Alternative proposals for a better Singapore
The alleged leader of terrorist network Jemaah Islamyiah, Mas Selamat Kastari (above), escaped from the ISD detention centre in Whitley Road in Singapore on Wednesday 27 February. A massive manhunt is on to find him.
Anyone who sees him should call the police at 999 immediately.
While the priority now should be to first find him, I think serious questions will follow later about how an extremely dangerous man with a limp could escape from jail in, of all places, Singapore.
.
In his Budget Speech 2008, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said that the higher than expected 7.7 per cent growth and low 1.6 per cent unemployment was a result of the Government’s “broad-ranging efforts to restructure the economy, labour market and fiscal system” and “delivering superior performance”.
Actually, the global economy has done exceedingly well in the past year, powered in part by double digit growth in China. Stellar economic growth is not just due to the Singapore Government’s efforts. Interestingly, when the Singapore economy is doing badly, the Government turns to blame the external environment like the Asian Financial Crisis, SARS and the Iraq war. Unsurprisingly, PAP MP Seng Han Thong blamed inflation worldwide for Singapore’s inflation problems, when in fact much of Singapore’s inflation was caused by the GST hike and hikes in property taxes.
Financial Year (FY) 2007’s overall Budget balance is expected to be a whopping surplus of $6.4 billion against a projected deficit of $0.7 billion (difference: $7.1 billion). In FY 2006, the budget deficit was $1.3 billion against a projected deficit of $2.9 billion (difference: $1.6 billion).
It seems that more often than not, government economists’ projections of the budget position seem to be far off from the actual numbers. Obviously from a political perspective, underestimating works in favour of the Government, as it gives the Finance Minister something positive to report at the next Budget Speech. However, constantly underestimating the next year’s fiscal position may result in the government spending less than it can actually afford to on essential services and assistance for the poor. It will also increase pressure to raise taxes unnecessarily.
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) hike is a prime example. The $7.1 billion additional windfall more than covers the $0.3 billion given out in Workfare Income Supplements (WIS).
Singaporeans will recall that the rationale given last year for the GST hike was to help the poor, not to increase overall revenue. The past year’s budget position suggests that the GST hike was not necessary to achieve this. In fact, the GST hike raked in $1.2 billion more than expected, even though it was implemented just 7 months ago.
Consumer price inflation was 4.4 per cent in December 2007, and overall inflation for 2008 is expected to be between 4.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent. The Minister has acknowledged that the sharp rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) at the end of last year was “partly due to the GST increase in July”.
I support WP Sec-Gen Low Thia Khiang’s call in Parliament yesterday to bring the GST back down to 5%. NMP Gautam Banerjee also echoed this point, as did NCMP Sylvia Lim today.
I also stand behind my earlier articles in December 2006 asking for the GST not to be raised in the first place:
.
This paper seeks to highlight problems and provide suggestions for improving the public transport system in Singapore. It is based on the author’s own experiences as a middle-income commuter who relies almost exclusively on public transport, with input received from fellow commuters.
Land transport a key focus for 2008
In his New Year’s Day message, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced that a key focus for 2008 for the government is to improve our public transport system, so that more Singaporeans will take buses and trains instead of driving cars. He acknowledged that the government “can do more to make public transport a choice mode of travel”.
Among the proposed measures PM Lee highlighted were long-term goals like building more rail lines. However, he pointed out that there are some changes which “can and should be made more quickly” like improving bus services, making transfers more convenient, as well as running more trains at peak hours. This policy focus by the PM is certainly welcome news for the millions of Singaporeans who depend on public transport to get around.
In January, Transport Minister Raymond Lim unveiled a series of short and long-term changes to the public transport system, a culmination of the Ministry of Transport’s Land Transport Review. This paper builds upon these proposed changes and offers more recommendations for further improvements.
‘Good’ is not enough
The standard of Singapore’s public transport system is generally good compared with other major metropolitan areas like Los Angeles and Sydney. However, simply being ‘good’ may not be enough, because of the unique constraints that Singapore faces.
