There's an interesting exclusive report in Maktoob Business, as Emjay pointed out in his comment left on my last post.
The report raises an old proposal and is headed Dubai mulls low-income driving ban.
I'm not going to get into the discrimination thing again, I've talked about this proposal in those terms before.
What interested me was the quotes attributed to Essa Abdul Rahman al-Dosari, CEO of the Public Transport Authority.
He is quoted as saying:
"There are certain categories of staff that are not able to use cars because their income is very low. Why should they drive in a city where they can’t afford to?"
"The wealthy, they are very few, why should we concentrate on them? Let them drive a car ... we should target the majority of people"
Did he really say that? Is that what he really meant?
They can't afford to drive. They're too poor to use their cars.
So if they're not driving why ban them?
The wealthy are very few.
Where is the line drawn under 'wealth' I wonder. What constitutes 'wealth' to the PTA? Earn less than, let me make a wild guess, Dh30,000 a month and you can't drive?
Was it beyond the ability of the 'journalist' to seek clarification.
The report is here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I think some people belive in so, they present discremenatory ideas trying to solve or improve social issues by creating such ban and such regulations, so short sighted or let's say so bossy in there rulings and regulations proposals.
Think you'll find the journalist at fault works for Maktoob Business, rather than Arabian Business.
So if they can't afford to drive how can they pay all the costs associated with running their car such as maintenance, insurance, fuel (etc).
There is a hidden agenda here to remove certain nationalities from the roads of Dubai under the headings of "congestion" and "they can't afford to drive (etc)".
Would this be the only country in the world that is considering drivers based purely on their income??????
Most other countries (ie Singapore) tend to do it through adding additional cost to running a car such as tolls, taxes, high fuel costs etc, plus they introduce a viable public transport system.
I hope we soon receive a press release from the Ministry of Clarification on this one!
This surely was the reason for proposals to ban registration of cars over ten years old. And then lots of the 'right' sort of people popped out of the woodwork with their classic cars, resulting in...
You've guessed it: More work down at the MoC.
Anon@2.03, where the 'journalist' works isn't really the point - and I didn't name the employer anyway.
The point about standards of journalism is that quotes which don't make sense and/or are incomplete are not questioned by the original journalist, by others repeating the interview or by editors approving the incomplete and contradictary stories.
They all simply file and run the story without question, without clarification, without getting it right.
Seebee, I beg to differ. You've clearly pointed out the failings of the journalist in question and then attributed them to the wrong company.
"The point about standards of journalism is that quotes which don't make sense and/or are incomplete are not questioned by the original journalist, by others repeating the interview or by editors approving the incomplete and contradictary stories.
They all simply file and run the story without question, without clarification, without getting it right."
Exactly. But it wasn't the Arabian Business editors who got it wrong, was it? It was a totally different publisher that has no relation to Maktoob.
Given that the company is ultimately responsible for the journalist's output, you're creating an impression that Arabian Business is a sloppy journalism house. I'm not disputing that Arabian Business certainly makes mistakes, but if you're going to attack a journalist source, at least have the decency to get it right yourself. It'd be like me reading a report in The Australian and then blaming the poor quality journalists at the Sydney Morning Herald. Or having issues with your Ford car and then attacking Toyota for its faults.
And when someone such as yourself can't even get a company name right, don't you think you're not really in a position to lecture a journalist on getting the facts down?
I hope the official has to eat his own words like the guy in RTA had to when he announced that Dubai is no place for 20 year old cars.
Anon@4.40, you're right and I've corrected the error. Thank you for pointing it out.
And when someone such as yourself can't even get a company name right, don't you think you're not really in a position to lecture a journalist on getting the facts down? In my defence I have to say I'm an amateur not a professional journalist, I work alone with no sub-editor, editor or proof reader. I do make the odd mistake and typo now and again, which I correct as soon as I see them or if someone points them out.
That's very different from a professional journalist working with a team of people and so yes, I do think we need to point out when they don't do their job properly.
well here's the trick we must be missing. they need business on the new metro trains being constructed. and people on metro means lots of money for govt. people in own cars dont mean much money for govt.why else would they do it now when actually half of the people have already left dubai, and traffic is much lower than last year.
i think they clearly have plans to make money, one way or the other from the people. whether they make sense to u and me is another question.
4x4 drivers responsible for most accidents And the RTA says that the 'poor' should not drive?
PS:
Before people jump down my throat for the report being in reference to Qatar, let me just say that this story just creoss referenced to the story that is discussed here.
Post a Comment