The More We Share Together...NOT

The concept of sharing is very laudable but the devil as they say is in the details. Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew has commented that higher bus costs are to be shared, the problem is he didn't go into detail about the sharing formula. Is it going to be a case of one for you (the public) and three for me (the bus companies) type of sharing?

Minister Lui said that by relying more and more on government subsidies (for offsetting costs) would give the operators (transport companies) no incentive to be efficient or to provide good services to commuters. I find this comment troubling.

1: Nowhere has the public pushed the government to subsidise the operators. The $1.1 billion 'gift' the government gave to the operators for additional buses was on the initiative of the government in the aftermath of severe MRT breakdowns/disruptions for likely political reasons.

2. So, if this injection of public funds de-incentivises the operators to be more efficient, it is the government's or Minister Lui's fault for doing so without attaching ANY conditions to the gift.

3. Just what does Minister Lui mean by "good service". Please enumerate and do not give motherhood statements. Without knowing what comprises 'good service', how can Minister Lui's ministry and the public monitor and measure whether the operator's are providing said 'good service'?

Minister Lui also made clear that any fare increase must be accompanied by service improvements and not just boost the short term profits of the operators. I think Minister Lui is being too generous. If the fare increase it to cater for increases in driver salaries, then there should be at a minimum NO change in the profit at all.

Minister Lui further said that if the fares were increased, the government would do more to help commuters. What exactly does he mean by this? Again, no motherhood statements please. Elaborate and enumerate what comprises 'more to help commuters'. Is he talking about the famous one-off transport allowance gift to Singaporeans to offset a permanent increase in fares? If so, where is the money coming from? Our own taxes? Ie: paying ourselves with our own money to offset increased costs by a public listed company?

For all we know, when the drivers salaries are increased (by a pittance) as a result of this fare increase, the executives of the transport companies would concurrently award further pay increases for themselves too. After all if their drivers are getting a pay rise, they should be getting one as well!

Would the minister ensure that that will NOT be the case? Somehow I doubt it. After all, the minister's pay happens to be benchmarked to the salaries of just such executives. If the minister were to push for salary reductions for the executives, it could backfire and result in himself and his cabinet colleagues receiving smaller (but still generous) salaries themselves. Somehow, I doubt the minister's desire to serve the public is strong enough to overcome this conflict of interest.

Given that ALL past PTC fare reviews have resulted in recommendations in favour of the operators, it is time for the operators to do their part and finally fulfill a part of their responsibilities to the public. I mean, look at what past fare increases have achieved? The current crisis! I seriously doubt any further fare increases will change ANYTHING. Would Minister Lui like to stake his reputation (such little as there is) that this latest fare increase will finally do the trick?

Incidentally, in all the brouhaha over the foreign drivers strike, Minister Lui's absence from the fracas was surprising considering his unfailing appearance in the past whenever something happens like maybe a nut falling off from an MRT train. Not that I'm against having his lieutenants, Mr Tan Chuan Jin and Josephine Teo doing something to earn their salaries once in a while...

Long on Promise, Short on Details

Minister of National Development Mr Khaw Boon Wan has sought to reassure Singaporeans that the government would make sure there's enough housing. Affordability of such homes is also assured as "Pricing is also within my control".

He said the government had built about 25 000 new homes each year over the last two years. The assumption here is that the government has the means to continue building MORE housing over the coming years. Unfortunately he did not specify HOW the government is going to do so.

More than one government minister has in the past mentioned the lack of land in Singapore. The retro-active building of eldercare facilities have moved affected residents sufficiently to register their misgivings to the authorities. Considering that the average Singaporean is rather apathetic, this is quite an achievement by the authorities.

Mr Khaw however did not provide any details of how he is going to achieve this. Is growing the land area of Singapore also within his control? Is the quality of the living environment going to be affected? Already our environment is being marred by 50plus story housing popping up all over Singapore, it will not be long before if you want to see the sky, you have to look straight upwards. Not to say of ideas for building underground being seriously considered.

