Actually I dont.
They are the ones who implemented the "No wrong door"
policy.
I pity rather the foot soldiers who are actually employed to
answer feedback.
If we agree for example, that
at least in some cases, the quality of the student is but a
reflection of that of the teacher, then the quality of the
"template answers" can be the relection of that of the
feedback.
Mind you, every single feedback that goes to the Authority is
likely to have been approved by some big-shot, silly feedback or
not. After all, if they kena complaints about quality of reply,
they have to answer for it, not the foot soliders. Therefore the
above para stands!
That said, the volume of feedback in recent years have become so
much that the Authority
hired people JUST TO
ANSWER FEEDBACK. Or at least literally.
When you get inudated by the same request again and again, do
you honestly think the Authority would be doing creative answers to
pander to every single feedback? A template answer is but a
reflection of this issue.
Some "feedbacks" are also little more than poorly disguised
attempts at selling their "solutions". Albeit one with poor
research into the actual problems that SG transport system
faces.
Can you imagine what the poor foot soldiers face everyday? Do
these people here stop to think?
Of course not.....the Dilbert comic below should illustrate the
point.
There are lobbyists who know how to kick their "feedback" higher
than the rest. More people are learning their tactics to make
themselves "heard" or to sell their "solutions".
The rest would simply be compiled into pie charts, only worth
looking into if there is enough numbers to look significant. As we
already know the normal channels usually end up going nowhere
simply due to the sheer volume, as you have just mentioned.
