Effective Road Pricing?

Ape had a somewhat eventful night. Went to the gym after work to burn some calories, purge the nicotined lungs and cleared some cholesterol blocked arteries. Joined wifey and friends for dinner in town after that. Ape made sure he had his cash card inserted into the In-vehicle Unit (IU) just in case Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) is still in operation.

Ape is a biker who doesn't frequent town or any of the ERP tolls. As far as Ape can recall, it's an average of once a year ever since ERP was introduced. It does not occur to ape that he has to remember every single toll, the precise hours that they will be in operation and the charges. Simply because, the next time ape has to pass through any of these gantries, the rules has probably changed. Nevertheless, ape had his cash card placed in just in case. It was the journey home that caught ape off guard.

Dinner ended close to 10. Ape deliberated on inserting the cash card. Ape knew he had to travel along CTE and the toll in CTE lasts longer than all other ERP gantry. Ape can take the safe way out by inserting the cash card but run the risk of forgetting to retrieve it. IU on a bike is unlike that of a car whereby one can keep the car locked and a passerby cannot take the cash card without breaking the window. Cash card left in the IU of a forgetful biker can be easily and frequently got "picked up" by any passerby and this happened to ape a handful of times. It is also easy for ape to forget taking out his cash card because ape seldom has any need to place it in the IU.

It was 10 pm and ape is heading out of town... should be safe, ape reasoned. Big mistake.

Traffic was heavy and slow moving. "Accident on lane one" was displayed on the EMAS. Better keep the eyes on the road... in case ape became the 2nd accident. Shortly after the accident site where the traffic became smoother, ape looked up and saw "ERP in operation until 10:30pm". Damn. Where's the next turning before the toll booth? NONE! "What time is it now?" Ape thought. Ape dared not steal a glance at his sleeve covered watch. Nevertheless, ape the saw the time... prominently displayed on the ERP gantry. "10:24pm ...." Shit. "...motorcycles $0.25..." as if in mockery. ARRGGH! Went through the gantry. The LED on the IU flashed red merrily and all ape could do was to wait for the letter from LTA. Ape wondered how much he'll be fined.

(The latest comment about ERP ape read about is here).

Huh? Wats Tat Again?

Ape is away from Singapore since early Feb. Been busy with hardly anytime to blog. Anyway, was trying to catch up on some home news by back tracking and here's what ape found...

Netizens ‘squandered an opportunity’

Ape was like "Huh? You mean there's is something called a community in the internet? Remotely resembling a group with a certain kind of characteristics and somehow, have to rise and voice up when something socially unacceptable arise?"

Come on... "netizens" are as generic "humans".

When ape started to use his brain,the next question pop out "Wa lau! You mean there's nothing more important to discuss in parliament? Aren't we in a recession? Look into that!"

Anyway... ape rants. Good thing ape is neither human nor netizen... ape is erm... ape :p

Purpose Of ERP?

Now, I am totally lost. Nope, not because the GPS on my motorbike is not working... actually I don't have a GPS on my bike :p

Can someone remind me again on the purpose of ERP? While the heading in this ST article suggest ERP is to keep the traffic flowing, the article also quoted PM Lee saying

"When ERP was increased, we also reduced road tax and improved public transport. As a result, many more Singaporeans can now own cars. With more cars on the road, we need to increase ERP to keep traffic flowing." (ST, 17 Aug)

Forgive my ignorance but I perceive it to mean ERP increase is for the purpose of ... increasing ERP? Ok... maybe what he meant was ERP increase has created the unintended result of ERP increase. If I work backwards, the unintended ERP increase is a result of more cars on the road. Backtrack a bit more, i.e. more cars on the road is caused by... reduced road tax and improved public transport?

So what are we actually trying to achieve? Are we encouraging Singaporeans to switch to public transport? Or are we encouraging Singaporeans to own a car? My simple mind simply cannot work out the logic.

