Sparing a thought for the people behind the management of your estate

Town Councils were formed in 1989 to empower local elected representatives and residents to run their own estates. The formation of Town Councils is based on the Town Council Act, which was passed by Parliament on 29 June 1988. Today, there are 15 Town Councils managing the HDB housing estates in Singapore. The elected representatives will form part of the council/ committee to look into the management of the respective estates. Town Councils are integral to the lives of Singaporeans living in HDB estates. We can pay for our Services and Conservancy charges at any town council office in our constituency. Applications to use the facilities under the care of the town council for purposes ranging from recreation to personal affairs can also be done at a town council office.

Just as residents expects the town council to demonstrate professionalism in their work, compassion and a healthy dose of flexibility in the execution and decision-making process, residents should also be more accommodating and exercise more patience and understanding with the town council and their staff. Managing an estate and looking into the varied aspects of estate maintenance are not easy to begin with. Sometimes, if we put ourselves in the shoes of the estate cleaner, the property officer, the call-centre staff or the administrative personnel, we may be able to better appreciate the intricacies of their work. Just as we want others to spare a thought for our daily struggles and frustrations at our respective workplaces, we as residents should exercise more prudence and understanding in our dealings with the town council and their staff. Town councils are not run by a political party, but by a team of professionals and abled managers. They are employed under a contract and are not beholden to the political interests of any party. Notwithstanding these bureaucratic arrangements, it must be noted that just as we are fathers and mothers to our children, and sons and daughters to our parents with all the encompassing responsibilities and financial obligations to them, town council staff should also be treated with the respect and dignity due to them and residents should view them not as parts of a bureaucratic machinery but as individuals trying their utmost, doing their part, and performing their responsibilities in view of the many constraints that the town council face, constrains that more often than not, residents do not see and may not understand, resulting in judgments being passed with less than adequate understanding of the circumstances.

Municipal issues such as cleanliness and immediate matters in the constituency that needs to be addressed such as a lift breakdown cannot be resolved by comparing this cleaner with that cleaner, this property officer with the last property officer, this member of parliament with the previous member of parliament and this party with that party. It is not helpful at all, and in fact creates unnecessary divisions and set unwarranted expectations. To me, if there is an issue, let’s us look at how we can be constructive and go about resolving them in the shortest possible time, without creating too much inconvenience to the affected resident and other stakeholders in the community.

I am not saying that the town council staff can afford to do less and residents should expect less from the town council but residents can and should be more forgiving, understanding and cooperative. More importantly, we as residents should not go away with the idea that we can order the town council to do whatever we want in accordance to what we think is right. Just as we are free to provide any feedback and make requests of the town council, similarly the town council has the right to say no to us with the proper explanation or justification. As residents, we should listen more to the grounds on which the town council makes its decision and if we are not satisfied with the outcome, do not give up, but work closely with the town council continually on the relevant issue. Let us also bear in mind that for matters pertaining to estate management, issues between different residents of different state of minds at different points in their lives with different religious and social beliefs are bound to crop up and can be very tricky. These issues have to be managed in a professional and sensitive manner, according each resident the fairness and service that he/ she duly should receive.

More importantly, we as residents have a stake in your own estate too. We can make a difference to our own estate by being more considerate – do not litter, use facilities with care to keep them in good condition, be responsible to other stakeholders etc. These simple efforts on our part can and will make a difference to our living environment. Our Town Council needs our cooperation and support to improve the community in which we live in and we all have a stake in. This is our Town Council!

The next time you come across an estate cleaner or town council staff, do not forget to offer them a word of gratitude or even go as far as offering them a packet of drink. I am certain this will mean a lot to them as they continue with their routine to service your community. This is Our Town Council!

Thank you to all the staff and officers of the 15 town councils in Singapore. Thank you for making a tangible difference in the lives of Singaporeans. It has not been easy for you guys, but thanks for being there and bearing with our incessant demands and feedback.

Thank you.

Filed under: Aljunied GRC, Singapore, Town Councils

That $28million dollar question: An investment not a cost

Yes. It has now come down to that $28 million dollar question.

It costs transport operators in Singapore $28 million dollars per year if polytechnic students are given travel concessions similar to that currently enjoyed by students from junior college (JCs) and Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs). That is $28 million dollars lost annually in terms of operating revenue. Period.