Given his record thus far, his "I'm okay with it" wrt to the purchase of Brompton bikes and his "I'll be monitoring it" wrt to shoebox sized apartments and 50 year mortages, I think Singaporeans should be even MORE worried than assured by his remarks. So Mr Khaw, how EXACTLY do you intend to deliver on your assurances? I'm sure the directors of the gold 'investment' company, Genneva were equally assuring when telling their clients that their investments are 'safe'. Hah!

Excuse me for being cynical, but the current frenetic pace of construction of homes is driven only by political objectives of hopefully retaining enough votes to win the coming election. This is the can kicking, take the less painful road for their (PAP) governments' own (rather than the country's) interest.

If at this juncture the present day governmen is already abdicating its long term responsibility to the people for shorter term political gains, what more when the day of reckoning arrives in the not too distant future when the challenges and constraints are even more acute? Do you expect the government then to suddenly become cognisant of their obligations/responsibilities and then do the right things?

I doubt it. You only need to take a look at the policies of Ben Bernanke, US Fed chairman in tackling monetary and fiscal challenges of the US government. I can tell you that the people in our present government are no better than Ben Bernanke in addressing the challenges currently facing us.

Justice is Not Just Blind, it is Also Inconsistent

Singaporean Style justice has just been meted out to a businessman for a traffic offence in which he was sentenced to six weeks in jail. Consider the following salient points of this case versus that of Dr Woffles Wu.

1. The businessman (Mr Seah Hock Thiam) did not himself commit a traffic offence. The public were in no danger. Dr Woffles Wu's original offence was for that of SPEEDING in his Porsche. And he committed the offence TWICE. The public could have been seriously hurt.

2. Mr Seah's offence was for that of abettment. He got his driver to find people to take the ILLEGAL PARKING offence rap for his friends. Dr Woffles Wu abetted an elderly employee of his to take the rap for his SPEEDING offences. TWICE.

District Judge Liew Thiam Leng justified his sentencing as follows:

Getting someone else to take the rap would undermine the points demerit system potentially permitting people who would otherwise be suspended from driving to continue driving and hence pose a danger to the public. I do not see how Dr Woffles in getting his employee to take the rap for him does not undermine the points demerit system!

Dr Woffles Wu was charged under the Road Traffic Act which carries much lower maximum sentences. (He was eventually fined $1000 six years after the offences were committed). Mr Seah's sole charge (abettment) was apparently of a 'more serious' nature and was charged under another act carrying heavier maximum sentences. Why wasn't Mr Seah charged under the lesser act?

After all, he did not personally commit any traffic offence, just that of abettment. Dr Woffles on the other hand committed BOTH traffic offences (speeding) and abettment, which even under the lesser act provided for a maximum custodial sentence of 6 months other than the maximum fine of $1000. Not to mention that Dr woffles was a REPEAT offender.

The justice highlighted another difference between the two cases saying that Dr Woffles did not give any monetary award to his employee to take the rap for him (thus apparently justifying Dr Woffles lighter sentence). Do we even need to highlight the fact that an employer does not need to give additional monetary inducement to get an employee to do something illegal like this as there is always the implied threat/potential of dismissal/loss of promotion that an employer holds over their employees?

Justice Liew further justified the sentence he meted out by saying that such cases (abettment) 'usually attracted a jail term'. Yet in the case of the Pastor charged with violating the three quarter tank rule and lying about it, former Chief JUstice Chan Sek Keong set aside a custodial sentence and imposed a fine instead. The 'usual' sentence in the past 62 out of 64 cases had been a custodial sentence. So the former Chief Justice decided to NOT follow 'usual' sentencing while Justice Liew decided to follow usual sentencing and on rather shaky grounds at that.

The former Chief Justice said that the jail term for the Paster was "inappropriate and disproportionate" to the gravity of the offence and should not be the norm for a first offender in such a case. We would like to remind Justice Liew that Mr Seah is also a first time offender and in all respects, his offence is lesser than than committed by Dr Woffles.