Dinner At The Local Coffeeshop

So angry... actually not so really that angry la.... :oops:

A couple of week ago, we were having dinner in one of the local coffeeshop chain... wife placed the order for some dishes and the operator's rule is "pay first". Wife returned to the table for $$$ and at the same time felt that she had "over-ordered" so we decided to drop one dish. When we returned, the operator claim that the dishes had been keyed into the cash register and the chef had started cooking on ALL the dishes... cannot cancel. I told her we hadn't pay yet and what if I walked away then? They would be Lan Lan (Singlish: means a state of helplessness), right? The norm is that if payment is required first, food is prepared only if payment is received. Anyway, didn't want to spoil the dinner over such minor issue and we relented. It was a case of misunderstanding afterall. Come to think of it, we were partly to be blamed for wrong assumption. :oops:

When I returned to my seat, the kopi-soh (the lady who's responsible for taking drinks orders) who took my order forgot who ordered. When I made my claim, she said "respond la... I've been asking around". Wa lau! (Singlish: an expression made when one is Lan Lan) I couldn't hear her because her voice was relatively soft in the coffeeshop and I couldn't see her because she was standing behind me. I wouldn't have known if wife had not saw her and prompted me. Didn't want to argue further with kopi-soh and paid up but she didn't have a 10 cent change! :evil: What is this! It's not like I give her $50 for a 80 cents kopi-O, I gave her all the coins I had, in denomination of a 50 cent and two 20 cents... she did not have a 10 cent change!!!! :evil: For those of you who may not be familiar, kopi soh typically carries a pouch, full of coins so that she has the exact change when required. I wouldn't have been so upset if she had been polite and request that she'd return to me when she had the change - instead she asked if I have the exact amount! Of course I don't have or I would have given her the exact amount!

I was upset, no doubt about it... but more disappointed than being upset because these coffeeshop staff fit the description of "locals-with-poor-service-level" and they are the examples often quoted to justify for foreigners-with-better-service. S.......i........g.........h

Pedestrian, Cyclist and Motorists

Saw two forum letters with regards to the the rights and place of cyclist.

Bikes vs Bus (Today, 17 Jun 2008)

Cyclist v pedestrian: whose right of way? (ST, 20 Feb 2008)

My view is that the issue lies not in deciding should bicycles stay on the road or pedestrian walkway. The issue lies in how we (motorist, pedestrian and bicyclist) can accommodate each other. The issue also lies in how we view our "rights".

Cyclist should not be restricted to either the road or pedestrian walkway. Cyclist should be free to choose which path is safer for them. Having said this, I think all cyclist should exercise caution and put on protection gears such as helmets, arm and knee guard and install blinking/warning lights. Cycle in a single file and keep to the left so that motorists can bypass them. Also, if they choose to ride on pavements, they should slow down or even come down and push their bicycles if they arrive at a crowded/tight spot.

Pedestrians too, should exercise a bit of patience and not hog the entire pavement. When a cyclist rings the bell, he is trying to warn the pedestrian and hopefully, make some space for him to pass through. Pedestrian can simply step aside, make way for the cyclist to pass and continue on their leisurely stroll.

Motorists too, should slow down and overtake when they spot cyclists on the road. Tailgating cyclists or anyone for that matter, is (to me) a foolish thing to do.

What I have suggested above is commonsense and simple thing for everyone to do but why are some people so intolerant of each others' presence? and demand to know who has the right of way?

Pedestrians do not have full, absolute and exclusive rights to use the pavement, neither do the motorists have full, absolute and exclusive rights to use the road.

Cyclists, too have to be considerate to the pedestrians who have as much right as cyclist to use the pavement.

Motorists... just because you paid road tax, COE and ERP doesn't make you king of the road.

But why are we so obsessed with determining who has the rights to what? More strangely is that we seem to be always appealing to the authorities to set rules/laws to determine our "rights". Are we being deprived of rights in the first place? Or are we so naive to think that every rights has to be determined by the "authorities"? Don't we exercise our basic human rights with common sense to share the common places in this little dot that we call home? Can't we use our common sense and exercise our rights and at the same time not depriving others of their right? Or are we still behaving like little children and run to mommy/daddy to tell us what to do and what not to do.