I have 2 points to make in response.

1. I do understand that public transport operators have to be answerable to their stakeholders through their corporate performance. Reducing costs and maximising revenue and in turn the profit margin is what a responsible private organisation should seek to achieve on a year-on-year basis. In that case, the transport operators may want to consider not giving any of the student groups any concessionary arrangements, or increase the amount that JC and ITE students are currently paying to match the rate that is pay forth by the polytechnic students. In other words, if travel concessions are provided forth in the first place, the least the transport operators should worry about is the revenue that may be lost through the granting of travel concessions since they are labeled as “concessions” to begin with.

2. The planned polytechnic intake for academic year 2012/2013 is 27,065 and the total number of polytechnic students is approximately 81,195. In 2010, the total enrollment of students in polytechnics is 83,452 inclusive of full-time, part-time and advanced diploma students. Thus, taking an enrolment number of 80,000, transport operators are spending on average less than $1 a day investing in the education of our polytechnic students. The $28 million can be seen in roughly two broad ways; as a cost to the transport operators or an investment on the part of the transport operators in the talent enterprise for the Singapore economy.

Till date, the transport operators remain entrenched in their perennial mindset that this figure of $28 million is an operating cost to them. Unfortunately so. A fundamental rethink is long overdue and let’s consider investing in the future of this nation, a move that is not only strategic but would most certainly be welcomed by the respective stakeholders and shareholders.

 

References:

• Travel concessions for poly students will cost transport operators S$28m – http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1177393/1/.html

• A Guide to Polytechnic Education (Planned Polytechnic Intake for Academic Year 2012/2013) – http://www.polytechnic.edu.sg/polyguide/Intake.html

• Department of Statistics, Singapore (Education, 2010) – http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/yos11/statsT-education.pdf

Filed under: Parliament, Singapore, Junior College, Polytechnics, Public Transportation, Tertiary Concession Fares

Real progress, rhetorical at best and U-turn in nature

The headline in today’s Straits Times (19 January 2012) points to a ‘real progress’ in the ministerial pay debate. Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) Teo Chee Hean said that ‘we [the House] have come a very long way on this issue of political salaries and have moved much closer together, members from both sides of the House.” DPM Teo was said to have been struck at the “degree of convergence and agreement” achieved over the past three days.

Much has been commented on the pay formula and the benchmark proposed by the different stakeholders in this latest debate on the remunerations for political office. I shall not add to the chorus of opinions on the technical aspects of this debate involving formulas and pay scales, which I believed I am inadequate to assess and any attempt on my part to do so would be far from being constructive. Some have questioned the poor showing by Workers’ Party (WP) Members of Parliament during the 3-days debate, and to a certain extent, these critics are not entirely mistaken. WP members of Parliament have as much to learn as any Member of Parliament from the People’s Action Party (PAP). There are lessons to be learnt and the nation-state of Singapore stands to benefit from the continual development in the parliamentary depth of both the PAP and WP.

With this in mind, the PAP should seriously re-look at itself for trying to play the moral high ground not only in its central arguments in support of the proposals made by the Committee to review ministerial salaries but also in attempting to accuse the WP of being “inconsistent and playing political games”. Minister of State for National Development Tan Chuan-Jin echoed the accusations made in Parliament by Mr. Hri Kumar and tried to paint the WP as being insincere or at least, he was trying to allude to that. Mr. Baey Yam Keng went as far as to suggest that were “other political motivations.” Any political grandstanding in Parliament for one’s own party interests without any due regards for Singaporeans and their interest is regrettable. However, any attempt by the government to paint political grandstanding for party interests on the part of the WP in the name of putting national interests first by the PAP is pure hypocrisy. Singaporeans are intelligent enough to see that the PAP is no less a political party than the WP.

In the first place, why is there even a need to convene a committee to review ministerial salaries, setting in place a subsequent debate on the issue? The answer to my above question: Politics and the mechanics of national elections set in place and driven by the will of the electorate, which unfortunately runs against the agenda that the PAP wanted to set. Loosely termed, “a U-turn”.