It is the government’s stated goal to make public transport a “choice option” [1] and a “viable alternative to the car” [2]. With just 617 sq km on our main island (much of which is set aside for water catchment and SAF training areas), it is untenable for Singapore to have the same proportion of residents driving their own cars as in, say, Los Angeles, which has a much larger land area.
Hence, with private cars priced out of the reach of most of the population, they are left with little choice but public transport. It is therefore inappropriate to just
benchmark Singapore’s public transport system against other cities in developed countries. In most of these countries, a car can be purchased for as little as $3,000, making private transport a viable alternative for a much larger percentage of the population. Most Singaporeans enjoy no such luxury. Furthermore, we should not be comparing Singapore with countries that are known to have overcrowded and inferior public transport systems. If there are improvements to be made, Singapore should strive for them rather than look backwards.
There are two broad categories of commuters who regularly take public transport:
Category 1: People who cannot afford to buy a car or take taxis except during emergencies;
Category 2: People who may be able to afford a car in the near future.
For the Category 1 commuters, who are likely to comprise the bottom 50 per cent of income earners, the government has a moral obligation to ensure that the cost of public transport is kept affordable, and that most parts of the island (especially where workplaces are located) are within reach of the bus and rail networks.
Public transport operators SMRT Corporation (SMRT) and SBS Transit (SBST) need to continually explore ways to improve the efficiency of their services, so as to keep their costs and fares affordable for this group of Singaporeans.
Category 2 commuters are probably the target of the government’s efforts to make public transport an attractive alternative to cars and cabs. For this group, comfort, convenience and speed are three main factors besides cost that influence their decision whether to take public transport or to drive.
Once these people switch to driving, it is very unlikely that they will return to using public transport. A recent Singapore Press Holdings survey of 295 people who drive cars showed that only two per cent reverted to taking the MRT or buses [3].
With the expected increase of Singapore’s population to 6.5 million from the current 4.3 million and the growing affluence of the population as a whole, it is imperative that improvements be implemented soon to make public transport a more attractive option than cars.
Ride or Drive?
For most commuters, the decision on the mode of transport is dictated by three main factors:
a. Comfort
b. Convenience
c. Cost
Lower travel costs are usually the only reason for taking public transport instead of driving. Remove the cost factor, and the comfort, convenience and speed offered by cars or taxis make public transport a hands-down loser.
The key for the government, therefore, is to ensure that costs of public transport are kept low, while increasing comfort and convenience.
Figure 1: Balance of benefits
As illustrated above, as fares and commuters’ income increase, the scale will be tipped in favour of driving. Since fares and income will inevitably increase in the long run, the government and public transport companies need to put in more effort into increasing the comfort and convenience of MRT trains and buses.
Problems and Solutions
As a commuter who relies almost exclusively on public transport, I have observed the following key problem areas in our current public transport system:
This paper offers two sets of suggestions on improving the public transport system in Singapore. The first are the “quick wins” — measures which can be implemented quickly and with minimal cost. The second set of suggestions, while not asking for the moon, will require some policy and perhaps mindset changes to implement.
The Quick Wins
Recommendation 1: Lengthen peak hour timings
Unlike many other major cities I have travelled in, including Tokyo, Singapore’s MRT is crowded at almost every hour of the day, including late evenings and weekends.
It has become a norm to be standing sandwiched between other passengers for the entire ride. Passengers jostle for personal space. Women passengers clutch their handbags closely to their chests to preserve their modesty. At least 20 per cent of standing passengers have nothing to hold on to, as the grab poles are located at the centre of the carriages. Whenever the train comes to a sudden stop, many of them get thrown off balance. The situation is magnified for pregnant mothers, senior citizens and people with disabilities. It is simply not safe, in many cases, for them to board these crowded trains.
Is it any wonder that many young Singaporeans will swear to buy a car as soon as they can afford it to escape this madness?