If Mr Seah fails in his appeal against his custodial sentence, the greater tragedy would not be that his lawyer is possibly incompetent, but that Singaporean justice is in danger of descending into farce, the kind that used to be associated with 3rd world banana republics where justice is a negiotable quantity rather than one impartially based on law and precedence.

I would venture to say that justice inconsistently applied is not justice at all. That is NOT to say that sentencing should be immutable but that any change with precedence must be CLEARLY justifiable. In these cases, I don't think so. What do you think?

Ostriches in our Midst

Ostriches are well known in popular myth for sticking their heads in the sand to avoid reality. It would appear that our government leaders are doing the same trying to avoid the reality that our little red dot has only so much capacity for development and growth.

It is yet another indication of the disconnect our government/civil servants have with reality. In their pursuit of 'holistic' solutions to our problems, they have gotten confused and are proposing hole-in-the-ground solutions.

Floods in Orchard Road? Dig a hole in the ground as a retention pond. Running out of land to build housing? Feasibility studies of building housing underground is being carried out. We are told that JTC is looking at a plan for an underground science ciy to be built in caverns excavated under Kent Ridge Park.

The underground science park is supposed to house R&D and data center facilities. Data centers are notorious for their huge energy requirements not only to run their computer servers, but also for cooling systems to remove the heat generated. Companies like Google are building some of their data centers in colder polar regions to save on heating costs and the geniuses in our government want to build one underground?

I had thought that it was just a cover story for the intention to build a secret underground nuclear energy facility under Kent Ridge, but since the nuclear energy option is off the table at least for now, it would appear the cover story is being given more serious consideration. Are our current above ground business parks so fully occupied that we need to build one underground? I would suggest building less shopping malls (or repurpose existing ones) if the need is really so great.

The government has also commissioned a study to build an underground landfill to hold 40 years of rubbish! I'm guessing that our minister of environment Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has been unsuccessful in negotiations with our neighbouring countries to take our trash after our Pulau Semakau landfill reaches full capacity.

Dr Vivian has kept out of the population debates. He appears to think it doesn't concern his ministry. But a larger population generates more rubbish and if we keep increasing our population, we are going to fill up the landfill at Pulau Semakau even quicker. It has everything to do with his ministry and building underground silos to store our rubbish is NOT a solution.

The obvious solution which will solve ALL our problems is to reduce the size of our population to a level such that our requirements on living space, water, food and energy needs can be sustainably met without resorting to stop gap can kicking temporary and completely insane 'solutions' such as these hole-in-the-ground ideas.

Holistic or Hole-in-the-Head?

'Holistic' appears to be the in word to use recently among government agencies here in Singapore. First used I think by the Minister of Education, Heng Swee Kiat to characterise his approach/contribution towards education policies.

Its usage has now spread to the LTA. In a recent article on a million vehicles on the road, LTA was quoted as saying that it is adopting a holistic package of measures which include building more roads, regulating vehicle growth, implementing traffic engineering solutions, promoting use of public transport and managing traffic demand through increasing usage costs.

The question is if this is 'holistic', then what has LTA been doing all along? Other than 'implementing traffic engineering solutions' whatever that means, all the other measures have been in practice for some time already. The fact that we are STILL having traffic congestion problems mean that such measures have NOT worked. Doing MORE of what that does not work isn't gong to make it magically work!

Then, we have a reply from the Director of Corp Comms MHA in response to a forum query on 'tackling really bad disasters'. MHA apparently has a crisis management structure that would enable it to 'holistically assess and mitigate any evolving situation that could post a threat to Singaporeans'. Whatever it means, we can only hope that their holistic process is more effective than LTA's. But if the response to the recent MRT breakdowns is anything to go by, we shouldn't keep our hopes too high. MRT breakdowns are a walk in the park compared to bad 'disasters', man-made or otherwise.

