Gerald Giam

Improving on the Govt’s plans for public transport

This was my prepared speech at Speakers’ Corner on 13 September 2008.

Good evening friends and fellow commuters! Thank you for taking the time to come down to Speakers’ Corner this Saturday evening to attend our little event. We are truly very grateful for your presence and we hope we have made it worth your time!

My name is Gerald Giam and I am representing The Online Citizen in summarizing our policy paper on improving public transport in Singapore. This paper was a culmination of over 2 months of work by our writers. It has been sent to the Minister for Transport, the Leader of the Opposition and the Public Transport Council for their consideration.

The government released a Land Transport Masterplan in January, setting out its plans for improving our land transportation system in the coming years. Among the key findings was that public transport was falling behind private transport as the mode of choice for Singaporeans. The Masterplan had proposed measures to address this.

What the LTMP overlooked

While we must give credit to the government for some good proposals in their Masterplan, there are several major issues that need to be further examined:

Firstly, a rapidly increasing vehicle population. As the government lowered the cost of buying a car, the number of cars has increased more than 8% over the last few years. In contrast, road length increased by just over 1%.

Yes, they have compensated by increasing ERP charges. But I doubt it will encourage car owners to switch to public transport as they would have already spent so much to buy their car — so why not just use it to the max?

Secondly, lack of competition in public transport. As you all know, there are only two main public transport operators — SMRT and SBS Transit. Not only do they not have any outside competition, but they are not really competing with each other either. They operate rail lines that serve different areas, and they often discontinue bus services that run parallel to their own MRT lines.

Thirdly, insufficient government investment in public transport. Even the chairman of the PAP’s Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport expressed disappointment with the speed at which MRT lines are being built.

And lastly, there was little mentioned on how to address environmental damage caused by motor vehicles.

Recommendations

TOC has come up with a detailed list of recommendations on how public transport can be improved. Time doesn’t permit me to go through every one of them, but I’ll highlight some of our key recommendations to the government:

1. The targets for increasing public transport mode share should be much higher. Currently only 50% of journeys in Singapore are made using public transport. This is low compared to other cities like Hong Kong, Tokyo and London. The government’s current target is increase it to just 70% by 2020 — but only during morning peak hours!

That is definitely not a “stretch goal”! We feel the target should be increased to at least 75% of total daily journeys.

2. Currently, bus interchanges are owned by LTA, and bus operators are the tenants. We feel that operators should be allowed to collect rent for shops and advertisements at bus interchanges, just like at MRT stations. This would ensure that they don’t depend on only bus fares in order to earn revenue, and will help make it harder for them to justify increases in bus fares.

3. More competition should be introduced in both MRT and bus services. Currently MRT operators are awarded a 30-year contract. This should be reduced to as few as 5 years, so that the operators are kept on their feet.

For buses, more private transport companies should be allowed to compete with SMRT and SBS Transit, especially to offer more premium and direct bus services.

4. There needs to be much tighter regulation of public transport companies to ensure compliance with standards and force them to do better. For a start, the staff strength of the PTC should be beefed up so that they are able to conduct quarterly spot checks on both bus and rail services. A lack of compliance should be met with fines in the range of $100,000 or more.

5. We need more public accountability in public transport. Currently, the PTC is government-appointed and their deliberations on allowing increases in fares are somewhat of a state secret. The Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport is an all-PAP outfit. There needs to be a multi-partisan parliamentary transport committee that includes opposition members as well, so that all Singaporeans are represented.

6. To ensure affordability for the low-income groups, the quantum of public transport vouchers should be increased. Currently, $30 of vouchers per family costs the government only $3 million, which is really a drop in the ocean. We believe that the government can afford to be much more generous than that.

7. Finally, we need to be concerned about the environmental impact of vehicles on the roads, including buses. We believe that Singapore should move towards a CNG-only bus fleet. CNG runs cleaner, so buses will produce less pollution and have lower maintenance costs. If cities like New Delhi in India can do it, I don’t see why Singapore can’t.

But this will require large investments by the government, as the companies will not be able to do it alone. The building of more CNG refuelling stations should also be subsidised. More CNG refuelling stations, would make it more attractive for even car owners and taxis to switch to CNG vehicles.