The most distressing times to take public transport are during the morning and evening rush hours, or late at night on weekends. According to SMRT, peak hours are defined as:
Monday to Friday, between 8 to 9 am and 5.15 to 6.30 pm
Saturday, between 8.15 to 9 am and 1 to 2.30 pm
During these times, the train frequency is about 2 to 5 minutes. However, after “peak hours”, train frequency drops to about 7 to 8 minutes. Disappointingly, SMRT’s “peak hours” do not seem to coincide with the full evening rush hour timings, and curiously neither do they coincide with the taxi peak hour surcharge timings (5 to 8 pm).
Busy professionals rarely leave work in time to make it to the MRT station by 6.30 pm. Many (particularly Category 2 commuters) leave work between 6.15 and 7.30 pm. The result is a space crunch as passengers try to get on the trains between 6.30 and 8 pm. Commuters find themselves packed like sardines on both the North-South and East-West lines.
Later at night between 10 and 11 pm, especially on Friday and weekend nights, this crunch situation is repeated when people head home after an evening out in town. Unfortunately, train frequency is not as high as during peak hours and the trains are often packed to overflowing.
SMRT’s 2007 annual report [4] (see Table 1) revealed that while the number of passenger-trips has increased 10 per cent from 2003 to 2007, the number of car kilometres operated actually decreased by 14 per cent. This explains how average car occupancy increased 23 per cent in that same period.
Is it fair for commuters to be paying higher fares yet having to squeeze into much more crowded trains?
SMRT should be compelled to increase its train frequency and extend its peak hour timings.
In response to my suggestion on 23 Sep 07 to extend peak hour timings, SMRT responded:
(T)he current train service frequency is sufficient to meet commuter demand during these time (sic).
On the perception of overcrowded trains, we would like to point out that, although our trains are designed with an engineering limit of 1,800 commuters, we rarely carry more than 1,400 commuters per train during peak hours. In fact, the actual typical average passenger load per train is about 1,200. Furthermore, when benchmarked against 15 of the world’s top metro operators from major cities, we are ranked among the top five with one of the lowest density of passengers on our trains. During peak hours, we have an average of four passengers per square metre, as compared to six passengers per square metre for metros located in other densely populated cities.
SMRT has admitted that during peak hours, there are up to 233 passengers squeezed in to each carriage, and that peak hour passenger density is 4 passengers per square metre. Based on my experience commuting at peak periods, it appears 6 passengers per square metre would be a more accurate estimate.
In any case, even 4 passengers per square metre is too close for comfort. As explained earlier, it is immaterial to benchmark our passenger density against other major cities if we want public transport to be the desired option for most Singaporeans.
To solve the overcrowding problem, SMRT should extend the evening peak hours to 8 pm every day (even on weekends) and have a higher frequency during the late evening from 10 to 11 pm. During peak hours, the train frequency should be 2 minutes. After peak hours, a frequency of 3 to 5 minutes should be the norm. There is no reason to have train frequency exceeding 6 minutes at any time of the day.
I note that it was recently announced that the government will be spending $40 billion by 2020 to extend the rail network, and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will be working with rail operators to run 93 additional train trips per week from February 2008. These are positive steps in the right direction.
Recommendation 2: Develop a harmonised trip-planning e-portal
The available trip-planning facilities on our public transport network are dismal relative to the level of technological advancement of our country.
Although a printed bus guide is available for purchase, it is not convenient to carry around and it is not easy to plan one’s trip using it. SMRT and SBST run their own online bus and MRT guides. However, most people plan their trips based on where they want to go, not which transport company to use. To have to run a web search on both sites is excessively time consuming and confusing.
LTA, SMRT and SBS Transit should jointly develop a harmonised online bus and MRT guide with “intelligent” features that help commuters plan the fastest, most convenient way to get from point A to B — be it on the MRT, buses or a combination of both. This online guide should be viewable even on small mobile screens and should be able to accept queries via SMS.
