The shortcomings in our public transport is not an accident. It is a combination of official government policy (more people = greater passenger load = greater profits = justification to bring in more foreigners) and complacency on the part of executives of the transport companies.
Just what proportion of their (the transport company executives) time is spent on thinking about improving service quality? Seriously? For the most part, the system works smoothly. All they do is basically sit in their offices, shake leg and collect a large salary at the end of the month. It's only when something goes wrong like the recent MRT breakdowns that they need to 'wake up'.
The transport companies collect a vast amount of data from the daily swipes of the EZlink card. They should be able to mine it to determine the passenger load patterns through out the day and months of the year and use such data for capacity planning to make more efficient use of their existing resources to improve service quality.
Going through such usage data, they should be able to identify 'hot spots' where a significant number of passengers get on and where they get off. Specific feeder bus services can then be deployed to run a loop service during those times to cater to these passengers between these hotspots. This dynamic allocation of resources to when and where they are needed will improve customer service during peak usage times without the need to invest more in capital (buses/trains) and human resources (drivers).
So what are the companies doing with the EZlink data they are collecting? My guess is they are using it just to determine fare refunds. PSA had a software program developed to help them load and unload shipping containers more efficiently so as to improve throughput. The transport companies can do likewise with their operations. All the data they need is already available but is just lying around unused.
Improving our public transport isn't just a simple case of injecting additional capacity. The 500 buses is just PR and makes for good headlines like the recent 'Singaporeans First' for Primary 1 allocations. With 30,000 foreigners alone coming in each year, how long will the additional capacity of 500 buses last? Assuming 60 passengers per bus, it will be absorbed in just ONE year, two tops.
But with the public, through the government, being willing to fund their capital and operational expenses, there is just little incentive for the companies to do anything other than what passes for business as usual. Someone needs to light a fire under their asses.
Monday 26 March 2012
Sunday 25 March 2012
A(n) (ir)rational Government - Ministry of Transport
Earlier last month, Foreign Minister Shanmugam told a conference held in Washington that there would be no change to our government's rational approach. Rational approach is good but no change is not, especially if current policies are leading us to and almost assuredly off the clift edge.
Consider our Ministry of Transport under Mr Lui Tuck Yew. He inherited a system that worked quite well for the most part but whose use-by date is almost up if not past due date. The ERP and COE system that basically allowed us to kick the car ownership and CBD traffic flow can for almost a decade or two is almost out of road in both the figurative and literal sense.
And what is the ministry's latest (and continuing) presumably rational policy response to this? The flattening of Bukit Brown to build a four lane highway to ease traffic congestion. Just how many Bukit Brown's are there left to flatten to ease future traffic congestion? Next up: Fort Canning? Mount Faber? Bukit Timah?
And it is not just Bukit Brown. Other green areas have been cleared for roads to ease traffic congestion. Why? An expanding ERP network has pushed drivers to make increasing use of peripheral roads causing these roads to become congested. ERP has not solved the traffic congestion problem, merely transferred it somewhere else.
Does Mr Lui sincerely believe that the latest road building through Bukit Brown will forever solve the traffic congestion problem? No, but yet he still persists in doing so! Einstein was credited with saying that the definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing but yet expecting the outcome to be different each time.
Is Mr Lui then insane? Unfortunately not. Mr Lui has no expectation that repeated road expansion will eventually solve our traffic congestion problem. If this were a murder case, Mr Lui could not plead insanity because his action is the result of careful (rational?) thinking and planning. Pre-meditated in other words.
Mr Lui has stated that the rate of vehicle growth moderated by the COE system cannot be zero. He is right. It should be NEGATIVE but again unfortunately, I believe he has some positive number in mind. After all, the government depends on the COE system for a not insignificant portion of its revenue.
So, if Minister of Transport, Mr Lui Tuck Yew is adopting a rational approach to the challenges facing his ministry, we are very ready to hear his plans, hopefully before every bit of land not used for housing is covered over by asphalt and multistory carparks.