Summary

Ladies and gentlemen, I have just outlined some of our recommendations to improve public transport in Singapore. This is by no means exhaustive. And I’m sure many you, my fellow commuters, will have many more suggestions on how to improve our system.

I’d encourage you to speak out. Don’t just suffer in silence. Petition your MPs, write in to the papers, or even to us at TOC. Let’s all do our part to create a better transportation system for not just ourselves, but for our children as well.

Thank you very much.

Merdeka Malaysia

On the eve of Anwar Ibrahim’s promised date for his takeover of the Malaysian government, it looks like all systems go. The takeover may not happen tomorrow, but judging from events in recent days, it’s not a matter of “if” but “when”.

First the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) started panicking and sent their MPs off on a “study trip” to Taiwan in a bid to prevent them from defecting on Sept 16th.

Then the Home Minister basically served the government on a silver platter to Anwar when he ordered the arrest of a young journalist, a prominent blogger and a senior opposition MP under the ISA. Journalists from normally pro-government newspapers arrived at the government press conference wearing black, in protest.

Even the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), a component party of the BN has openly criticized the arrests. The Star, which is owned by the MCA, called them “most ridiculous”.

And finally, Zaid Ibrahim, the law minister today quit in protest at the ISA arrests.

Anwar has promised to dismantle pro-Malay affirmative action in favour of pro-poor affirmative action if he gains power. He has also promised to crack down on corruption, make government procurement more transparent, and free the judiciary and media from government interference, as well as ensure religious freedom.

If he manages to pull all that off, I have no doubt that Malaysia, with its vast natural resources, will have no problem catching up with its more prosperous southern neighbour in a matter of years. More interestingly, a politically liberal Malaysia could make staid Singapore look like a vestige of a past era.

I wish Malaysia and Malaysians all the best as they begin their next lap.

Thank you for attending TOC’s public transport forum

I would like to say a big THANK YOU to everyone who took time off your precious Saturday evening to attend our public transport forum at Speakers’ Corner today.

Thank you also to my fellow bloggers who helped publicize the event on your blogs.

There were over 100 people in attendance — one of the largest turnouts at Speakers’ Corner since it started. The event received good media coverage in all the print and broadcast media.

Even if you did not get a chance to speak, your attendance was a powerful message in itself to the government that Singaporeans are very concerned about the public transport fare hikes and service standards.

I hope to get a chance to meet more of you at our next event. :)

The Online Citizen to hold Speakers’ Corner event

I will be speaking at Speakers’ Corner this Saturday. Please come down to support! :)

——————

The Public Transport Council (PTC) is expected to disclose its decision on whether to approve revisions for public transport fares by September 30. To engage the public in discussion about the expected fare hikes, The Online Citizen (TOC) will be holding an event at Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park this Saturday, September 13, at 5pm.

At Speakers’ Corner, presenters will discuss various aspects of public transport, including a proposal written by TOC’s writers with suggestions on improving Singapore’s public transport system. Copies of the TOC proposal will be made available to members of the public at the event.

Andrew Loh, TOC’s deputy editor said: “We feel that ordinary Singaporeans must speak up on this issue of public transport as it affects hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans daily. This is even more crucial when deliberations on the issue by the authorities are not open to the public.”

Members of the media are invited to cover the event.

* * * * *

In tandem with the Speakers’ Corner event, TOC is currently hosting a “Public Transport Week” on its website, theonlinecitizen.com, from 8 to 14 September.

During the week, TOC has highlighted the issues which ordinary Singaporeans are concerned about – such as the service standards of the transport companies, the profits made by them and suggestions on how to improve the commuting experience.

All these with one intention in mind: To make Singapore’s public transport system world class, which is the declared aim of the Singapore Government.

In this respect, TOC writers spent the past two months coming up with its set of recommendations for the authorities. The proposal paper will be sent to the Minister for Transport, the PTC and the public transport companies and will be made available on TOC’s website.

* * * * *

For clarifications and further information, please contact Mr Andrew Loh, Deputy Editor, The Online Citizen at editor@theonlinecitizen.com.