In order to ensure the best possible product is built using the most appropriate technology available, the government should fund part of its development costs. In addition, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) should grant permission for the free use of their road maps in this portal.
Long-Haul Changes
Recommendation 3: Tackle inconsiderate behaviour
There is an appalling lack of courtesy and consideration among many commuters. This contributes much of the unpleasantness of taking public transport, especially for less able-bodied people.
Some examples of discourteous behaviour include:
Although it is not the core business of public transport operators to teach commuters manners, inculcating a culture of courtesy among commuters could help to make the ride much more enjoyable.
Many commuters do not seem to be aware that they are obliged to abide by certain unofficial rules. For example, the sign located above the corner seats on the MRT, “Please give up this seat to someone who needs it more than you,” is ambiguous and comes across as more of a suggestion than a requirement. It is not surprising that many passengers find it perfectly acceptable to fall asleep (or pretend to do so) on those seats and not give up their seats even if a heavily-pregnant woman is standing in front of them.
The approach of the public transport companies ought then to be
i. Making clear to commuters the behaviour expected of them;
ii. Feed societal pressure to encourage good behaviour;
iii. Focus on educating the young.
A list of suggestions on how to do this is in the annex at the end of this article.
Recommendation 4: Introduce genuine competition into public transport
SMRT and SBST form a duopoly over public transport in Singapore. Not only do they control both the bus and rail networks, they control the taxi fleet as well. The rationale for the government’s decision to privatise public transport was to reduce costs to the government and to promote greater efficiency brought about by market pressures.
However, market pressures only work if there is genuine competition. This cannot happen when there are only two players in the market.
The recent move by the government to introduce a tendering system for bus routes is sound in principle. However, unless more independent bus operators are allowed to enter the market, the tendering exercises will serve only as window dressing for the same oligopoly.
The government’s concern about allowing more entrants is that it would impede its efforts to have an integrated bus and rail network. This can be addressed by establishing a common set of standards that different operators are obliged to adhere to. For example, ez-link card readers should be installed on all buses, regardless of operator, and these readers must be able to calculate transfer fare reductions. With the LTA taking over the centralised planning of public transport routes, it would not take much more effort to plan for more than two bus companies to cover all the necessary routes in Singapore.
A similar bidding process should be implemented for MRT lines as well. As there are no other local companies with the expertise to run MRT lines other than SMRT and SBST, foreign operators should be allowed into the market to compete with the incumbents. Ultimately it will be commuters who will benefit from lower fares and better service.
Recommendation 5: Appoint only officials who are accountable to Singaporeans to the PTC
The Public Transport Committee (PTC) is seen, rightly or wrongly, by many Singaporeans as a rubber stamp committee which only executes the wishes of the public transport companies.
It would be better to appoint to the PTC land transport professionals (e.g., LTA officials) and elected Members of Parliament from the two largest parties in Parliament. This will ensure that the PTC is both cognisant with the technical complexities of public transport, sensitive to the needs of the people and accountable to them.
Conclusion
While few will deny that Singapore’s public transport system is above average compared to most of the world, there is still much room for improvement if we are to achieve the aim of making it an attractive alternative to driving.
Transport companies need to pay closer attention to comfort and convenience on public transport, and the government has a responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient competition so as to keep prices affordable. Having an affordable, efficient and comfortable public transport system will increase the quality of life for millions of Singaporeans, while easing the congestion on our roads.
Listed in the Annex is a summary of the above-mentioned points as well as further suggestions on how public transport companies can address the problems faced by commuters.