Our transportation policies are in need of a drastic overhaul, not the ineffective tweaking that may only be good enough to see Mr Lui through his term as Minister of Transport before being tansferred to another ministry. If that is indeed his goal, then in that context, his actions are indeed rational, but unfortunately only for his personal benefit. What do you think?
Monday 19 March 2012
Parkville Singapore
Our PM suggests that making Singapore into a more inclusive society can start with ideas for 'new' (actually, remaking existing) parks. Some suggestions included building giant slides and adventure playgrounds. Seriously? Since when did parks have anything to do with creating an inclusive society?
More to the point, this is NOT the kind of park a densely populated and built-up city like Singapore needs. This is a point our PM has consistently missed. Reference his call for suggestions to add 'buzz' to the returned KTM land. When we go to a park, we are looking to escape the stress of city living, we are looking for peace, quiet and tranquility. We are not looking for things to DO and definitely are not there to look at other people. For that we have playgrounds embedded within housing estates and places like Resorts World Sentosa.
We do not want to be dodging kids on push scooters, teens on skateboards or assorted cyclists and joggers. Unfortunately, NParks is being operated like a transport company where the passenger load factor trumps everything else. So, NParks considers a well used crowded park a 'successful' one, nevermind that its success defined in those terms is a failure from a park users point of view.
Consider the recent opening of the Bishan - Kallang River Park by the PM. What we have is a scattering of trees and mostly open grass fields. The only nature (of the non-human) variety you are likely to see will probably be the usual mynahs and pigeons. Was there even an ecological study done to determine the mix of trees and other greenery to ensure a sustainable habitat for local wildlife? In its present state, unless rabbits, goats and sheep are the 'wildlife' NParks is targetting, the park will basically be a desert devoid of any nature worthy of the term.
I'm sure the PM means well and his suggestions are well intentioned. But he has not spent enough time thinking about the issue and as a result, his suggestions are off the mark if not completely inappropriate. It's a little like giving opera tickets to a homeless person living at the void deck as a caring gesture and then wondering why it isn't appreciated.
Building an inclusive society is an admirable goal. But trashing our few remaining green spaces by converting them into pseudo theme parks isn't the way to go about doing it. Any you know why? Because the lack of pseudo theme parks is not the reason why society at present is 'not inclusive'!
Sunday 18 March 2012
Farmville Singapore
The recent brouhaha over some squatter farms on former KTM land in Clementi is interesting not so much over the obvious issues but more on how the government and its agencies have conducted themselves. And this is not a one off, but has precedence leading back a few years.
It is sad that the manner in which the government conducts itself has not changed. The fact that it hasn't changed shows that those responsible for this mode of governance have not been removed from their positions/changed their ways post general election loss. It is still business as usual.
The Singapore Land Authority(SLA) and Urban Redevelopent Authority(URA) would have us believe that they are acting on the complaint of a single resident about burning of leaves in the area, causing discomfort to her children. Are we REALLY to believe that absent that complaint, SLA and URA would not have taken the action they did?
If we may innocently ask: How about the burning of incense and 'hell money'? Now that is something many would really wish the authorities would crack down on. Perhaps the same resident could put up a complaint. Many Singaporeans I'm sure would be ever so grateful if the practice were banned.
Why did the authorities feel the need to justify their actions with so obviously transparent a ruse? Do they think so lowly of us that they think we cannot see through their gimmick? This is just so sad. Policies that make sense and are truly for the benefit of the people can stand on its own without need for all these 'wayang'. I mean, firecrackers were banned. We don't remember the authorities justifying putting a stop to the practice due to a complaint by any resident.
If only the government and its agencies are REALLY so concerned and reactive to the complaints of Singaporeans. We're sure there were more than ONE resident of Toh Yi that petitioned against the construction of an eldercare centre in the midst of their flats. And the outcome? Toh Yi residents lost. Shucks...what happened?
Or the petition on the preservation of Bukit Brown. we're sure more than ONE person made their opinions known about the plan to bulldoze a four lane road through the area. The local papers published quite a few articles on it. And the outcome? Bulldozers are likely already flattening the area. Man, just when we thought all it needed was one letter or one complaint and miracles would happen and good sense would prevail ...
