Apparently, passengers pay an average of $2.70 for each Sydney train journey. Taxpayers subsidise these journeys by $10.60, as the average fare does not fully cover the cost.
There are many reasons behind this. Concession fares for children, the unemployed and the elderly is one reason. Also, if the commuters had to pay the full cost, then people would not be attracted to use the rail system. This would result in a higher volume of road traffic - and this would cost the tax payers about $6.80 more/journey.
So it depends on how we look at the issue. One, interpreting it at an individual level, may say that the train fares need to increase in price in order to recoup its losses. The government and the tax payers shouldn't need to bear the cost. The rail network should turn a profit in themselves, and not be a liability to the public. There should be less concession in the fares in order to make this possible.
On the other hand, when one looks at the issue from a community perspective, one can say that given the benefits of reducing traffic from the roads, from less carbon emission pollution, the reduction in inflation, etc, the economics of running the rail system at this reduced rate is the right tact.
Are there other issues in life that fit this model?
Eg. education - which are a burden to the public purse, but necessary for the next generation? Tithing and taxes - which have a negative impact on an individual's budget, but are necessary for the church or state to have resources to use? Driving in such a way to suit self instead of obeying the rules to help every other road user as well as self? Litter in the streets? Social welfare?
What if people seek out for their personal good instead of thinking big-picture for the good of the community?
Are banks, governments and individuals too self-centred instead of community-centred in their mindset these days?
What do you think? How can we have a better world? Does God have a part in solving this?
Showing posts with label community. Show all posts
Showing posts with label community. Show all posts
04 January 2015
23 March 2014
Prayer at public school
Should everybody at public school be forced to pray? To which god? What if they don't believe in god? What do you think?
I don't mean private schools or Christian schools, when I ask this question. I think the expectations are clear that if a child were to attend one of these, then they are expected to fit into the culture of that school. And it can be expected that Christian schools would want people to pray, Buddhist schools expect people to chant, etc.
But public schools cater to the masses. Children whose parents cannot afford the cost of private schooling are sent to these schools, since schooling is compulsory. They go to the school that is assigned to them, often based on the geographical area of where they live. Should such children be forced to pray?
A story in today's Sun-Herald set me thinking.
The article spoke of a parent who pulled out his child, not because he was anti-religious, but because he thought the practice not to be inclusive for everybody. He thought that scripture classes or prayer groups within the school can have prayer time, but not during the school assemblies where everybody is expected to attend. But the majority of the parents in that school voted to retain prayer in the school assemblies.
Another school said there would be no way that Christian prayer would be conducted at their school assembly, since that school was 90% Muslim.
Yet another school runs it such that sometimes, the children would pray to Allah. At other times, they would read Sanskrit text, and at yet other times, sing Christian hymns and practice meditation. This school thinks that the exposure to the religious practices of a multicultural society would be good for the children.
What do you think?
Should governments segregate swimming pools and prayer rooms so to satisfy the requests of the Muslim community? Should there be combined prayer time or separate ones? Why even have prayer time at all? How should public schools run with regards to this aspect?
I don't mean private schools or Christian schools, when I ask this question. I think the expectations are clear that if a child were to attend one of these, then they are expected to fit into the culture of that school. And it can be expected that Christian schools would want people to pray, Buddhist schools expect people to chant, etc.
But public schools cater to the masses. Children whose parents cannot afford the cost of private schooling are sent to these schools, since schooling is compulsory. They go to the school that is assigned to them, often based on the geographical area of where they live. Should such children be forced to pray?
A story in today's Sun-Herald set me thinking.
The article spoke of a parent who pulled out his child, not because he was anti-religious, but because he thought the practice not to be inclusive for everybody. He thought that scripture classes or prayer groups within the school can have prayer time, but not during the school assemblies where everybody is expected to attend. But the majority of the parents in that school voted to retain prayer in the school assemblies.
Another school said there would be no way that Christian prayer would be conducted at their school assembly, since that school was 90% Muslim.
Yet another school runs it such that sometimes, the children would pray to Allah. At other times, they would read Sanskrit text, and at yet other times, sing Christian hymns and practice meditation. This school thinks that the exposure to the religious practices of a multicultural society would be good for the children.
What do you think?
Should governments segregate swimming pools and prayer rooms so to satisfy the requests of the Muslim community? Should there be combined prayer time or separate ones? Why even have prayer time at all? How should public schools run with regards to this aspect?
28 April 2013
The future of public services
What will happen to public services in years to come? Will we still enjoy the "free" facilities that our taxes pay for? Or will everything be so commercialised and "user-pays" that there becomes nothing to enjoy in the future?
Gone are the days when University courses were free. In fact, tertiary education is big, international business nowadays. In fact, there is talk that University fees will go up in price in order to fund education for primary and secondary school children.