Annex
SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS AND SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS
Comfort
|
|
Problem |
Suggested solution |
|
1 |
Overcrowded MRT trains and buses |
Increase frequency of MRT trains and buses. Lengthen the peak hour timings. |
|
2 |
Jerky and uncomfortable rides on buses. |
Provide training for bus drivers to start and stop their vehicles more smoothly. |
|
3 |
Above-ground MRT station platforms hot and uncomfortable during daytime. |
Install fans at all outdoor MRT station platforms. Ensure that soon-to-be-installed platform screen doors allow wind to pass through. |
|
4 |
Passengers not giving up their seats to elderly/disabled |
Clearly demarcate seats designated for the elderly or disabled. Paint these seats a different colour. Place unambiguous signs at eye level (for seated passengers) instructing — not merely suggesting — that they give up their seats. For example: RESERVED SEAT For the elderly, disabled, pregnant women or parents carrying infants Work with schools to organise educational “behind the scenes” tours of the MRT, and teach students the virtue of considerate behaviour from a young age, encouraging them to lead others in following their example. |
|
5 |
Passengers (esp. teenagers) playing music aloud on the trains and buses. |
Have signs indicating that playing music aloud is banned. This is also implemented in the Tokyo metro. |
|
6 |
Passengers not allowing others to alight from trains before boarding. Cutting in front of those considerate enough to allow others to alight first. |
Paint ‘queue’ lines outside train doors requiring passengers to queue while waiting to board. The first to arrive gets to board first. See Figure 2 below. Tokyo metro stations have these ‘queue’ lines. |
Figure 2: Queue lines outside train doors
Convenience
|
|
Problem |
Suggested solution |
|
7 |
Poor trip-planning facilities |
Develop a harmonised bus and MRT trip-planning e-portal. |
|
8 |
Lack of connectivity between MRT train lines and bus routes |
Situate bus stops closer to MRT stations. Post bus guides at MRT stations so commuters know which bus stop to head to and in which direction. |
Cost
|
|
Problem |
Suggested solution |
|
9 |
Lack of genuine competition, leading to ever increasing prices |
Introduce genuine competition by allowing more players in the market. |
|
10 |
Lack of public accountability of public transport regulators |
Appoint to the PTC only LTA officials and elected MPs from the Government and Opposition who are accountable to the electorate. |
|
11 |
High operating costs for SMRT and SBST, leading to increases in fares. |
LTA to allow more space for advertising in MRT stations and bus interchanges. Space on MRT station walls is not being fully utilised for advertising. SMRT’s “Tunnel TV” is an innovative way to provide more space for advertisers in MRT tunnels. This should be expanded upon. |
The need to improve access to higher education has taken a much more urgent imperative. This need can be met to a large extent by increased financing for university education for Singaporean students, particularly those in the low-income group.
FINANCE Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam announced in his 2008 Budget Speech that the Government will increase the CDC/CCC-University Bursaries for students from the lowest 20 percent of households from $1,000 to $1,600. This is a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, the increase is probably not enough to cover the 7 to 20 percent hike in tuition fees recently announced by Singapore’s three publicly-funded universities. Singaporean students will now have to fork out between $6,360 and $18,230 a year for undergraduate courses.
The ever-increasing cost of tertiary education is a cause for worry.
I believe that education is the best socio-economic leveller. One of the most important ways to facilitate social mobility is education, and tertiary education in particular.
The Government has taken pride in its self-proclaimed “meritocratic” system, whereby anyone, whether rich or poor, can climb the social ladder to join the ranks of the elites in society if they achieve excellent grades in school and get awarded scholarships to study in university. However, the success of a country should not be judged solely by the achievements of the elite.
The former president of Japanese multinational Matsushita remarked some years ago to the then-Economic Development Board (EDB) Chairman Ngiam Tong Dow that our educational structure had some brilliant individuals perched like eagles on high peaks, but the average education level of the rest was not high. He advised that Singapore should concentrate on educating the masses to raise the average level and not just focus on the top scholars. He said that to advance as a nation, we need “high broad plateaus, not solitary peaks”.
Singapore already has a very good education system at all levels — primary, secondary, technical and tertiary. However in the present economy, it is tertiary education (i.e. universities and polytechnics) that will make the difference between those who break into the middle-income group and above, and those who will remain in the struggling-to-survive group.