Mind Over Matters?

Just had my 5th RT session. For the uninitiated, RT is known as Remedial Training. You will be blessed with RT if your fail or did not attend your IPPT. IPPT is Individual Pa Pok Test... no lah. IPPT is Individual Physical Proficiency Test. It is compulsory for every NS liable Singaporean to take the IPPT once a year. Since I'm still an Operational Ready NSmen... or so they term us but I still regard myself as reservist, I'm still required to take the IPPT once a year. For my last IPPT window, I failed my 2.4km run... ok ok... to be honest, I would have failed my chin-up also if I had not cheated a bit... a little it of jerking and not keeping my arms straightened :p

Of all the stations, consisting of of 4 static stations (shuttle-run, situps, standing broad jump and chin-ups) and a 2.4km run, I always have problems with chin-ups. Every year, during the test, I will fail by 1 or 2 chin ups... and have to re-test or attend RT. Since the days of my Basic Military Training, standing under the chin up bar would make my heart pump faster and I'll conjure butterflies in my belly. Only in the last recent years, I have problems with running the 2.4km also... just managed to pass.

I've always wondered what is it that keeps me from passing my IPPT.

Is it due to lifestyle?
Or perhaps diet?
Maybe it is work stress and the lack of time for exercise?
But I think all the above are excuses. I smoke but there are chimneys out there who can get gold medal for IPPT. The Company's Best PT during my BMT is one such example. Diet wise... well, I'm not obese and my BMI is still within the ideal range. And I have reduce my intake of fatty and high cholesterol food. Lack of time and stressed by work is also not an excuse... afterall, I'm one who do not believe in selling my soul to my employer.

So what's keeping me from training for my IPPT? I believe it is this...Mind Over Matters. I just have to keep to a strict regime of exercising regularly. I must keep reminding myself that exercising is not just to pass my IPPT. It is to keep my health stable as well. Afterall, age is not slowing down for me and as the years pass, I am finding it harder and harder to keep up and maintain my personal standard.

For a start, I have to train to pass my RT-IPPT in less than 2 weeks. Wish me luck :p

Taxi Fare Increase

Taxi fare is set to increase... again.

According to ComfortDelgro's press release (here), the "fare changes" (just say fare hike, la!) is meant to address issues including,

1) Addressing commuters' concern in the difficulty of getting a cab in the city in evening
2) Simplifying taxi fares for the convenience of commuters
3) Encouraging call bookings to better match the supply and demand


On the first issue - Little cab in city in evening (just make the cab bigger, lor...sorry, can't help it there :p)

The solution is to increase city area surcharge from $1 to $3! Simple wat! Even an orang utan can understand. No cab in city area, increase surcharge so cab drivers will go into city area! Simple, right? Pay them well and they will come. Not enough talents? Pay them more, lor!

Hmmm, I wonder will this deter commuters from taking cab in the city area in the first place! Also, where's the boundary of city area? Maybe I better go find out so next time, I'll just step out of the city area and then lament no cab in non-city area. But then again, perhaps not or they'll increase the surcharge for non-city area.

I also wonder how would cab drivers really react to it. Will they still go into hiding so that they can not only get the city area surcharge, they'll earn the call booking as well! Afterall, ComfortDelgro has shown them that maximising profits is still more important.

The second solution (City ERP rebates) to the first issue (no cab in city in evening), I think is a good move. It does not deter passengers and it encourages drivers. Unless you believe ComfortDelgro will go bankrupt paying ERB rebates... nah, not possible.


Second issue - simplifying fares

The first solutions is to revise back to the days where Late Night Surcharge is 50% of the metered fare between midnight and 0559hrs. Great! I hated the idea of progressive increments starting from 2330hrs at 10% anyway. Aunties and Uncles will find it easier to calculate afterall.