Police: Stop justifying the unjustifiable

Straits Times Forum
9 Sep 2008

Why WP didn’t get permit for event

I REFER to last Thursday’s letter by Mr Tan Ghee Gay, ‘Why ‘no’ and ‘yes’?’, regarding police decisions with respect to the Workers’ Party’s (WP) proposed mass cycling event last year, and the carnival on Aug 31.

Police do not issue permits for outdoor political events in public places due to the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. This applies to events organised by all political parties. For this reason, police rejected WP’s application to hold a mass cycling activity in East Coast Park, to commemorate its 50th anniversary in September last year.

The event on Aug 31 was very different. The permit was issued after taking into account the organiser and the nature of the event. It was organised by the PAP Community Foundation, which is a registered charity and not a political party. The event was not assessed to have the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. It was a carnival that involved children and families from various kindergartens and educational institutions. The Prime Minister, as guest of honour, and a few other guests, made their entrance by cycling a short distance. During the event, a sum of $664,000 (which had been raised earlier) was distributed to 17 charities, including Beyond Social Services, Children’s Aid Society and Chung Hwa Medical Institution.

DSP Paul Tay
Assistant Director (Media Relations)
Singapore Police Force

If I were the media relations director of the Singapore Police Force (SPF), I would advise my staff to stop justifying what is unjustifiable.

Of course technically PAP Community Foundation (PCF) is not a political party. But the current police policy seems to be aimed more at preventing opposition political parties from holding outdoor events, rather than maintaining law and order.

There are a myriad of outdoor events that could cause disorder, including events held by the PAP and its subsidiaries. A logical conclusion of the SPF’s policy banning outdoor events by political parties is to ban rallies altogether during the election period.

In any case, I feel I need question the SPF’s impartiality when I read the last paragraph: “During the event, a sum of $664,000 (which had been raised earlier) was distributed to 17 charities, including Beyond Social Services, Children’s Aid Society and Chung Hwa Medical Institution.”

Why are the police doing the job of the public relations manager of the PCF?

.
.

Bloggers do not advocate "near free-for-all"

This was a letter sent by Choo Zhengxi to the Straits Times in response to an article about the so-called “Bloggers 13”. We were not granted the right of reply.

Your article in “‘Bloggers 13’ want near free-for-all” (Straits Times, Sept 4) misrepresented our group’s response to the discussion paper of the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS).

Contrary to the article’s headline, we do not advocate a near “free for all”. Indeed, the very first paragraph of our April 2008 report explicitly cautions against caricaturing any side as wanting a “free-for-all”, adding: “The real issue is what kind of regulation can allow us, as individuals and as a society, to harness the benefits of free speech while minimising the harm that such speech can cause.

The report also claimed we were “ignoring” AIMS’ proposals except in relation to changes to the laws on political content online. In fact, our 20-page proposal to MICA in April encompassed a broad spectrum of cyberspace related issues including a suggestion for the formation of a community moderation mechanism called IC3 to deal with controversial online speech including extreme racial and religious views. The proposed IC3 is to be made up of content providers,
internet technology users, and internet content consumers. This was discussed at a public seminar we held on 21 June 2008, which was attended by the chairman of AIMS, Mr Cheong Yip Seng.

However, we make no apologies for concerning ourselves largely with political control of the Internet in our recent press statement. We find it curious that ST considers our silence on some parts of the AIMS report to be more worthy of reportage than what we actually do
say. The effect, once again, is to caricature rather than inform.

It is unfortunate that the caricaturing we warned of in our proposal is practiced by a national newspaper. The report in Today was, in contrast, considerably more nuanced and reflective of our position. It is a pity that the Straits Times, despite being the larger and ostensibly more serious newspaper, seemed less patient with details on this occasion.

The full text of our response to AIMS can be found at www.journalism.sg and elsewhere on the web. The blogger deregulation group will continue to elaborate on our community moderation proposal for submission to MICA.

.
.

e-Engagement – A paradigm shift needed

Below is the transcript of my email interview with the Straits Times’ Zakir Hussain. The article appeared in Straits Times Insight today, “Engagement in progress“.

———————-

Straits Times (ST): Aims suggests the Government should take part in online discussions and post comments on blogs, train civil servants how to respond to online comments, find ways to show people online that feedback is taken seriously, and set up a youth panel to consult on new media trends, among others. Would we be able to get your thoughts on some of these recommendations, and on a few other questions?