Holistic I think is nothing but a code word for saying 'same old same old' while keeping their fingers crossed. I'm waiting with anticipation for the SAF to come out with a similar statement that they are also taking a holistic approach towards training. It will probably mean that they will be asking for permission from the enemy first before taking a shot at them!

Grand Gestures Minimal Benefits

Our government is fond of making grand gestures. For example the banning of chewing gum. A better and more meaningful gesture would have been a ban on tobacco products.

Then we have the ban on the keeping of poultry by residents living on Pulau Ubin. This in response to the bird flu scare. All their poultry had to be culled. I believe at one stage, even the culling of the birds at Jurong Bird Park was under
serious consideration!

Post 9-11, the line of rain trees outside the American Embassy were stripped bare of their ferns. Apparently the authorities were afraid that terrorists might be using them as cover.

Then, there's the culling of wild boars. Someone's pet dog was killed by one. I wonder how many dogs were put down by the SPCA? Of the about 100 or so wild boars in the Lower Pierce area, at least 90 are being targeted to be culled. If only the authorities were as determined and efficient in 'culling' the inflow of foreign workers. A reduction of a mere thousand (32 000 to 31 000) was considered as a 'drastic' reduction!

A likely cornered boar that 'attacked' a boy and a security guard resulting in at most a few scratches moved a minister to voice his intention of 'protecting our babies' and further moved our dear PM LHL to say (at an international
conference no less) "better do something about it. Finally, we have to do something about it." Meanwhile a recklessly driven Ferrari actually KILLED at least 3 people. Nothing was said by ANY minister about limiting the speed or banning the use of such vehicles on our roads. Instead, the F1 races was extended for another 5 years at considerable taxpayers expense!

Then, there's the 'gift' of granting paternity leave to fathers. Unless the fathers are expected to take over the role of the confinement nanny, such leave is about as useful as his nipples.

These gestures while largely laudable on the surface, does leave one wondering as to their motivations. Dig a little deeper and one can find a common thread running through them all. What do you think that is?

All That Glitters Is Not Gold

In today's forum page, a certain Ms Grace Tan wrote on MAS's handling of the gold buyback firm Genneva in which she supported MAS's hands-off policy in monitoring the activities of such firms instead of outright banning their questionable activities.

She further says that "it does not seem right to hold the authorities responsible and blame regulatory laxity. The government cannot arrest anyone who looks like a crook unless the person commits a crime."

I fear she is wrong. And the fact that her letter is printed in the Straits Times forum page shows that the powers that be who are behind the paper, ie: the government is sympathetic to her views.

I wonder if she would continue to hold such views if she or her daughter is about to be raped and the police did nothing until after the rape had actually occured because until it had occured, the rapist is not a rapist yet! Also, would the government wait for a terrorist to plant and explode a bomb first before taking action? Why then did they arrest Mas Selamat and his fellow JI members? All they did was talk and take a few videos. Why not just list them on the police website as potential troublemakers and be done with it?

The thing is MAS is the financial regulator. The public has a reasonable expectation that any company that deals in financial products would first have already passed MAS's scrutiny and obtained their permission before being allowed to operate in Singapore. It is not as though these companies are operating out of a makeshift table in some dark alley in Geylang. They could be operating out of offices in the financial district itself.

Yes, an investor should do their homework and decide on the risk of any investments. Not everyone is as diligent and sophisticated an investor as Ms Tan. But this does not mean that MAS can wash its hands of its regulatory responsibilities by merely publishing on its website that such-and-such a company is of dubious repute.

Investors should be doing due diligence on the investment products/instruments. MAS should be doing due diligence on the companies selling such investments. Any company that doesn't pass the smell test should not be allowed to operate. Let me ask you: If a safety barrier on a flyover is missing, should LTA just post a warning sign about its absence and consider its job done? After all, if you are a motorist, it is your responsibility to drive carefully.