Singapore needs more knowledge workers to power our economy. If companies can’t find these workers locally, they will have to hire foreign talent, as they are already doing. The globalisation train is steaming ahead, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. Most manufacturing jobs and even technical jobs will be shipped out to China, India or Vietnam sooner than we think. No amount of labour protectionism will save these jobs.
More foreign talent or more education?
To prepare our young for the knowledge-based economy, the Government needs to give as many students as possible the opportunity to study in tertiary institutions.
It doesn’t make sense for the Government to constantly carp at the lack of local knowledge workers and import wave after wave of foreign talent, when it should be putting in place more long-term solutions by providing more opportunities for Singaporeans to complete their tertiary education. Human capital development is an investment with an almost guaranteed return.
In his Budget speech, the Finance Minister pointed out that in centres for innovation like Austin, Texas, over 44 percent of their population hold college degrees. But currently in Singapore, a mere 23 percent of each primary one cohort enters university. The Government plans to increase this to just 30 percent by 2015.
This, in my opinion, is not enough. It is unfortunate that many parents spend fortunes to send their children overseas to study due to lack of places in local universities. I understand that one of the Government’s concerns is that the job market may not be able to support a higher proportion of degree holders, should the economy head south in the future.
The question to ask then is will these Singaporeans be better off if they didn’t have a degree? Probably not. They might still be able to find well-paying jobs overseas with their qualifications, just like many Filipinos do. Not so for the non-degree holders, who will have far fewer career options, whether the economy is doing well or not.
Tertiary education and the lower income group
Students from low-income households often have to overcome numerous odds just to perform well in their studies, let alone finance their tertiary education. For these students, continuing on to tertiary education after secondary school entails not just tuition fees and other school-related expenses (stationery, books, etc). It also presents an opportunity cost. This is because many would be under pressure to start working as soon as possible to contribute to the household income, often to see their younger siblings through school.
Furthermore, the lower value that many poorer parents place on higher education is another factor that might be holding down university enrolment among low-income students. I have a good friend who qualified for junior college after secondary school, but her parents discouraged her from continuing on in JC after the first 3 months because they felt it would be a stretch to pay for her university education. She went to polytechnic instead. (Fortunately she took up a professional degree after she started working.)
This would probably not have happened had her family been wealthy enough to pay for her university education. In fact, all of my peers from high-income backgrounds eventually completed university, even those with average academic ability. Those who didn’t do well enough to enter local institutions completed their studies overseas. Is it fair, then, for someone to miss out on a university education just because her family is not rich?
A report by the Education Policy Institute in Canada titled “Grants for Students” found that grants are an effective way of increasing access to higher education for students from low-income households. The research revealed that grants tip the cost-benefit ratio of higher education in favour of the “benefits” by offsetting tuition costs and foregone income. In other words, a JC student from a low-income family who is deciding whether to spend $20,000 to complete university or start working immediately no longer has to make that decision if he knows that his university education will be covered entirely by grants.
Are current bursaries enough?
The Ministry of Education (MOE) has stated that no student will be denied a university education because of financial difficulties. It claims that all cases of genuine financial need will be met by bursaries.
Unfortunately, bursaries don’t cover all the tuition costs, let alone the other expenses of higher education. The annual tuition fees in local public universities range from $6,360 for arts and engineering, to $18,230 for medicine and dentistry. This includes the MOE tuition grant, which is given to all students, even foreigners. Most bursaries are valued between $800 and $2,000 per year, based on the level of financial need.
One needs to have a gross monthly per capita household income of less than $1,000 to qualify for an $800-a-year MOE bursary. Furthermore, the bursaries usually prohibit students from concurrently holding other bursaries or scholarships. They are also required to re-apply every academic year.
