are the ones who, if they are teachers, may cause the most harm in school and elsewhere. The “harm” in this sentence isn’t clear.

Let us not be too harsh on gays but let us not be blind to the dangers they pose to society and mankind.

This sentence is the main source of my irritation. The author is actually concluding that gays are a danger to society, but we should not be harsh on them? People, if something is dangerous to society and mankind, do you keep a warm hand of tolerance? This is akin to saying that “Terrorists are a danger to society and mankind, but we should not be too harsh on them.”

Gays are NOT a danger to society and mankind – the only danger they pose is towards conservatives who cannot bear to have their sensibilities tainted by the fact that someone else likes another person of the same sex. There is, and never was evidence that homosexuality has harmed the world. I invite those who think otherwise to pursue the full list of notable homosexuals, and perhaps reply in the comments below on how each of the people on that list has harmed society and mankind.

The problem doesn’t lie with the people per se (you would have seen the reaction on the Internet is quite the opposite the official position stated in the newspapers) – in fact, there are more views that support non-discrimination against gays online, versus the extremist conservative position in the Straits Times. Given its reputation as the “nation building” broadsheet, it is a strong reflection of PAP members’ stand towards gay people.

I apologise for making analogies to Christianity to this post; however, it was necessary to explain the absurdity of this author’s argument. It is unfortunate that these bullet-ridden holes in logic manage to gain acceptance in this country as one of the tenets to discriminating gays in this society. However, I have long since understood that logic can be thrown out of the window in the presence of politics, as Ho Peng Kee has demonstrated.

That given, the debate on homosexuality will likely continue for the forseeable future with the anti-discrimination camp dragged into illogical argument after illogical argument.

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

Intolerance in Singapore

Well, these days I feel like I’m on the EKSPRES RAKYAT. It’s like you’re hopping from station to station at a constant rate: neither too fast, nor too slow. It’s the poly school holidays, people! I know that it could have been better I can share the same vacation period as the rest of my close friends, but an evil plot to keep polytechnic students away from undergraduates has made sure that vacations are “sure-miss” events. It hasn’t driven me crazy, but I’m way social-life-less than I liked.

Some bad news: apparently, through some weird miscommunication, I missed the registration deadline for the eGenting programming competition. The registration form looks to be still alive, so I’ll send in the application now, and hope that they don’t notice late-comers…

Aside from reading up casually on Java and Visual Basic.NET, I have been lurking around current affairs blogs more frequently. Reading and ranting on nonsensical Straits Times forum letters make up the rest of the day, and I participate very keenly in complaining about people who complain about little stuff. You’ll be shocked that there are people whose letters get published, simply for suggesting establishing fund transfers for hell money. It’s not like there are letters on topics of more concern to the people, like the implementation of annuities, raising the CPF withdrawal age, increasing ministers’ salaries, hiking GST rates, squeezing of more expensive bus fares from the common citizen, and the police’s harassment of joggers in public, are there?

Dear me no, from the looks of it, it appears that the Straits Times is hard pressed to find letters to publish! That implication really sickens me. We know that’s not true. So while most of the country lies safely ensconced in the little bubble created by the Straits Times, I fret like a mad old man, writing about how things aren’t what it seems. Heck, these days, only educated retirees bother to write about these things. Me? I feel terribly aged already.

It’s a trend in Singapore – only retirees have the time to keep watch for the common citizen’s interests. The rest of Singapore is too busy making money to stay alive to write anything meaningful. Those who post credible arguments are taunted by the PAP to join a political party. Duh! People have to work for their own living, unlike politicians who get the job easily through walk-overs. If everyone with a political opinion were to join a political party, 80% of the United States would all be politicians (and I would have gone over there to pick up all that work that won’t be done, and earn mega bucks!).

I’m sorry to have digressed, but you’ll see that vacation is just about the only time when I have the time to rant like a retiree. I’m not a political activist, nor do I foresee myself becoming one. My dedication is to my family and friends. Short of getting a traumatic concussion that turns me into a babbling conservative, I do not believe I’ll ever enter politics. I need to start planning for my life. Already, I’m considering relocation as a start. With the government’s possible implementation of yet another scheme to take control of my own money out of my hands, this land might be the worst place for me to eventually retire in.