Real progress came not from the political courage and convictions of the PAP but from the verdict of 7th May 2011. I was pretty surprised that the contribution of the ordinary Singaporean  was not recognised in length during the course of the entire debate. Instead, it shuffles between “sacrifices”, “principles”, “political grandstanding” and “formulas”

In that sense, fundamentally DPM Teo was referring to “real progress, rhetorical at best and U-turn in nature.”

Filed under: PAP, Parliament, Singapore, Workers' Party, Ministerial Salaries, Teo Chee Hean

What is the Workers’ Party’s stand on welfare?

Source: Workers’ Party “Towards a First World Parliament” manifesto

In the preamble to the section of “Society” in the Workers’ Party “Towards a First World Parliament” manifesto, it stated that “every citizen has a right to a decent standard of living, work and a life of choices and opportunities without discrimination. The government has the responsibility to look after its citizens and should not just play a “charity role” when tackling the needs of the people and building a community.” The Party went on to explain that “the government’s minimalist approach to social welfare, in particular its rigid emphasis on family as the first line of defence, has caused much stress to poor and sandwiched Singaporeans.”

The Workers’ Party beliefs on welfare, community and society are as such:

1. The Workers’ Party is for a caring society and believes that social justice must be intrinsic to the concept of government. It also recognizes that Singapore is a multicultural society and everyone should be treated equally.

2. The society, as a whole, must direct resources to support the underprivileged.

3. The government has the obligation to protect and provide for vulnerable groups of people, especially the poor.

 4. The government must provide needs-based social welfare to ensure that no one who needs help is left stranded. Social workers should be given discretion to assess each case on its merits. Although it may mean that more resource sand effort will be needed to examine some cases, no citizen in need should be deprived of assistance.

5. People with disabilities have the right to live a dignified and fulfulling life and be integrated with the rest of the community.

6. The problems of the aged, especially the chronically ill, do not only refer to those who are destitute but also those whose families are unable to care for them for genuine reasons. Affordable healthcare and support facilities for them are essential. Voluntary welfare organisations are playing important roles here and more support from the government is necessary.

7. Besides physical health, the mental health of the elderly is equally important. Many retirees are still able to contribute to society and should be encouraged and given the opportunities to do so.

8. Single parents must not be left out of available assistance schemes.

9. The development of a strong and vibrant community will strengthen our social fabric, foster social cohesion and in the process build a national identity. We need to encourage individuals within the community to serve the neighbourhood to foster the organic growth of a natural community leadership.

10. Multiculturalism should be actively promoted and should form a corner stone of our social policies.

11. All children have the right to grow up with dignity in a safe environment free from the risk of abuse. Deterrence alone is no guarantee to ensuring the safety of our children. The environment must inherently reduce the risk of abuse and thus, safeguard the well-being of children.

Filed under: Manifesto, Politics, Singapore, Workers' Party, 工人党

Reforms not Rhetoric: A response to Prime Minister’s New Year Message 2012

“Much as we [PAP] would like to, it is not possible to please everyone completely. If all sides refuse to budge, Singapore will be gridlocked and nothing will move. Hence, we need to uphold a spirit of give and take, and actively search for creative and practical outcomes that serve the common good. And, after the final decision has been made, I hope that all parties will rally behind this collective decision.” (Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, New Year Message, 1 January 2012)

A ‘new normal’ is to say the least normal. A ‘new normal’ is still a normal political state of affairs. What Singapore really needs is a ‘New Deal’ as I have previously written extensively on. In the 12^th Parliament, the brutal fact of the matter is, the PAP has 81 seats while the largest alternative presence in the form of the Workers’ Party has 6 seats. The cynic will say that Parliament remains a rubber stamp for government agenda and he is not wrong in that respect.

The person of  the year in Singapore in 2011 should be the residents of Aljunied GRC after their admirable feat of kick starting that political reform process on 8 May 2011. The onus for tangible institutional reforms remains firmly on the plate of the PAP. Similarly, the biggest obstacle to systemic reforms lies not in the political wrangling and grandstanding of the alternative party in Parliament but on the intransigence of the ruling PAP in its attitude towards alternative and credible ideas during the policy-making process, masking their own ideas under the facade of the  “common good” and the “collective [majority] decision.”