ST: The Aims committee has recommended that the Government launch an e-engagement drive. But it also conceded that while governments worldwide have been experimenting with various forms of e-engagement, there’s been no perfect model. What sort of e-engagement model should the Singapore Government be looking at? What should the point of e-engagement be?

Gerald (GG): There needs to be a paradigm shift in the government’s thinking with regards to e-engagement. As a general approach, instead of pouring money and resources into building it’s own online platforms (eg, Reach), where it tends to only preach to the choir, it should venture out to engaging the “unconverted” on the latter’s turf.

The point of e-engagement should be (1) to help citizens understand policies or proposed policies, (2) gather feedback on its policies, and (3) present a softer, more personal touch to governance.

The government should consider issuing press releases, releasing embargoed papers or speeches, and inviting citizen journalists to cover press conferences and official events. Popular socio-political blogs could be issued press passes like the Malaysian government did for Malaysiakini and other online media. This is a good way to encourage citizen journalists to firstly, report rather than simply comment from a distance; and secondly, to provide fairer and more balanced coverage.

Ministers and senior officials should not be reticient in granting interviews with credible online media if asked.

ST: Are you in favour of the Government getting involved in online conversations by responding to forum posts, or engaging online voices by responding to blog posts? Or would you find this intrusive?

GG: Yes, but I think the government needs to still be selective about which areas it ventures into.

The vast majority of bloggers who don’t blog about political issues would not appreciate it if a government official posts a comment “correcting” them for inaccuracies in their blog rantings. However there are a few serious political bloggers who would appreciate a response to their ideas and suggestions, even if it comes in the form of a strong rebuttal. The response could be a comment on a blog, or a full reply to an article posted online. Serious blogs would be happy to grant the right of reply to the government or any other party.

It would be better if politicians and government officials engage in their “personal” capacities, meaning there is no need to parade one’s full designations, titles and ministries when posting a simple comment on a blog. Blogosphere is an egalitarian world where the quality of your ideas counts more than the titles you carry.

Civil servants should be allowed to comment online on policy matters outside the purview of their ministries, as long as they do so in their personal capacity and they do not divulge classified information. They should not be required to seek their permanent secretaries’ approval before speaking or writing to the media (including online media) on a matter that does not directly concern their ministry.

The Information Ministry is already actively monitoring blogs and Internet forums. It would be nice if the government could at least acknowledge some of the good ideas that are generated online, instead of constantly implying that serious political discussion is absent from the Internet.

ST: What are the potential pitfalls of e-engagement?

GG: I can’t think of any.

ST: What are the plus points?

GG: See answer to (1).

ST: An oft-heard comment about the online world is that it fosters intelligent arguments but also the circulation of half-truths. Will e-engagement cause online comments to become more ‘responsible’?

GG: This “oft-heard” comment is itself a half-truth. The vast majority of material put out online are what the bloggers themselves believe to be true, or are their personal opinions. The few “untruths” are in fact satire that no one takes seriously outside of its comic value.

Yes, I believe e-engagement if done selectively will cause people to be a bit more circumspect in posting their comments. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Internet experts have highlighted that people become much more polite when they know you are listening.

ST: E-engagement can also flow in the other direction – from citizenry to government. (www.mysociety.org from the UK is an example) What initiatives can there be from the citizenry? How might they encourage/induce government to join the conversation they initiate? Where do you see sites like TOC fitting in this?

GG: I think there is a whole lot more that Singaporeans can do with the freedoms we already have. We need to rid ourselves of our “government must initiate” mentality. If we have a passion for something and see a gap that others (including the government) is not filling, then we should step forward, organise ourselves and get something moving.

One sector that is well placed to “self-organise” is the NGO sector, which includes charities and non-profit organisations championing various disadvantaged groups and causes. Many voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) are very close to the ground and can see first hand the social problems in our society. Unfortunately, VWOs in Singapore seldom play an advocacy role, but are content working quietly behind the scenes. If more of them were organise themselves, rally public interest around their causes, we could see a transformation of the government-NGO-citizen relationship, a more engaged citizenry and a much more responsive government.