Unfortunately, in this farmville case (as in other previous cases), the government agencies have a hidden agenda. Now that the KTM land has reverted to Singapore control and the government has (again, hidden uses for it - despite all that public posturing of gathering public feedback), it has suddenly become an issue that needs to be acted on.
Oh, and the bus parks that are going to be built in Woodlands to house the 500 buses that taxpayers are gifting to the private transport companies? Anyone wants to bet that it will be built on KTM land? You know, the KTM land that is supposed to be hands-off until at least 2013 while public feedback is gathered on how best to preserve/utilise it? I bet the revving of 500 buses will definitely bring a buzz to that portion of the KTM land. Our PM would be so pleased. And we are all so screwed.
Wednesday 7 March 2012
The Limits To Growth
Finance Minister Tharman in his recent budget speech spoke of the need for growing the economy in order to forge an inclusive society. By that he means that he hopes the economy can grow enough so that the government can collect enough through operational revenue (rather than dipping into our reserves) to fund expanded social spending. All well and good provided that growth comes from productivity with EXISTING indigenous manpower resources and not by importing more cheap foreign labour.
Economic growth that can be only be sustained by the increasing use of cheap foreign labour is the EQUIVALENT of living beyond our means by getting into debt, something which Mr Tharman himself had cautioned against when replying to Mr Low Thia Kiang with regards to spending on social needs using as an example the current debt situation some European countries find themselves in today.
Debt comes with interest costs. When you need to borrow more debt to pay your existing debt and interest you've gone into loan shark victim territory. Similarly, economic growth from cheap foreign labour comes with costs. If you need to import yet more cheap foreign labour in order to sustain economic 'growth', you've entered into the economic equivalent of loan shark victim territory.
To put it in simpler terms: It's like burning your furniture to keep warm. But by the time you need to burn down parts of your house to do so, it's game over. We are already burning the furniture in our current economic situation. Unfortunately for us, the government is standing in the corner sharpening an axe while furtively glancing at the roof.
DPM Teo Chee Hean will be in charge of a White paper study on 'sustainable' population. I would like to think that the study will be impartial, but I believe the conclusion to that paper has already been written. All that is left is to curve fit the data to support that conclusion. Why? Late last year, a Channel News Asia trailer text quoted him as saying: "Singaporeans can STILL enjoy a good quality of life DESPITE an increasing population" (my emphasis in caps). You can draw your own conclusions from that!
It is easy to see why the government wants a larger population. They need a larger working population to earn tax revenues to support an increasingly aged population. But what they fail to notice or choose to ignore is that this larger population base will in due time become old too. They in turn will need an even larger population base to support them in turn. This is obviously unsustainable. But by then, the current ministers will have retired and it won't be their problem. They will already have taken their millions and retired to someplace less crowded like Australia for example... Too bad for you and your children!
The Limits to Growth is a book first published in the 70's and contains research results on the sustainability of economic growth. In every scenario (except the most optimistic and unrealistic model), their results predicted economic collapse. It should be REQUIRED reading for every member of the cabinet. And given the way the world has acted in discussions on climate change and the need to control carbon emissions, we are all pretty much screwed.
Economic growth that can be only be sustained by the increasing use of cheap foreign labour is the EQUIVALENT of living beyond our means by getting into debt, something which Mr Tharman himself had cautioned against when replying to Mr Low Thia Kiang with regards to spending on social needs using as an example the current debt situation some European countries find themselves in today.
Debt comes with interest costs. When you need to borrow more debt to pay your existing debt and interest you've gone into loan shark victim territory. Similarly, economic growth from cheap foreign labour comes with costs. If you need to import yet more cheap foreign labour in order to sustain economic 'growth', you've entered into the economic equivalent of loan shark victim territory.
To put it in simpler terms: It's like burning your furniture to keep warm. But by the time you need to burn down parts of your house to do so, it's game over. We are already burning the furniture in our current economic situation. Unfortunately for us, the government is standing in the corner sharpening an axe while furtively glancing at the roof.