The Workers’ Party’s Secretary-General, Mr. Low Thia Khiang has categorically allay the fears of Prime Minister’s Lee Hsien Loong by stating on the morning of the Party’s election victory in Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) and Hougang Single-Member Constituency (SMC) that “Singaporeans have looked up to the Workers’ Party as a rational, responsible and credible party. They have responded to the approach of politics, which I have taken, that we should not oppose for the sake of (opposing), although we are the opposition. He went on to state that “[he] also do not believe that we should do grand standing by trying to show people that we are very confrontational just because we are the opposition; we will confront when necessary.

With this in mind, Mr. Howard Lee rightly encapsulates the political direction that Singapore should take, to “get out of politics and into policy.” In his piece for TheOnlineCitizen on 10 October 2011, He wrote that:

It should now be a time for our elected representatives to roll up their sleeves and get down to doing what they have been elected to do. In other words, it is time to get out of politics and into policy. This should be realised in changes and updates to existing policies that Singaporeans so wanted to see, which I believe drove the decisions that many voters made in this election year.

As Legislative Assistant to Mr. Low Thia Khiang, with much of my spare time being devoted to ground work and looking into the requests of the constituents, I can fully comprehend what the Prime Minister is trying to get at when he says that “Much as we would like to, it is not possible to please everyone completely.” However, I was very intrigued by his idea that “If all sides refuses to budge, Singapore will be gridlocked and nothing will move.” Simply put, in the current context that we are in, there will not be any parliamentary and policy gridlock. Period.

With this in mind, while Prime Minister Lee’s New Year Message is a step in the right direction, I hope that he recognises that more often than not, it is the PAP who refuses to “uphold a spirit of give and take” and accepts “creative and practical outcomes that serve the common good.” Certainly, when a “final decision has been made, all parties [should] rally behind the decision” but it is only possible if and only if that decision is in sync with the pulse of the population and speaks to the aspirations, hopes and dreams of the ordinary Singaporean like no other, or at the least the majority of Singaporeans. What the PAP thinks is good for Singapore may not be what Singaporeans rationally want from their government. There is a disconnect. It is not about ideas or ideology. It is also less about winning the political argument. It is more fundamental and systemic than that and it revolves around that disconnect between governance as envisioned by the PAP and the harsh realities on the ground.

It is ridiculously clumsy to seek out the “common good” when the voice of the individual voter has been diluted by the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system and the current first-past-the post  arrangement. A parliamentary election that is organised under the Prime Minister’s office does not ensure political neutrality and it does not foster the development of a tighter collective will and common good. For better representation of the common good through voter diversity, Singapore should work towards an alternative system of proportional representation so that party votes can be reflected at the national level. The power of Parliament as the people’s representatives should be unfettered and thus the Office of the Elected Presidency should be abolished. Political reforms should be one of the priorities of this government if Prime Minister Lee is serious and genuine about a transformed and reformed PAP in the context of a ‘new normal’.

The Prime Minister in his New Year’s message highlighted that the issue of population “is a particularly complex and critical challenge”. I agree with him. I would also like to point out that the Workers’ Party in its “Towards a First World Parliament” Manifesto has dedicated an entire section to population and immigration, proposing a total of 13 policy proposals to move this country in the right direction. Similarly, the Workers’ Party proposed that ministers’ remuneration should be benchmarked internationally against the political office of developed countries and their remuneration should also take into account of all associated benefits under the total remuneration or total employment costs.

Will the PAP be willing to consider these rational and constructive solutions for the practical benefits that it can bring even though the proposals or ideas may have originated from the Workers’ Party?

Only time will tell whether Prime Minister Lee’s New Year Message is a potential vision for political reforms and policy changes or a rhetorical, warm and fuzzy piece of writing that contributes little to a country that is full of promise and potential, and one which I am proud to call home.

With that, I wish all Singaporeans a very healthy and rewarding 2012.

Thank you.

Filed under: Aljunied GRC, PAP, Parliament, Politics, Singapore, Workers' Party

The hypocrisy of the masses: Rejecting elitism but holding on to an elitist society

In any given society, of the one thousand babies born, there are so many percent near-geniuses , so many percent average , so many percent morons.

I am sorry if I am constantly preoccupied with what the near-geniuses and the above average are going to do. But I am convinced that it is they who are ultimately decide the shape of things to come. It is the above-average in any society who sets the pace. (Lee Kuan Yew, 27 August 1966)

Elitism is the belief that there is always a small group of people at the top who actually make all the important decisions influencing society, whatever the political system and whatever is claimed to the contrary.