However, the second solution doesn't seem to have anything to do with simplifying fare. Instead of charging $2 surchage for peak hours, they charge a 35% of the metered fare (and call it premium?!?!?). If you tell an ape, "Uncle, peak hour, hor! I need to charge $2 extra!", the response will either be, "OK lor... what to do?" or "Walao! Tai lang pang her! Bo pian la, kia la kia la! (meaning: It's daylight robbery! What to do? I can only suck thumb, just go!)"

But if the driver goes, "Uncle, peak hour, hor, need to charge 35% more!" one might response in the manner shown above or "How much is that going to be? I no study noe no maths like tat one leh. Midnight I can still count simply, meter plus jit pua (half) of meter, 35% is how?"

The only thing in the second solution that touches on simplifying fare is the use of automated computing for the calculation... with detailed breakdown of receipts! Woohoo! Erm... can they not do that also using flat $2 surcharge?

Also, the solution is focusing just on Late Night Surcharge and Peak Period Surcharge. However, if you look at the whole concept of cab fare, do you think it is simple?
Flag Down Fare (with it own formula)
Peak Hour Surcharge (on different dates and time)
City Area Surcharge
Late Night Surcharge (meter plus jit pua, ya?)
Airport / Terminal Surcharge (I've no idea how much now)
Call Booking Fee
ERP Fee (please check with LTA)
Honestly, sometimes when a foreigner asked me how much it cost to take a cab... I just tell him, pay whatever the meter says... although I'm not sure how many of these surcharges are computed into the meter.


The third issue - Encouraging call booking

Here's another good solution... although I'm not sure the $0.50 less is borned by the driver or ComfortDelgro). Simple. Straight to the point. I wonder how effective will it be. Personally, $0.50 makes little difference when I consider other factors such as availability of and need for a cab.

There is one point that crept into the press release yet seemed out of place. It between the 2nd and 3rd solutions and did not explain what issue(s) it is supposed to address - Flag Down Fare Increase. I'll leave you to figure that out.

Whatever the case may be... I'm beginning to be more conscious of which cab (base on the operator) to take and will not hesitate give certain cabs a miss. So I urge the other cab companies to reconsider if they should always follow suit whenever one company increase... or should I say make adjustment, to the fare.

Do The Right Thing

Heard about this from a friend and found it the net.

"An elderly man was trying to find a place to sit and observe the Olympic Games, as he went to each section. All the other Greeks laughed as he tried to make his way through. Some ignored him. Upon entering the Spartan section all the Spartans stood and offered the elderly man their seats. Suddenly the entire stadium applauded. All the Greeks knew what was the right thing to do, but the Spartans were the only ones who did it." (here)

During my Sec 1 days, a thought struck me. It seems to me that Singaporeans are sucker for rules and authority. Everything that we do (or should not do) must come with some form of written rule from the relevant authority. Now, I'm not saying obeying rules are bad. Rules are necessary to ensure things run smoothly, in the broadest sense. However, what I found strange was that some people regard the absence of rules meant endorsement of anything else that the rules did not cover, or the presence of rules meant endorsement of every privileges that may come with it... regardless of what common sense or moral values tell them. It's like saying,

"Oh...there's no regulations that says I must give up my seats to the elderlies so why must I do that?" or

"Oh, as a pedestrain I have the right of way at the zebra crossings. Motorists must keep a lookout for me and give way to me. I can take my own sweet time."

This thought came to me at a time when I observed a bunch of kids making a ruckus at the void deck. An elderly man, who was not related to these kids (except they're of the same race), told them sternly that their behavior was unruly and unbecoming. The kids quietened and left for the playground eventually, restoring peace to the neighbourhood. Initially I thought to myself that the elder had no authority nor responsibilities over the kids. What if those kids turned around and challenged him "Who do you think you are?!" Would it not be better if he informed the parents of the kids or the police or Town Council to let THEM handle those unruly kids? Afterall, these people can exercise some form of authority over these kids but not the elderly. However, comonsense and cultural values also tells me that elderlies are to be respected. Moreover, he did the socially correct thing and that was to tell those kids to respect the neighbours. He didn't need a warren card or a letter of authority issued by a Minister or Commissioner of Police to do that. He did what is socially and morally right of an elder... to educate the children.