DPM Teo Chee Hean will be in charge of a White paper study on 'sustainable' population. I would like to think that the study will be impartial, but I believe the conclusion to that paper has already been written. All that is left is to curve fit the data to support that conclusion. Why? Late last year, a Channel News Asia trailer text quoted him as saying: "Singaporeans can STILL enjoy a good quality of life DESPITE an increasing population" (my emphasis in caps). You can draw your own conclusions from that!
It is easy to see why the government wants a larger population. They need a larger working population to earn tax revenues to support an increasingly aged population. But what they fail to notice or choose to ignore is that this larger population base will in due time become old too. They in turn will need an even larger population base to support them in turn. This is obviously unsustainable. But by then, the current ministers will have retired and it won't be their problem. They will already have taken their millions and retired to someplace less crowded like Australia for example... Too bad for you and your children!
The Limits to Growth is a book first published in the 70's and contains research results on the sustainability of economic growth. In every scenario (except the most optimistic and unrealistic model), their results predicted economic collapse. It should be REQUIRED reading for every member of the cabinet. And given the way the world has acted in discussions on climate change and the need to control carbon emissions, we are all pretty much screwed.
Sunday 4 March 2012
Khawisms To Strive For
1. $8 for major medical procedure
Mr Khaw famously paid out of pocket the princely sum of $8 for his open heart bypass surgery. Mr Tharman in his recent budget speech said that health care costs will take up an increasing portion of our GDP. We would suggest Mr Khaw shares his secret to keeping health care costs down with Mr Tharman. We would all be ever so grateful.
2. Last year, Mr Khaw urged Singaporeans to save for a rainy day (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/save-rainy-day-advises-khaw-054211463.html). He apparently is not aware of the interest rate banks are paying for your deposits. We have no idea what his bank is paying him for his deposits but it cannot be the 0.1 percent we are getting. Come on Mr Khaw, do us (and your bank) all a favour and tell us where you are banking your money. We would all be ever so grateful again.
3. Buy a flat on $1000 monthly income
Mr Khaw supporting his cabinet colleague Mr Tharman that it is possible for a Singaporean earning just $1000 a month to buy a flat just from his CPF contributions alone. We wonder why he has chosen to keep this a
secret from us until now. The only thing left is to find out why eligible Singaporeans aren't taking advantage of it. Should be good for a blogtv@sg episode at least.
What amazing revealations can we next expect from Mr Khaw? That Singaporeans should switch to eating cake if they cannot afford bread? Hopefully (for Mr Khaw), he won't end up the same way as Marie Antoinette when he says that.
Mr Khaw famously paid out of pocket the princely sum of $8 for his open heart bypass surgery. Mr Tharman in his recent budget speech said that health care costs will take up an increasing portion of our GDP. We would suggest Mr Khaw shares his secret to keeping health care costs down with Mr Tharman. We would all be ever so grateful.
2. Last year, Mr Khaw urged Singaporeans to save for a rainy day (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/save-rainy-day-advises-khaw-054211463.html). He apparently is not aware of the interest rate banks are paying for your deposits. We have no idea what his bank is paying him for his deposits but it cannot be the 0.1 percent we are getting. Come on Mr Khaw, do us (and your bank) all a favour and tell us where you are banking your money. We would all be ever so grateful again.
3. Buy a flat on $1000 monthly income
Mr Khaw supporting his cabinet colleague Mr Tharman that it is possible for a Singaporean earning just $1000 a month to buy a flat just from his CPF contributions alone. We wonder why he has chosen to keep this a
secret from us until now. The only thing left is to find out why eligible Singaporeans aren't taking advantage of it. Should be good for a blogtv@sg episode at least.
What amazing revealations can we next expect from Mr Khaw? That Singaporeans should switch to eating cake if they cannot afford bread? Hopefully (for Mr Khaw), he won't end up the same way as Marie Antoinette when he says that.
Saturday 3 March 2012
Where's the Kampong Spirit?
