Current Affairs – Budget Debate on Transport & Housing

This has got to be the most talked about lately:

So I would like to assure Mr Gerald Giam, who might not have caught up with all the developments… that a family with $1,000 income can now, through our housing subsidies, purchase a small flat… – Deputy Prime Minister [DPM] Tharman Shanmugaratnam


Chart obtained from HDB website
AHG – Additional Housing Grant;
SHG – Special Housing Grant

This is not some new “Tharman-ism” or a slip of tongue. The chart on the right shows how it can be done.

If this is just solely an academic exercise to prove it can be done, it surely has achieved its objectives. Unfortunately, one question that comes to mind right away would be:How is a person who is just making $1000 going to be married in the first place?

Even if you would believe in fairy tales whereby an undergraduate would marry down, the fact would be that such a couple would then not be in the example here. That also means a person who is single is totally out of luck since singles don’t qualify for a flat until they are 35. Ironically, it is only at 35 where Workfare kicks in to compliment such a worker’s earnings and yet they are only qualified for resale, not new HDB flats.

Another blogger did a very detailed analysis, from the location and availability of these 2-room Build to Order [BTO] flats, to the possibility of raising children in such a small flat and then the financial situation of such a couple when they reach retirement age. I won’t quote or link him, since I do not agree with his liberal political views. However, I would like to point out that even if a couple managed to raise a child (like my parents did), they will only have just one child and that’s not going to do much for the Total Fertility Rate [TFR] of Singapore. My friend has asked me what value is there for a couple to own such a flat and what resale or rental value is there in getting one. We agreed there is none. This example is completely meaningless other than to show us that a couple with just a take home income of $1000 a month is still pretty much screwed whether they buy or rent a flat.

In short, this has achieve no other purpose other than making a fool out of Gerald Giam. A form of “mental masturbation”, if you will. Hopefully, it would help Mr Giam gain some invaluable experience in future parliamentary debates after this blunder and the previous one with the MX9 salary scale. A lot of those in the middle of the political divide maybe rather forgiving over the fact that the opposition generally does not have sufficient information but that does not excuse them from being more diligent, well prepared and getting their information right in the future.

~ * ~

DPM Tharman said the package (S$1.1 billion for Public Transport Operators [PTO]) is a subsidy for commuters, and not a subsidy for operators.

That raised a chuckle when I first heard it. The state of our public transport has gone so far down that few (if not nobody) believes that anything other than a radical change will work in improving it. Even when not all of that S$1.1 billion came from commuters using public transport, taking the money pooled from the people and then telling them that this is a subsidy for them sounds like a mockery of their collective intelligence. Neither will it convince commuters by telling them they would have to pay more in the future if the PTOs are to do this on their own. The fact is, when the fare system changed to distance based, some 33% of commuters suffered a fare increase according to the Public Transport Council [PTC]. I am one of the unfortunate 33% who did not benefit, and in my case that increment was 7% even when the statistics showed that fares went up by a mere 0.3% since 2006.

Next, some gripes about the bus service. Frankly, throwing money at a problem isn’t going to solve it unless someone listens to the feedback. While adding the number of buses may address the long standing complaint that the bus frequency sucks, it does nothing address the commuting experience which can be rather frustrating and also the routes of some services which completely blow our mind away. Just try taking some buses like service no. 2, 51, 154, 167, 174 196 and 197 from end to end when bored. While the route they take would help a commuter know Singapore’s road and estates a lot better, they are a unpalatable alternative to the MRT. Who would spend up to 2 hours on a bus while it takes 45 minutes on the MRT? (For reference: 2 hours can take a person about 1/3 of the way from Singapore to Genting in Malaysia, if I am not wrong.)

Even the current Express Services are an utter sham. Take for example Bus Service 502. It makes no sense for it to prowl Jurong East and West Avenue 1 again when those stops are already covered by the feeders! (In fact, it makes no sense at all that some of the inter-HDB estate services like 157 and 198 to go by those routes as well.) When commuters are charged by distance then it makes sense for them to take the feeders to the interchanges to catch an Express Bus (or an inter-estate one) since that doesn’t actually add to their cost. Meanwhile, commuters paid a premium for a so-call “Express Service” which can take an agonising 20 minutes before it hits the expressway in the morning. That’s not forgetting morning traffic! Is it a wonder why all of the pressures are put on the MRT system?

Anyway, S$280 million goes into buying 550 buses according to what I have read. That’s about S$510,000 a piece, while the remainder of the money is to cover the net operating cost for the next 10 years. These buses are so expensive that it makes me think they are armored and made of titanium. Perhaps it also includes a S$100,000 COE. It remained to be seen how this S$1.1 billion is going to help improve bus frequencies. If these 550 new buses are going to be like the current ones with almost half the seats removed (like those SBS Transit bought recently), it would be about as meaningless as increasing train frequency only to bring the entire system crashing down completely later. The reason being that the system is still being run with commuters as just mere numbers and not human beings. Clearly, frustration with the system will not improve if the commuting experience remains as bad. In short, someone should look into what the minimum comfort level expected in public transports as well. Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone would want to spend money on that unless I first figure out how to pay for it and what returns there will be. Even Nigerial Scams are better than what I am suggesting, right?

Anyway, some of us surmised that the SBS Transit buses were bought with the bad habits of Singapore commuters in mind. Since most commuters simply refused to move to the back, then it is only logical to have more standing space in the front to fit more commuters per bus – a typical Singaporean line of thought. My personal opinion is, put the seats back and bring back the buses with doors at both ends which have been completely phased out.