New media and politics on CNA

I was interviewed by Channel NewsAsia’s Zainudin Afandi for a story on the increasing importance of the new media such as blogs and the Internet as a form of political expression in Singapore.

The programme, Insight, will air on Thursday 21 Aug at 8.31pm on CNA. I’m told other interviewees include Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim and Foreign Minister George Yeo. Do tune in if you’re interested.

In the meantime, do check out an article I wrote for Opinion Asia, Untangling Singapore’s web of Politics.

One dis-united people?

This is like totally a copyright violation but I think its so important that all Singaporeans, especially Chinese Singaporeans, read this heartfelt piece by Straits Times journalist Nur Dianah Suhaimi.

It makes me feel ashamed that I myself have harboured some of the prejudiced and stereotyping attitudes described. Yet, I find I’m still in a minority in Singapore who cares to admit that the prejudice of the majority race is a problem.

Until we tackle this problem of prejudice at its roots, all the official exhortations of practicing “tolerance” and organizing “racial harmony days” will only be window dressing for the real problem that’s preventing us from being that “one united people”.

————–

The Straits Times, Aug 10, 2008

Feeling like the least favourite child

By Nur Dianah Suhaimi

When I was younger, I always thought of myself as the quintessential Singaporean.

Of my four late grandparents, two were Malay, one was Chinese and one was Indian. This, I concluded, makes me a mix of all the main races in the country. But I later realised that it was not what goes into my blood that matters, but what my identity card says under ‘Race’.

Because my paternal grandfather was of Bugis origin, my IC says I’m Malay. I speak the language at home, learnt it in school, eat the food and practise the culture. And because of my being Malay, I’ve always felt like a lesser Singaporean than those from other racial groups.

I grew up clueless about the concept of national service because my father was never enlisted.

He is Singaporean all right, born and bred here like the rest of the boys born in 1955. He is not handicapped in any way. He did well in school and participated in sports.

Unlike the rest, however, he entered university immediately after his A levels. He often told me that his schoolmates said he was ‘lucky’ because he was not called up for national service.

‘What lucky?’ he would tell them. ‘Would you feel lucky if your country doesn’t trust you?’

So I learnt about the rigours of national service from my male cousins. They would describe in vivid detail their training regimes, the terrible food they were served and the torture inflicted upon them – most of which, I would later realise, were exaggerations.

But one thing these stories had in common was that they all revolved around the Police Academy in Thomson. As I got older, it puzzled me why my Chinese friends constantly referred to NS as ‘army’. In my family and among my Malay friends, being enlisted in the army was like hitting the jackpot. The majority served in the police force because, as is known, the Government was not comfortable with Malay Muslims serving in the army. But there are more of them now.

Throughout my life, my father has always told me that as a Malay, I need to work twice as hard to prove my worth. He said people have the misconception that all Malays are inherently lazy.

I was later to get the exact same advice from a Malay minister in office who is a family friend.

When I started work, I realised that the advice rang true, especially because I wear my religion on my head. My professionalism suddenly became an issue. One question I was asked at a job interview was whether I would be willing to enter a nightclub to chase a story. I answered: ‘If it’s part of the job, why not? And you can rest assured I won’t be tempted to have fun.’

When I attend media events, before I can introduce myself, people assume I write for the Malay daily Berita Harian. A male Malay colleague in The Straits Times has the same problem, too.

This makes me wonder if people also assume that all Chinese reporters are from Lianhe Zaobao and Indian reporters from Tamil Murasu.

People also question if I can do stories which require stake-outs in the sleazy lanes of Geylang. They say because of my tudung I will stick out like a sore thumb. So I changed into a baseball cap and a men’s sports jacket – all borrowed from my husband – when I covered Geylang.

I do not want to be seen as different from the rest just because I dress differently. I want the same opportunities and the same job challenges.

Beneath the tudung, I, too, have hair and a functioning brain. And if anything, I feel that my tudung has actually helped me secure some difficult interviews.

Newsmakers – of all races – tend to trust me more because I look guai (Hokkien for well-behaved) and thus, they feel, less likely to write critical stuff about them.

Recently, I had a conversation with several colleagues about this essay. I told them I never thought of myself as being particularly patriotic. One Chinese colleague thought this was unfair. ‘But you got to enjoy free education,’ she said.