From that moment on, whenever I notice something not so right, I asked myself if that particular situation require the relevant "authorities" (including parents, teachers etc) to step in and make some rules. I was a "young adult" or "old child" (depends on how you look at it) and should start to take on more responsibilities. Instead of "Teacher! Teacher! He took my rubber!" or "Mommy, mommy, he called me a monkey!", I started to approach my classmate directly and say "If you need to borrow my eraser, you could have asked and I'll be more than willing to lend it to you" or "Mind you, I am not a monkey. I am an ape, Orang Utan. To be scientifically correct, I am a Pongo Pygmaeus."

But of course, if I was up against gangsters who are out to wallop me... I would still run to teacher and yell, "Teacher! Teacher! Ang Kong Beng want to wallop me!" and the teacher would go "Mata, mata! Got Ah Beng want to beat my student!" There are times when the relevant authorities have to step in. Don't try to be a hero when you do not have laser eyes and wear your red underwear outside like Superman.

If you know you are doing something right and not harming anybody (including yourself), do you really need some figure of authority to support you and make some rules? All the time? In every situations?

I end this post with a short clip (here). The stand up comedian is Peter Russell... the way he said "Do The Right Thing" is hilarious.

I Must Remind Myself

Sorry folks... it's been a terrible day. Skip this if you don't want to feel miserable. I don't want to talk about this anymore after post so comments off. I just want to let it out of my chest and enjoy my holiday.

I must remind myself to keep my mouth shut... the only time when I should open my mouth is to say "I'm sorry, it's my fault, I'm to be blamed"

I must remind myself not to give opinion... except when my opinion is to fully support my boss' opinion

I must remind myself not to offer explanations... I can never have explanations, only excuses

I must remind myself to eat my humble pie... sorry, I don't even deserve a humble pie

I must remind myself of my place and position in the corporate ladder... that is the bottom where all shit flows

I must remind myself I have nothing to offer except my labour... until a scapegoat is needed

It's Better To Accept The Legal Untidiness And The Ambiguity

HELP! HELP! Can someone explain to me what is PM Lee trying to say? Can someone tell me that I have read wrongly or misunderstood his statement?

Our current Prime Minister, who's father has always maintained that the integrity of the Government and the Singapore Law must never be undermined, said that it is better to accept the legal untidiness and the ambiguity with regards to Section 377A! (see here, here, here and here). He further went on to say that since it (I suppose he meant S377A) works, don't disturb it.

WA LAU!

Have you heard of this saying? "If it ain't broken, don't fix it!" I have been told countless times that such thinking is backward, old school of thought, reactive etc. I have been told countless times that we should actively seek areas for improvement, take some risks if necessary, don't sit and wait for the machine to fail before you act on it.

More About S377A and Gays

Sorry folks, I thought I want to stop ranting about this issue but the last parliament session made me want to cow peh some more. When I read the parliament speeches, it become obvious where the "poles" build their foundation.

Repeal 377A approaches it from "Clarity in Law Making".
Retain 377A approaches the topic from "Moral"

For sometime now, I have been looking at this issue on one side of the fence-the Repeal 377A side. I stand on the Repeal 377A side to listen to what BOTH sides have to say. The information I obtained from Repeal is loud and clear - Strength 5! The information I received from Retain 377A was like unreadable and noisy - Strength 1. There were too much clutter and interference for me to make out any sound reasonings.

So for the past few days, I move myself into the Retain 377A camp with the hope that the clutter and noise can be reduced so that I can obtained a less attenuated information from the Retain 377A camp.. True enough, I managed to filter out all the noise and found something intelligible there. Allow me to share my understanding here.