The mistake that Mr. Kwek Jian Qiang in his letter to the TODAY newspaper was to mask elitism under the idea of meritocracy. Unfortunately, he did not succeed in pulling wools over the eyes of many readers of the paper. It is precisely the belief in elitist principles that has in turn led to the establishment of meritocracy based on educational achievements and one’s individual performance to determine one’s social standing in society. This meritocratic principle as part of the elitist ideology expressed directly by our national leaders and their policies and espoused indirectly by Mr. Kwek in his article serves to legitimise the socio-economic and ethnic inequality we see in Singapore today.

As Professor Kenneth Paul Tan rightly said, “As the economic and political elite are rewarded with larger prizes, a vast and visible inequality of outcomes will replace the incentive effect with a sense of resentment, helplessness, social disengagement, and even envy among those who perceive themselves as systematically disadvantaged”.

Meritocracy is that tool to supplement rhetoric with a mechanism that delivers effective control and power and legitimised that unforgiving climate of winners takes all and losers having to fend for themselves and denied of any assistance from the state.

The interesting point to consider is this. Why do we decry elitism, by positioning ourselves as “less of a member of the elites, with humble beginnings” but continually endorsing the legitimacy of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), the main conduit in which the notion of elitism is propagated to govern over our lives? The sober fact of the matter is that there seems to be a congruence between the ideology of our national elites and their efforts at political socialisation and the political culture, beliefs and values of the masses. The levels of satisfaction and the continued support for the PAP indicates somewhat a certain compatibility between the values of the masses and those espoused by our elites and unconsciously and unwittingly, the PAP’s efforts at political socialisation since 1965 have contributed to this congruence between elite and mass culture. Singaporeans may reject the eugenics of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew but we continue unpertubed by the notion of elitism and seem to accept the utility of an elitist society for Singapore.

So I see the latest remarks that expressed dismay and disgust towards Mr. Kwek’s remarks on two folds; (i) as an antithesis to this political congruence but at the same time (ii) unknowingly perpetuating the notion of elitism by rejecting Mr. Kwek’s remarks but continually keeping the source of that elitism in power, enabling and ensuring the entrenchment of elitism in Singapore. This speaks more of the hypocrisy of the masses and less of its rejection of elitism when the masses pit itself against the elites.

At the same time, the state’s elitism is based substantially on the PAP’s perception of itself, a sense of continued siege, less as a result of the organisational difficulties of its earlier founding days but more of its insecurity and insistence of its “given right” to bring about that grand vision of progress for all Singaporeans.

This in turn breeds compliance and the need on the part of the PAP to ensure compliance.

“He abjures politics, saying one can perfectly comfortable keeping within the bounds set by our present rulers, and that there’s no reason why anyone should risk his career, or worse for the sake of more freedom than he would know what to do with.” (Philip Jeyaretnam in “Abraham’s Promise”)

Singapore has all the while been building an elitist society and the masses had been an integral part of that endeavor. The time has come for Singapore to realise its fullest potential as a humane society, one that the government places human dignity, diversity, tolerance, respect and equal opportunity as the principal consideration in policy formulation and implementation and the rejection of elitism and an elitist society within the framework of a strong parliamentary tradition is the most constructive step forward and the vigorous participation of its citizens in a First World Parliament is the most responsible thing any citizen of this land should do.

Filed under: PAP, Parliament, Politics, Singapore, Kwek Jian Qiang

Questions for the Minister for Transport

It is nothing but an indictment of the failure of the SMRT leadership that the best solutions that they can come up with are slower trains arriving at less frequent intervals and considering that the MRT system has come under heavy strain over the past 10 years due to the rapid increase in population and ridership, the operational and regulatory oversight on the part of the Land Transport Authority is solely lacking.

In light of this, I propose to file the following questions in Parliament:

To ask the Minister for Transport:
(a) whether in his assessment SMRT and SBS is prepared and responsive enough in the event of an emergency situation to ensure the safety of its commuters on the public transport network; and

(b) what are the sustainable measures that SMRT and SBS together with the government have set in place to ensure that similar problems on the transport infrastructure do not happen again.