Public libraries are something that I have enjoyed, but apparently, the facilities are not there in every country I have lived in. Now, in this age of e-books and broadband internet being available almost everywhere, will public libraries still be useful in the future? I appreciate that libraries are useful for more purposes than just the books, but the people who run and fund these facilities may not.
I heard the other day the proposal that people be charged for using the parks; ie. if they take a dog for a walk or go for a jog or something. I heard that the city councils have rejected the idea, but do you think it might happen someday in the future?
Parking is still free at some times in some places, but no longer in the streets of the big cities anymore, it seems. Then, as the statistics say that more people are using these streets, there has been talk of reducing the free parking faciltiies. Even shopping complexes do not all have 3-hour free parking nowadays.
As the trend changes, what other facilities do you think might disappear? Will you miss these facilties?
What if you have to pay the police if you use their services? Would that mean that criminals can pay the police so that they don't get caught? Would the same principle apply to judges and law courts?
As it is, the fire services are asking for money from the insurance companies and the property taxes in order to pay for their services.
What do you think might change? Do you like the prospect of such user-pay services?
Gone are the days when University courses were free. In fact, tertiary education is big, international business nowadays. In fact, there is talk that University fees will go up in price in order to fund education for primary and secondary school children.
Public libraries are something that I have enjoyed, but apparently, the facilities are not there in every country I have lived in. Now, in this age of e-books and broadband internet being available almost everywhere, will public libraries still be useful in the future? I appreciate that libraries are useful for more purposes than just the books, but the people who run and fund these facilities may not.
I heard the other day the proposal that people be charged for using the parks; ie. if they take a dog for a walk or go for a jog or something. I heard that the city councils have rejected the idea, but do you think it might happen someday in the future?
Parking is still free at some times in some places, but no longer in the streets of the big cities anymore, it seems. Then, as the statistics say that more people are using these streets, there has been talk of reducing the free parking faciltiies. Even shopping complexes do not all have 3-hour free parking nowadays.
As the trend changes, what other facilities do you think might disappear? Will you miss these facilties?
What if you have to pay the police if you use their services? Would that mean that criminals can pay the police so that they don't get caught? Would the same principle apply to judges and law courts?
As it is, the fire services are asking for money from the insurance companies and the property taxes in order to pay for their services.
What do you think might change? Do you like the prospect of such user-pay services?
25 April 2013
Singing at church
Do you go to church? Do you sing with the others there? Or do you find that culture too strange? The songs to unusual? The practice of singing with the congregation too awkward?
I stumbled across David Murrow's blog post on this subject a few days ago. I found it quite thought provoking.
Apparently, church used to be such that professionals would sing in a foreign language (Latin), and the congregation didn't. Then the Reformation happened. People began to read the Bible for themselves, and there became a movement to express their worship themselves also. Hymns were written. When printing became popular, the hymn books were published and circulated and everybody was able to sing together. Such became the culture of the church.
Then came the days of the projectors. Song books became less used, as people projected the words on screen. At first, the projected words were the songs that were in the hymn books and other song books. But, as people came out to write and sing newer songs, these were no longer circulated in the song books at churches. Then song leaders would get excited to introduce newer songs so often that the congregations do not sing the new songs often enough and do not learn them well enough to join in.
So we are back to the pre-Reformation age where the song-leaders sing, and the congregation doesn't.
Do you find this phenomenon at your church?
What do you think about it?
Why should/shouldn't we sing at churches? What is the singing all about?
Are we at an age of information overload? I mean, while there were too few songs, it was boring. While there are too many, it becomes impossible to learn. Have we passed the ideal stage of having roughly the right number to not be boring, but yet able to learn?
What do you think?
I stumbled across David Murrow's blog post on this subject a few days ago. I found it quite thought provoking.
Apparently, church used to be such that professionals would sing in a foreign language (Latin), and the congregation didn't. Then the Reformation happened. People began to read the Bible for themselves, and there became a movement to express their worship themselves also. Hymns were written. When printing became popular, the hymn books were published and circulated and everybody was able to sing together. Such became the culture of the church.
Then came the days of the projectors. Song books became less used, as people projected the words on screen. At first, the projected words were the songs that were in the hymn books and other song books. But, as people came out to write and sing newer songs, these were no longer circulated in the song books at churches. Then song leaders would get excited to introduce newer songs so often that the congregations do not sing the new songs often enough and do not learn them well enough to join in.
So we are back to the pre-Reformation age where the song-leaders sing, and the congregation doesn't.
Do you find this phenomenon at your church?
What do you think about it?
Why should/shouldn't we sing at churches? What is the singing all about?
Are we at an age of information overload? I mean, while there were too few songs, it was boring. While there are too many, it becomes impossible to learn. Have we passed the ideal stage of having roughly the right number to not be boring, but yet able to learn?
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)