Face Change Phase Change

I still remember the stunned look on the faces of George Yeo and his GRC team when their lost to the WP in the last GE finally sunk in. The outcome caught them completely flatfooted. There have been quite a few tentative changes in their policies since then, but by and large, the core of their policies have remained unchanged.

For the most part, they are still trying to defend the indefensible and justify the unjustifiable. Take for example the current blogger's post that apparently went viral and Minister of State Mr Tan Chuan Tjin's response:

MOS Tan Chuan TJin responds to blogger’s post gone viral

Reading through the article and some of the forum comments, I cannot help but feel the gulf and disconnect between Mr Tan's response and where the commenters were coming from.

There has been a phase change in the psyche of the Singapore electorate, the scale and depth of which apparently has yet to sink into the consciousness of the government leadership. In chemistry, all it takes to kick start the crystallization process is just a tiny seed crystal. All it took to set off the conflagration in the Middle East was Mohammed Bouazizi's act of self immolation in Tunisia.

Similarly, WP's election victory in the last GE is the seed crystal that is catalysing the change in the political ground. It is in the nature of such changes that once the process begins and the ball starts rolling, it is extremely difficult to reverse the process without expending a huge amount of energy or effort. Nothing the government has done thus far even comes close to addressing this challenge.

The old playbook doesn't work anymore. I think the government realises this, hence the reticence in holding the by-election in Hougang. Same-old same-old just isn't going to cut it anymore. It may be time for the really good men to cut ranks for the good of the country if they cannot institute change from within or else be equally guilty by continued association with the status quo.

MAS Loses Head, Gives US$4 Billion MORE to IMF

Well, maybe this shouldn't be considered news. MAS appears to have lost its head for quite sometime already. The organisation that we used to look on with justifiable pride has lost its mantle of financial prudence. First by letting financial institutions sell structured products of dubious benefit to Singaporean investors and then dropping the ball completely in the recent MF Global theft of segregated client funds.

And now this pledge of US$4 billion to the IMF which MAS had the gall to tell Singaporeans would "still remain part of Singapore's official foreign reserves". Hello...when you loan someone money, all you have left is an IOU that is only as good as the credit worthiness of your debtor. If it is truly still a part of our foreign reserves, then would the MAS confirm that we can use it to offset our international trade imbalances? For that to work, we should pledge it to the BIS (Bank of International Settlements) instead and tell the IMF to borrow it from them.

I'm not suggesting that Singapore should not carry our weight and shirk our responsibilities as members of international organisations. But the MAS is being less than honest I think in trying to pre-emptively deflect legitimate Singaporean concerns by downplaying if not outright lying about the risks.

Our US$4 billion contribution is a trifle and is more symbolic than critical to the IMF. It is however a telling sign of the desperation and credit worthiness of an entity when they need to accept contributors from small creditors. Any 'loans' made in this case should be with eyes wide open and realistically marked as a gift (ie: total loss) in our books.

Take a look at the following article from 2010:
IMF Prepares For Global Cataclysm, Expands Backup Rescue Facility By Half A Trillion For "Contribution To Global Financial Stability".
We can see quite a few of the contributors to the IMF are in the eurozone and thus are in no position to contribute their share. Afterall, this 'firewall' is meant for their protection!

Meanwhile, not a peep has been heard from the Protector of our Reserves, President Tony Tan. Apparently he is there to guard the reserves from being mis-spent on Singaporeans but when it comes to mis-spending it elsewhere, it's fine.

Addicted To Growth

Today we are treated to a scare piece courtesy of SPH: "Population will shrink from 2025 without new (ie: foreign immigrants) citizens". Apparently this is supposed to be a BAD thing. If you have an addiction problem, going through cold turkey (deprivation) is part of the process of getting cured.

Unfortunately in this case, the addict (the government) is running the rehabilitation program. It is thus no surprise that the prescription is not LESS but MORE of what is the root cause of the problem. An economic model based on perpetual growth is simply mathematically not sustainable over the long term. But like a true addict, the government wants MORE.

Just as surely as ever increasing doses of a drug inevitably kills the addict, unmitigated growth will just as inevitably lead to a countrys' collapse. Having being caught in the growth trap and become addicted to it, like a drug addict, the government is finding it hard to kick the habit and is now resorting to scare tactics to help get public support for its addiction.

There are NO painless solutions to the growth addiction. We either suck it in and take the pain now or we kick the can down (in our case, a very short road on account of our being a Little Red Dot) and find ourselves in even greater pain later. Pain that won't be shared by the present leadership because by then they would have safely retired with the means to escape the mess thanks to our generosity in paying them millions.

If we were to question the officers behind the NPTD study (National Population and Talent Division) on the consequences of their recommendations beyond 2060 as reported in the press, I think we will receive a very Gerald Ee answer: "Oh...that is not in our frame of reference, so we did not think about it." A study like that is like training a recruit how to pull out the pin of a grenade but not teaching him how to throw it after doing that.

Just consider this, if the Stop at Two family planning program in the early years of our independence had not been a success, today we would be staring at a even bigger silver tsunami problem. The present government is taking a too simplistic and short sighted view focused solely on the tax revenue generated by working adults to fund support for the present elderly while completely discounting the inconvenient fact that the tax generating adults of today will in due time become an even BIGGER cohort of tax revenue consuming elderly themselves.

How does this solve the sustainability problem? We are at best deferring the (by then, even BIGGER) problem to the next generation. If we have to, we should use our reserves to see this current generation of post war baby boomer elderly through. We just have to make sure that this would be the ONLY time we EVER have to do this.

Juicing economic growth via imported low cost foreign labour or immigrants is a short term short sighted EASY decision to make. DPM Teo Chee Hean has said that the government is not afraid to make HARD decisions. Given that the NPTD is working under his direction and by this report on the study, I think he has chickened out. What do you think?

How to Improve Our Public Transport

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.

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?

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'!

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.