(c) To update the House on the maintenance schedule of the  rail network following forward and whether in his assessment it was appropriate that the floating slab tracks were last checked 10 years ago, considering that the MRT system has come under heavy strain over the past 10 years due to the rapid increase in population and ridership.

(d) what are the regulatory oversight that LTA has put in place to ensure the smooth running of the public transport system and whether in his assessment the LTA has been vigilant in ensuring that high quality of service and service standards were met by SMRT.

Filed under: Parliament, Politics, Singapore, Public Transportation, SBS, SMRT

An efficient and productive transport system, public and universal for all

Singapore needs to have a transport service that is public and universal for all. Market competition in the current arrangement is a fallacy. The increase in transportation fares, as past increases have shown, would at best result in an incremental increase in the service standards and efficiency of the PTOs and the transportation network and at worse, lead to more of the same – systemic overcrowding, delay in bus services, long waiting times, frequent breakdowns etc. The failure of pseudo-private competition is all too apparent here. It is a fallacy to think that SBS Transit and SMRT represent genuine competition, which will, ensures efficiency and good performance within the context of rigorous market discipline.

In light of the systemic problems and structural deficiencies within the public transport network, a case should be made again to nationalise our public transport system.

The Workers’ Party’s proposal to set up a National Transport Corporation to oversee and provide universal transport service to all is not an unproductive and uncompetitive model as what some politicians would like you to believe. Nationalisation in this context does not involve the mass expropriation of all the transportation assets. A responsible and rational party would do its utmost to promote the interests of Singaporeans both at home and overseas and would certainly refrain from mass expropriation, which would in turn deter investors from coming to Singapore. Rather, it would likely take the form of a shares buy-back from companies owned by Temasek Holdings, the Government-linked Corporation, as it commonly practiced. Viewed from this perspective, the proposal of the Workers’ Party doesn’t look like a major step after all. In other words, it entails the government buying back shares from companies linked to or under the investment arm of the Singapore government. In addition, the Government of Singapore has another investment arm, the substantially larger Government Investment Corporation (GIC), which invests primarily the country’s foreign reserves.

In the proposed model, the National Transportation Council would be run by competent people whose bonuses and benefits are pegged to certain Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) set forth by the government and unless these KPIs are met, bonuses would be docked, meaningful fines handed out and/or CEOs shown the door. I believe that this is a greater incentive than the existing model for the transport sector to perform well and to be marginally profitable.

Additionally, it is a fallacy to assume that under the existing model, you have genuine competition. The existing model essentially perpetuates the influence of two monopolies operating in different areas and often times they do not overlap. The incentive factor to improve its productivity and the competitive advantage is non-existent in this context. While it is not wrong to say that rail licenses are valid for only a finite period and operators have to tender for new licenses, some politicians do not tell you that such permits are issued on a 30-years lease basis. This is not going to spur better services from the transport operators in the short to middle term and whether it improves services and productivity over the longer term is questionable. Contestability is solely missing under the existing model, again contrary to what some have argued.

Furthermore, the National Transport Corporation should not be profit-orientated and should aim to provide public transportation service on the basis of cost and depreciation recovery. It is worth noting that these are principles upon which the North-South line and the East-West line were built in the first place.

All things being equal, would you rather nationalise the public transportation system when paying more for your public transport means more of the same and the increase in transportation fares is not accompanied by a corresponding increase in efficiency and service standards while structural deficiencies and systemic problems continue to persist?

The existing system is seemingly broken and has failed to meet the expectations of our commuters. It is time to seriously consider the alternative, a public and universal transport system that is both efficient and productive.

Filed under: Politics, Singapore, Workers' Party, Public Transportation, SBS, SMRT, Workers' Party Manifesto

From Northstar V to 15 December 2011

Northstar V was Singapore’s first surprise large-scale civil emergency drill held on 8 January 2006 (Sunday) with 2000 participants from 22 government agencies taking part and involved the disruption of public train services. The drill started at 6.25 am and lasted till 9.30 am. The drill took place at Dhoby Ghaut MRT station, Marina Bay MRT station, Toa Payoh MRT station, Toa Payoh Bus Interchange and Raffles Place MRT station.

Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, then Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs puts in 2006 in response to a question by then Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC, Yeo Guat Kwang said that,

Northstar V had successfully meet the key objective of “testing the coordination and validating the emergency response system of the 22 participating agencies, including the two public transport operators, namely, SBS Transit and SMRT Corporation.”

In a press statement released by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) on the day of the exercise itself, it was stated that

Northstar V was “part of SCDF’s and its related agencies’ on-going efforts to sharpen our respective operational readiness and joint-capabilities for handling terror attack situations and tested the coordination and validated the emergency response system of the various agencies, which included the two public transport operators, namely SBS Transit and SMRT.”

In short, SMRT and SBS were deemed to have passed the test of operational readiness and emergency preparedness in 2206.

Thus, what was surprising to many commuters who were struck on the Circle Line and the North-South Line on 14 December and 15 December 2011 respectively was how unprepared SMRT was in a situation of train breakdowns. We are not even talking about any security threats to the pubic transport system here. Considering how inefficient and unresponsive SMRT is during an emergency situation, the deployment of more police national service personnel to patrol and safeguard the transport system may not necessary achieve the aims set out originally by the Ministry of Home Affairs. As such, the efforts and planning made for Northstar V in 2006 is nothing more than a successful peacetime civil emergency exercise, which will be render null and defunct during times of crisis. One may think that I am taking this a little too far but one have to consider that during a terror attack on Singapore’s public transport system, the responsibility of the transport operators in terms of their readiness and preparedness is of immense importance and would go a long way in shaping the efforts of subsequent agencies such as the civil defence and police force to help the nation cope with the aftermath of any crisis.

Singaporeans may accept trains stopping due to an electrical fault but inefficiencies, unresponsiveness and unreadiness are inexcusable during times of a major incident on the public transport system such as the 5 August 1993 collision of two MRT trains at Clementi MRT station which injuried 156 passengers.

It is now redundant for SMRT to issue an apologetic statement and hopes to be able to move on with its operations. Public confidence has been eroded – even without considering the number of times the public transport system has disappoint in the past one year alone and their poor public relations with its external stakeholders – it will take a lot of time and efforts on the part of SMRT to restore its credibility and the trust and confidence that ordinary Singaporeans have in them.

Singaporeans deserve more and better from a supposedly first class transport system run by two of the most profitable and biggest companies in Singapore. The biggest failure of SMRT and SBS is being unable to see that the ordinary commuter is SMRT and SBS’s biggest stakeholder and thus far, the returns from their investment are officially negative, unfortunately but surprisingly.

What then should SMRT’s priorities in 2012 be? I humbly state the following 3 prioriries – Communication, Communication and Communication.

Since Northstar V, SMRT is more vulnerable and equally unprepared for any emergency incidents. It is either that SMRT treat emergency preparedness as a way of their corporate culture or they risk being a bankrupt entity, bankrupt in all sense of the word barring the financial part of the equation.

When commuters have grown accustomed to being mentally prepared for constant mismanagement on the part of our public transport operators, I think that it is a more than a sufficient indictment of the top leadership of the public transport operators and a cruel reflection of the appalling state of the public transport system in Singapore.

To conclude, I hope that when Parliament next convene, our members of Parliament will ask the following questions on behalf of the tens of thousands of commuters and tourists in Singapore:

To ask the Minister for Transport:

(a)    whether in his assessment SMRT and SBS is prepared and responsive enough in the event of a emergency situation to ensure the safety of its commuters on the public transport network; and

(b)   what are the sustainable measures that SMRT and SBS together with the government have set in place to ensure that similar problems on the transport infrastructure do not happen again. 

Filed under: Parliament, Singapore, Northstar V, Public Transportation, SBS, SMRT

Where’s the leadership, Mr. Lee?: The Government’s non-response to tertiary students over the concession fares issue

We are all used to this.

Public transport operators are listed companies and need to earn a profit for their operations. At the urging of the public, they have granted concessions to various groups of people. However the more concessions that are granted, it would mean that other commuters would have to pay higher fares to make up the difference. [Yeo Cheow Tong, 2001]

In Singapore’s case, public transport concessions are provided by the public transport operators based on their commercial considerations.  Any concession that the PTOs grant, such as for senior citizens, is a form of cross-subsidy from other full-paying adults. [Raymond Lim, 2005]

Concessionary travel on basic bus and train services are determined and granted by the public transport operators (PTOs). The cost of concessions is ultimately cross-subsidised by other full-fare paying commuters and the operators have to take this into consideration before extending travel concessions beyond the present arrangement. [Lui Tuck Yew, 2011]

This is a non-answer. It is a non-answer on two basis.