Anyway, my semester results are coming in on the 12th this month, and the anticipation is tying me up in knots: this is my first assessment grading after my NS stint, and I want to set it off with a huge surge. You know, like blitzkrieg. George Bush would have called it “shock and awe”. I just hope I don’t give myself the shock by awing the world with a fail grade.

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

Holiday Pleasures

However, along with the unrivaled power granted to us, privacy on the web has become arbitrary. There is a risk we all take whenever we start a web presence. Your web page stands out there, ready to be served to anyone who requests it. Friends, relatives, future employers: they have the power to seek out your server – be it private, or public – just because it is there. Of course, everything is well and good if they do not wish us harm; but sadly, our world isn’t some Utopia.

Hackers, griefers, ill-wishers, and many undesirable elements lurk around the Internet, with the purpose of taking advantage of whatever you place online. This may include privileged information like your own financial details, physical address, your friends’ names, and many other personalised information that can be used to hurt you.

It is a very sobering thought. Just a few days ago, 4.7 million credit card numbers were compromised by a single firm – just because they did not secure the information properly. When our information is a thin veil from full-blown exposure, we must try our utmost to add to that almost-non-existent layer of security, in order to continue enabling us to share our favourite moments with our loved ones – without letting in undesirable elements.

However, the challenge of improving access security usually comes at a compromise to usability. And even then, a tight seal cannot be guaranteed. The Internet is the battleground of the constant war of wits between security professionals, and the black hatters. As each security algorithm is invented, it starts to age as hackers race to crack the code, and break down yet another wall of defense.

So how do we effectively ensure that our information is available to the ones whom we want to share with, yet out of the hands of the bad guys?

The answer lies in being as small a target as possible.

There will always be ignorant targets on the Internet. They use out-of-date security defense mechanisms, or use none at all. They openly flaunt their information, or for some reason have the largest repository of information. Sometimes, they are the target of some malicious agenda. Amongst these big lumbering giants, if our outfit remains compact, leaves no foot-print, and use modern security schemes – most hackers would have absolutely no reason to attempt to mess with our system.

Of course, there would always be the rare occasion where bored kiddies would prod and pry around – it comes with being in the Wild Wild Internet – that’s where empowered system administrators come in. They break the script-kiddies’ crowbars, and leave them to dust.

As long as these rules are followed, the chances of being targeted are reduced; and hopefully, the Internet would become a slightly less wild land.

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

The Importance of security

What they didn’t want to let you know was this:

(pardon the lousy drawings)

To test this for yourself:

1. Point your web browser to http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest
2. Choose any server location to test from (I use Seattle, WA for consistency)
3. Take a close look at your connection’s test results

Initially, StarHub’s helpdesk dismissed my concerns as a bottleneck at the end server; something proven wrong quickly with a test using an alternate Internet Service Provider. The problem is very pronounced during the local peak hours: from 7pm onwards during weekdays, and 11am on weekends.

While it is true that StarHub has the biggest, fattest pipe in Singapore – it is just what it is: confined to Singapore. Once you step out of Singapore, the majority of the websites that you visit hit a transfer rate of 30 kB/s, which is insufficient for even basic video streaming.

I’ve tried to work with their helpdesk numerous times, and they have always given me the same answer: that international bandwidth is beyond their control.

I find this a really bad joke. I wonder how they are allowed to advertise their broadband plans as 12,000 kbps when they can barely hit 256 kbps for 95% of websites in the world? StarHub simply refuses to improve their international reach despite being proven that they have the poorest bandwidth for international traffic.

I remember just 2 years back, their bandwidth for overseas websites hung around 700 kbps, which wasn’t exactly phenomenal, but was sufficient for most videos on sites such as YouTube. Now, the service is in such a sorry state that they are not able to sustain sufficient service for most of the websites in the world.

Therefore, I strongly urge any potential customers of the Fat Green Pipe to reconsider in the light of this myth, at least until concrete steps are taken to improve their service. That is, unless you don’t mind watching graphics load at a pace reminiscent of the dial-up era.

[tags]ISP, starhub, speed test[/tags]

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

The myth of the Fat Green Pipe