Sure, for the entire 365 days I spent in Primary 1 in 1989. But my parents paid for my school and university fees for the next 15 years I was studying.

It seems that many Singaporeans do not know that Malays have stopped getting free education since 1990. If I remember clearly, the news made front-page news at that time.

We went on to talk about the Singapore Government’s belief that Malays here would never point a missile at their fellow Muslim neighbours in a war.

I said if not for family ties, I would have no qualms about leaving the country. Someone then remarked that this is why Malays like myself are not trusted. But I answered that this lack of patriotism on my part comes from not being trusted, and for being treated like a potential traitor.

It is not just the NS issue. It is the frustration of explaining to non-Malays that I don’t get special privileges from the Government. It is having to deal with those who question my professionalism because of my religion. It is having people assume, day after day, that you are lowly educated, lazy and poor. It is like being the least favourite child in a family. This child will try to win his parents’ love only for so long. After a while, he will just be engulfed by disappointment and bitterness.

I also believe that it is this ‘least favourite child’ mentality which makes most Malays defensive and protective of their own kind.

Why do you think Malay families spent hundreds of dollars voting for two Malay boys in the Singapore Idol singing contest? And do you know that Malays who voted for other competitors were frowned upon by the community?

The same happens to me at work. When I write stories which put Malays in a bad light, I am labelled a traitor. A Malay reader once wrote to me to say: ‘I thought a Malay journalist would have more empathy for these unfortunate people than a non-Malay journalist.’

But such is the case when you are a Malay Singaporean. Your life is not just about you, as much as you want it to be. You are made to feel responsible for the rest of the pack and your actions affect them as well. If you trip, the entire community falls with you. But if you triumph, it is considered everyone’s success.

When 12-year-old Natasha Nabila hit the headlines last year for her record PSLE aggregate of 294, I was among the thousands of Malays here who celebrated the news. I sent instant messages to my friends on Gmail and chatted excitedly with my Malay colleagues at work.

Suddenly a 12-year-old has become the symbol of hope for the community and a message to the rest that Malays can do it too – and not just in singing competitions.

And just like that, the ‘least favourite child’ in me feels a lot happier.

Each year, come Aug 9, my father, who never had the opportunity to do national service, dutifully hangs two flags at home – one on the front gate and the other by the side gate.

I wonder if putting up two flags is his way of making himself feel like a better-loved child of Singapore.

———
—
.

Of eggs and baskets

The Sage of Singapore has spoken again.

This time he told his grassroots supporters: “You vote in a Div 3 Government instead of a Div 1 Government, the whole economy will subside within three, four years. Finished!“

The Straits Times reported that he said that to vote anything but top quality into office could lead to, among others, job losses and falling property prices.

“We will be worse than our neighbours…”

On restless youths, he said: “They say: ‘Oh let’s have different parties change and be in charge of Government.’ Is it that simple?”

“If ever the PAP goes corrupt, weak, it’s finished. You will have to look for a new team, and a new party. That will be very difficult. So just watch and make sure nothing goes wrong with the PAP.“

I am reminded of some English saying about eggs and baskets.

Amidst all the fear-mongering about the opposition bogeyman, there was a sliver of hope in what he said.

“We know that Singapore wants (an) opposition to check the PAP. We’ll find a way to have more voices inside the assembly, but not at the risk of voting in a Div 2 or 3 Government.”

I take it to mean that the ruling party is considering allowing more alternative views to be aired in Parliament. Which would mean more than the currently allowable three non-constituency MPs? Or even more nominated MPs? Or perhaps they simply won’t be so plain mean to our earnest but feeble opposition (apart from a certain Chee) and give them a level playing field to build up their ranks with more quality candidates.

If I were a PAP campaign strategist (which I am obviously not educationally qualified to be), I would advise them to liberalize politics significantly. In one fell swoop, they would pull the rug under the opposition’s feet. After all, most people who support the opposition do so not because they think the opposition is more capable of leading, but because they don’t like the PAP’s dominance, arrogance and unfair play.

In fact, I’m told from sources in the media that PM Lee is going to announce a significant liberalization of the Internet in his National Day Rally speech this Sunday — not that it will really make much of a difference to bloggers and online rebels.