1. The fallacy of that ‘economic burden’ argument 

We are always told that “the cost of concessions is ultimately cross-subsidised by other full-fare paying commuters.” The last I check, the SMRT leases out approximately 28,900 square metres of commercial space within the train network. A total of 33 MRT stations have been refurbished with increased space and rental yields. Average occupancy rate in FY2010 remained high at 99%. SMRT alone achieved rental revenue of $65 million despite economic downturn as reflected in its 2010 financial year report. This was an increase of 13% from the previous year. SMRT expects rental revenue to grow by another $6 million with increased rental space at MRT stations. This is notwithstanding the revenues it made from its taxi business and advertising streams.

SBS on the other hand, made $50.1 million from its outdoor advertising and rental streams. (Bus Advertising, In-Train Advertising, Interchange Advertising, Train Station Advertising, Shop Space, Road Show Space) This was an increase of 32.9% increase in revenue over the past year.

The cost of concessions need not necessarily have to be cross-subsidisied by other full-fare paying commuters. It can be cross subsidised by other revenue streams under the charge of both SMRT and SBS. Besides, it must be noted that even without the increasing the concessions for tertiary students, the fares of adult commuters have increased over the years.

Besides, the junior college students are enjoying a higher rate of subsidies as compared to the tertiary students. Who is paying for their subsidies? That “full-fare paying commuter”?

So the government’s argument is fallacious to say the least and falls completely flat when considered further. It is a non-answer.

2. The Government has much greater influence over the Public Transport Council (PTC) and the public transport operators (PTOs) than it has acknowledged in its public statements.

Transport fares don’t just go down during economic downturns with a simple announcement made by the PTC. The government has a big role in it. Given that the public transport operators are commercial entitles, public transport fares would only go up and not down. The demand for public transport in Singapore is essentially inelastic. The existing model essentially perpetuates the influence of two monopolies operating in different areas and often times, they do not overlap. The incentive factor to improve its productivity and the competitive advantage is non-existent in this context. There is no need to lower fares. In fact, it is a fallacy to think that SBS Transit and SMRT represent genuine competition which will ensures efficiency and good performance, within the context of rigorous market discipline. In fact, upon each request, the Public Transport Council kindly offers the PTOs with a blank cheque to run roughshod over the hard-earned income and savings of ordinary Singaporeans, registering record profits year after year while the real income of ordinary Singaporeans continue to fall.

The same bottom line argument can still be used for refusing to lower fares during economic recessions. However, the government will not allow that. The government’s role on the PTC and the PTOs is and can be significant. The government has to make a political judgement and ultimately it has to be responsible for the judgment made. At the core of it, the government needs to have the will but as seen repeatedly, this government lacks the will to do the right thing on the tertiary concession fares issue. It is disappointing to say the least.

Nonetheless, a non-response is better than a no-answer but that is just not enough. The government can certainly do better than that. The government was elected by the parents of junior college and tertiary students to ensure an affordable standard of living for all. Right now, the government is leaving the elderly, the disabled and tertiary students behind. Action, moral clarity and the will to govern fairly is sorely lacking.

At the end of the day, it is not stating too much to highlight that this inherent unfairness within the concession fare structure is becoming a source of disappointment and disillusionment amongst the student community and their parents. A decisive gesture on the part of the government in tandem with the PTC and PTOs to resolve this inherent conflict in the same spirit of responsible, rational and constructive engagement would be much appreciated.

The government needs to be more responsible to its electorate and lead. This is at the end of it, a leadership problem. Don’t push the responsibility around with a single narrative. Start leading.

The recent Speakers’ Corner event organised by the Young PAP and past petitions and outreaches over the years have at the very least shown our government the meaning of humility and more importantly, the need for leadership, sorely lacking in this issue.

Leadership cannot be demanded. It has to be earned.

Where’s the leadership, Mr. Lee?

Filed under: PAP, Singapore, Junior Colleges, Polytechnics, Student Transportation, Tertiary Concession Fares