The more appropriate and correct question to ask is: Where is the kampong? The kampong spirit like the kampong chicken here has gone extinct due to habitat loss. A problem Mr Khaw's ministry under his predecessor has in no small part caused and whose policies in this area, he is continuing without change.
Community spirit can only exist through community interaction on a daily basis as a part of their daily routine. This interaction has to occur in communal spaces outside of the private space of homes. However, as a result of limited land resources (as we are continuously told), communal spaces have shrunk.
Urban planners (at the HDB/Ministry of National Development) are doubtless high-fiving and clapping each other on their backs, congratulating themselves on their 'genius' at packing more people into smaller spaces. In reality, they could not have done a better job at killing community spirit by stealth than if they had engaged Ms Temple Grandin to design it into their building plans.
Common corridors and lift/staircase landings are the ONLY places where incidental communal interaction can take place, have been shrinking and almost eliminated in some designs. Once someone steps across the threshold into their own units, they are in their private space and any potential communal interaction ends. Even staircases which used to allow at least two adults to walk side by side have now shrunk down to permit only one person at a time!
Apartment blocks are being built ever higher and ever closer together. Worse, transparent glass has increasingly replaced concrete and bricks. If the intention is to shove more people closer together and to let them see into each other's private spaces is an attempt to foster closer community spirit, it is not working. When your private and personal space is being intruded upon, you pull back (to protect what little privacy you have left) instead of opening up and interacting more.
The answer to this? Typical of government remedies: Holding a once or twice yearly get together event where the MP is the guest of honour. You expect this to bring together people who likely do not even recognise their next door neighbour? These get togethers (and any other planned activity for that matter) are not part of daily living and will be viewed as too much 'work', ignored by the majority and thus fail miserably.
Ideally, public housing should not be more than 4 stories high and well spaced out. Beyond that tipping point, there are just too many people for that sense of community to take effective hold. Community spirit is an emergent property of the living environment where less is indeed more. But with the government still bent on importing yet more people (despite repeatedly telling us we are running out of space), I don't think low density housing will happen anytime soon. Absent that, community disintegration: yet another unintended consequence of government policy.
Community spirit can only exist through community interaction on a daily basis as a part of their daily routine. This interaction has to occur in communal spaces outside of the private space of homes. However, as a result of limited land resources (as we are continuously told), communal spaces have shrunk.
Urban planners (at the HDB/Ministry of National Development) are doubtless high-fiving and clapping each other on their backs, congratulating themselves on their 'genius' at packing more people into smaller spaces. In reality, they could not have done a better job at killing community spirit by stealth than if they had engaged Ms Temple Grandin to design it into their building plans.
Common corridors and lift/staircase landings are the ONLY places where incidental communal interaction can take place, have been shrinking and almost eliminated in some designs. Once someone steps across the threshold into their own units, they are in their private space and any potential communal interaction ends. Even staircases which used to allow at least two adults to walk side by side have now shrunk down to permit only one person at a time!
Apartment blocks are being built ever higher and ever closer together. Worse, transparent glass has increasingly replaced concrete and bricks. If the intention is to shove more people closer together and to let them see into each other's private spaces is an attempt to foster closer community spirit, it is not working. When your private and personal space is being intruded upon, you pull back (to protect what little privacy you have left) instead of opening up and interacting more.
The answer to this? Typical of government remedies: Holding a once or twice yearly get together event where the MP is the guest of honour. You expect this to bring together people who likely do not even recognise their next door neighbour? These get togethers (and any other planned activity for that matter) are not part of daily living and will be viewed as too much 'work', ignored by the majority and thus fail miserably.
Ideally, public housing should not be more than 4 stories high and well spaced out. Beyond that tipping point, there are just too many people for that sense of community to take effective hold. Community spirit is an emergent property of the living environment where less is indeed more. But with the government still bent on importing yet more people (despite repeatedly telling us we are running out of space), I don't think low density housing will happen anytime soon. Absent that, community disintegration: yet another unintended consequence of government policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)