It is obvious to me that NMP Thio does not discriminate gays - she is merely objecting to the act of MSM (male to male sex). To put it simply in the way I understood (and I hope you understand too) is that it is fine if you acknowledge that you (male) are sexually attracted to another male. You can run around shouting "I am a gay! I am sexually attracted to another male!" and the police will not arrest you for that under S377A, although I think the police can arrest you for committing public nuisance under S268.

However, according to S377A, it is a crime if you (male) engage in sexual activity with another man. This means that gays are not criminals as long as they do not have sex with another male. To put it another way, a very direct and blunt way is this - if you (male) cannot have sex with a woman, don't have sex. :( Gays are not criminals as long as they remain celibate.

Still standing in the camp of Retain 377A, I turn my receiver back to the Repeal 377A side and I pick out this message "I do not choose to be a gay! I am like that! I was not influenced or made like that in any way!" I believe and acknowledge that these guys do not have a choice on their sexual preference. However I do believe that they have a choice on whether they want to have sex.

Another piece of intelligible information I obtained from NMP Thio is that S377A covers a heterosexual male experimenting with male sodomy. How I understood her reasoning is this. If a guy, a young teenage guy perhaps, probably still unsure about himself and his sexual preference, believe that the best way to proof his sexual preference it is to try it :O, probably S377A is the only defence he has before he says "Damn! Tak shiok and hurts like hell! I think I still prefer woman"

If I were to draw a two column table and place Retain 377A on one side and Repeal 377A on the other and list down the reasons for each column, "to deter males from experimenting with male sodomy" will be the only reason I can think of under Retain 377A.

So where do I stand now? Sidetrack abit first :P

Through my working life, I have been given opportunities to draft Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), Technical Orders or processes and procedures. To me, all such "guides" have to be clear, concise and easily understood. For every single statement, I always ask myself "can this be done?" and "does this serve any purpose?". When it comes to more serious "guides" such as Technical Orders, I take extra effort to eliminate ambiguities. Technical Orders are technical procedures that MUST be followed. Non-conformance to such orders would invite some form of reprisal. In other words, someone will get into trouble if he misunderstood what I wrote.

I look at the Penal Code and still feel that S377A has to be changed. It clearly include consensual sex between 2 male in private and yet gahmen says law enforcers will not bother them. Hello! People up there? If you want to keep it, do it and tell all gays to remain celibate. If you do not intend to arrest 2 males engaging in consensual sex in private, change the damn S377A such that a very specific case is excluded. Take a stand, a firm and clear stand because we are talking about the Penal Code. It is not just about making the Repeal 377A or Retain 377A camp happy, it is also about making the law enforcers happy, happy to know that exactly what has to and need not be enforced.

Please take sometime to read the parliament speeches by NCMP Sylvia Lim, NMP Siew Kum Hong, NMP Thio Li-Ann and MP Hri Kumar. I read their speeches from The Online Citizen but I'm sure you can find it elsewhere including Singapore Parliament Webiste.

For the sake of protecting the integrity of the Penal Code - Singapore's law, please amend S377A instead of simply retaining or repealing it.

Singlish...Uniquely Singaporean

Saw tis girl helping out at the coffee stall and totally clueless at the way we ordered our drinks. She's an FT from China, can speak very good mandarin and fairly good in english but simply cannot understand what we ordered...I was queuing behind 3 people who happened to be an Indian, Malay and local Chinese...

"Teh susu, please...not so thick"

"Teh tarik satu, kopi kosong satu"

the order from the Indian and Malay was still quite simple and direct. It became challenging when the Chinese place his order,

"Kopi si puay, yat pui dai pui, tak kiew sua, teh kosong gao"

A language (or slang for those who prefers it that way) that we use so commonly and taken for granted can be totally alien to the uniniated. Allow me to dissect the orders placed.