Thus, my point is simple. If the government wants to call this a “subsidy for commuters” because that “subsidy” will result in an overall improvement in the comfort and commuting experience of the bus service, I will be fine with it. But if the S$1.1 billion is nothing more than a cosmetic effort so that the government can argue it has done something, then I will be exceptionally upset. Meantime, please do something for our polytechnic students. I would say the government have no sense of proportion if it hassles over a mere S$28-million in revenue a year for the PTOs to give polytechnic students fare concessions. That is not even 1% of their annual combined revenue, because the PTOs annual combined revenue is almost 3-billion according to their annual reports. On top of which, they can always raise fares and when has that ever been denied?

~ * ~

Before I end, here’s something that’s not really related to the above. My simple understanding is that the word ‘even’ makes something better or worse than it already is. Here are some examples:

“Even cats are not as cute as your baby!” would indicate that the baby is so extraordinarily cute.

“Even a moron is not that stupid!” would indicate that whatever is being referred to is utterly stupid.

“He even stopped at the red light.” would indicate that this person normally doesn’t stop at the red light and that by doing so, something out of place has happened.

Need I say more about “even the Nigerian Scheme…”?

Random Discourse – Budget 2012

The main aim of this year’s budget appears to be tightening the flow on foreign workers with the objective of increasing productivity and ultimately wages for the average Singaporean. However, I am not quite sure hiow a blanket increase in foreign workers’ levy across all sectors the best way of doing so.

Is it difficult for the Ministry of Manpower to get from its database the number of foreign workers in Singapore right now, and get a detailed breakdown by company and position? Would it not be easier to tell from that which sectors in specific requires the ‘Singaporean First’ rule to be enforced and thus boost productivity to achieve whatever objectives the government has in mind? After all, there will be some sectors in Singapore which requires more foreigners. My understanding is that there is clearly a shortage in nurses in Singapore and the government is also looking at increasing the number of hospitals at the same time. Wouldn’t this levy means that cost of medical care will go up across the board for all of us?

It almost gives me the impression that the government isn’t doing this because that is too much work and is just lazy and taking the easy way out. It further reinforces my impression that the current government is hardly any more insightful or far-sighted than any of our opposition parties. In fact, they are so dull in their usual quick fix solutions that one fix leads to another problem – much like raising the ground level at the Orchard-Patterson Junction results in the flood waters back flowing along Orchard Road and Tanglin Road into Tanglin Mall and St Regis.

If this government isn’t just plan lazy, this seems like a kind of ‘I told you so’ response to “teach Singaporeans a lesson” and the make them “repent” for their negative reaction to the influx of foreigners. However, while it is true that Singaporeans are clearly unhappy about the stress on Singapore’s infrastructure (especially the increase in property prices and the packed public transport) as a result, few objects to ensuring the continual growth of our economy. Most of us are in fact asking for fine tuning of the foreign worker policies to ensure that not all companies take the easy way out by employing foreigners even when Singaporeans are willing and more qualified to take up the jobs. In short, most of us just want to ensure that Singaporeans are not discriminated against simple because they are older or allegedly more expensive. There is of course also the question of the competency of some foreigners, where the quality of their work hardly matches the qualifications they boasted but that’s another matter entirely.

The government is doing very little to address the other parts of the cost of doing business in Singapore – rental. The reason why employers will always consider taking it out on the employees by cutting their wages (or replacing them with cheaper ones) and not try and fight for cheaper rent is simply because the employee alone is the most feeble / vulnerable, especially when the union is a sham and the greatest landlord is the government itself.

Even private landlords are far less feeble than the individual worker. I recalled the debate on minimum wages in Hong Kong on Al Jazeera, and the guy representing the Confederation of Trade Unions was telling the representative of the HK Restaurants & Related Trades Federation that “we should together, hand in hand, complain about the high rent… it is the high rent that’s hurting industry, not worker’s pay!” (Watch the embedded video from 10:15 onwards.) Imagine this, in Hong Kong where the union is not as weak and feeble and the representative is ignored, how much more worse is it in Singapore when the union is toothless (and its leaders are also from the ruling party) and the government itself is the greatest landlord?

But please do not be mistaken, I am not endorsing minimum wages here. I am just using this part of the video to emphasize my point. Anyway, let me repeat that I do not find it amusing nor endearing to turn on employers by raising the levy across the board because it will certain have an impact on foreign direct investments in Singapore. Meantime, I wondered if a certain Member of Parliament has thought over whatever he wants to say before he say it. I quote:

” Businesses should look at the positive side of the new regulations on foreign workers. They are complaining that they cannot fulfil orders because they don’t have enough workers. This is a happy problem. Which would you prefer – too many orders, or no orders at all? ” – Gan Thiam Poh

Every time Mr Gan says something, it irks the hell out of me. That’s probably because he has a sense of humor that I cannot appreciate. In fact, some of my friends failed to appreciate it as well and one of them actually asked: ” Losing just one GRC in GE2011 should be a happy problem too. Which do you prefer, losing more parliament seats, or having no seats at all? “

Jokes aside, here’s something for Mr Gan to chew on. A friend of mine runs a small accountancy firm. She has found it increasingly difficult to get new employees. Granted, while I am not aware whether my fellow Singaporeans who are accountants may actually applaud the measures to increase the levy, my friend mentioned to me that she has since set up a new office in Johor Bahru for two reasons. Firstly, to avoid having to pay for levy for foreign workers and secondly, to cut her operating overheads in rental substantially. Please note that this is a local SME turning tail due to the current measures, and many more may either consider this option or already have done so. Makes me wonder if the Singapore government is covertly helping to promote Iskandar Malaysia…