Keywords: #Singapore., #SMRTtrainsSingapore., #ClarkeQuayMRTtrainStationSingapore.,
Land Transport Authority
How do you reduce the bonus of the #SMRTtrainsSingapore's Maintenance Department?
Noted light above the train sign was not turned on for door 18, towards Harbourfront at Clarke Quay MRT.
Alternate lighting does not appear to be for environmental purposes as the lighting on other doors, have both lights turned on, along the platform.
Could this be a defective lighting?
How often was the maintenance done on each station per day?
Could this post be used to reduce the bonus of the maintenance team in order to improve the gross profit of the organisation; bonus of the rest of the hardworking staff and management?
Would Land Transport Authority view this differently compared to SMRT?
If the use of questions are defamatory, could the accused sue the prosecutor for defamatory questions in the court of law. If yes, are there a precedent? If no, could it be used as a legal advantage for the accused?
If what i am saying in this blog is a lie, i should be very afraid of being sued. However if what i am telling is the truth only for the good of society and the business, people would do two things: 1. Fix the problem (ignore me), and take credit., or 2. Be wary of suing me as other 'lies' truth about their business and other industries would surface to the court of law and media (more people knows about it) at a risk of greater 'damage' in their eye; or learning points to other people and countries?
I hope that no one gets their bonus reduced. If you look for the projected long term business growth, the disuse of the non-essential lighting saves electricity costs for the train company.
You can look at this blog from a egoistic, and prideful perspective with your narrow tunnel vision OR identify the learning points from each post and take useful constructive actions for positive growth to the organization as well as benefiting yourself.
A kind reminder on the use of question marks through out this blog. May engage a lawyer to clarify about the legal standpoint on the use of questions. retail melbourne australia |