The most common hot beverages we have in a typical kopitiam (coffeeshop) are coffee and tea. In Singlish, these are known as kopi and teh respectively. Even a simple "teh" can sound a bit different if spoken by a Chinese or a Malay or Indian. Now, let's take it a bit further... we can have coffee/tea with milk or without milk. Normally, if you ask for kopi/teh, you'll be served with coffee/tea with milk. If you don't want milk, you should say kopi/teh Oh... I'm not exactly certain but I guess Oh comes from hokkien Or which means black. Now, let's come back to the Indian's order "Teh susu, please...not so thick!" Susu is a Malay word for milk. The Indian could have just asked for Teh but he added susu as confirmation that he wanted tea with milk. The addition of susu is more often used by non-Chinese or ang mor educated Chinese (I'll tell you more about the usage of "ang mor" or "ang moh" in another posting).

Now, let's explore the order placed by the Malay - "Teh tarik satu, kopi kosong satu". Remember? Teh is tea...with milk, right? So what is tarik? It is a malay word for "pull". I don't know who invented teh tarik but I got the impression that it originated from Indian-Muslim sarabat stall). It is tea (with milk) with lots of foam on its surface like...cuppacino. The foam is created by pouring the tea to and fro the cup and the mug several times, thus creating the frothy top. The process of pouring requires the "pourer" to increase the distance between cup and mug, giving an impression that he is "stretching" or pulling the tea. (Good thing that the stall owners do not adopt the method from cuppacino or we might see him placing a straw into your tea and starts blowing bubbles into it :P ) Back to the topic, the Malay also mentioned satu which means one. So what she actually ordered was one tea-with-milk-with-frothy-top. Now, she also ordered kopi kosong satu. By now, you should know what is kopi and satu but what the heck is kosong? Kosong is a malay word for zero or none (correct me if I'm wrong, my friends). What she meant was she wanted black coffee without sugar...

Kopi is coffee with milk and sugar, Kopi Oh is black coffee with sugar and Kopi kosong is black coffee without milk and sugar.

Now, the real challenge came from the Chinese because his statement consists of malay, hokkien and cantonese...and some kopitiam code. It's not that he was trying to be difficult but that's how Singlish is spoken sometimes, especially when you're involved in a conversation with people from different races and backgrounds. Now, let's dissect it piece by piece...

"Kopi si puay..."
kopi - a malay word for coffee
si - hokkien for the number four. One, two, three, four - jit, neng, sa, si (hold on a second here, hokkien and teochew has many similarities yet there could be several variations of saying the same thing such as for the number one, it can be jit or yeo, or yoh...)
puay - hokkien for cup

"yat pui dai pui..."
yat pui - is one cup in cantonese.... and dai pui is "big cup" (yes, we have regular size coffee and large size coffee like any fastfood restaurants. This time round, he had switched to cantonese because his cantonese friend had requested for a bigger cup of coffee...with milk. That distraction cause to to temporary switch to cantonese mode)

"tak kiew sua..." - Basically this is in hokkien (although I dun know the origin of sua, perhaps comes from jit lang jit puah, kum jeng beh suay) and this is one of the many coffeeshop "codes". Tak kiew in hokkien means "kick ball". It originates from the beverage Milo because of it's TV advertisement showing footballers drinking milo! (Do you recall? "It's marvelous what milo can do for you!) and sua indicates that he wanted two cups.

"teh kosong gao" I hope you haven't forgotten what is teh kosong? So what is "gao"? A hokkien term that means "thick"...no sugar, no milk but thick tea...like espresso, only it's tea.

Phew...I'm a bit lost myself. There's a lot more to Singlish and I've only touched on the tip of the ice-berge. At least, I hope you'll not fret should you need to get your morning cup of coffee at our local coffeeshop..."Aunty! Kopi Oh jit phuay!"

P/S Teh tarik, cappuccino and kopiccino are all different drinks....ever tried "dinosauar"?