The National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Student Financial Aid Unit states on their website that the financial aid package is a “partnership involving the student, his/her family and the University”. While this co-payment approach sounds reasonable in theory, in reality many students from low-income families still won’t be able to meet the balance of payments even after factoring in the bursaries. Many would still have to fork out several thousand dollars each year for tuition fees, books and other living expenses, even if they receive the maximum amount in bursaries.
Part-time work could make up for some of the shortfall, but the money earned may be needed to supplement family income or support siblings, rather than pay their own tuition expenses. In addition, since bursaries need to be renewed every year, the student has no assurance prior to entering university that his or her expenses will be adequately covered for the duration of the 3 or 4 year course.
A tuition loan may be an alternative, but it does not reduce the net price of education (in fact it increases because of the interest) and it saddles the student with debt even before he or she has begun working.
Therefore, I propose that the bottom 30 percent of households (according to per capita income) should be given full tuition grants and grants to cover other expenses like textbooks and board. The payable fees could be slowly increased from the 31st percentile until the 90th percentile. Students from middle income households should have access to a combination of grants, low-interest loans and “work-study” to cover all their tuition fees and expenses. Those in the top 10th percentile should pay close to full tuition fees.
Financial Assistance for Continuing Education and Training
The Finance Minister has announced that the Government will now provide subsidies for part-time degree programmes at NUS, NTU, SMU and UniSIM. The Government will meet 40 percent of the cost of these programmes. This is an excellent but long overdue measure. Many adults who take up these part-time degree programmes do so because they couldn’t afford to do their degrees after secondary school. They deserve to be given equal access to subsidised tertiary education just like their full-time peers.
Keeping Education Costs Down
According to NUS, 70 percent of their budget goes to paying salaries. In their quest to ascend to the top of the world university rankings, our public universities are paying increasingly large salaries to attract “top-notch” professors to come to Singapore.
I question the value of this strategy.
The rankings of a university are dependent more on the quality and amount of research by its faculty and post-graduate departments than the quality of instruction. This is because many top researchers and professors choose universities for their research opportunities and funding. In this regard, a highly-ranked university may not necessarily be the best in terms of teaching quality, and thus beneficial for those seeking higher education. I once had a physics professor who was a decorated US government scientist but couldn’t teach for nuts!
I wonder if our universities are wooing all these top professors, paying them top dollar and then passing on the cost increases to students, who may not enjoy any significant improvement in the quality of their education.
Conclusion
Many well-to-do Singaporeans would have welcomed the 20 percent income tax rebate and the abolition of Estate Duty. While I personally have no complaint about this, it presents a huge revenue loss for the Government. Couldn’t this money be put to better use by investing in education rather than giving it away to Singaporeans who don’t really need it anyway?
Singapore has done well as a whole in educating our people, earning praise from may quarters. Nevertheless, with increasing competition from India, China and the ASEAN region, the need to improve access to higher education has taken a much more urgent imperative. This need can be met to a large extent by increased financing for university education for Singaporean students, particularly those in the low-income group.
The Straits Times Forum, 20 Feb 08
Help grads who do as well as foreign talent
RECENTLY, I befriended a group of scholars from China studying at my alma mater, Nanyang Technological University (NTU). They were in their late teens and were attending foundation courses in English and maths before starting their undergraduate studies. In their five-year sojourn at NTU, they will be given free lodging and a monthly allowance of $500 each. Needless to say, they do not have to pay for their tuition fees. When they graduate, they must work in Singapore for six years as part of their ‘payback” bond.
A highly conservative calculation of their five-year tenure at NTU suggests that each will cost the Government or NTU some $70,000. That is, $30,000 for their five-year tuition fees, including the charges for their foundation courses, and some $40,000 for hostel accommodation and their monthly stipends. I graduated from NTU five years ago, with a good honours degree.
I was in the top 15 per cent of my cohort – and performed better than some of these scholars. While studying at NTU, I had to work as a pizza delivery boy to earn my allowance. Upon graduation, I had to start paying off a $24,000-student loan.
Why are Singaporeans like me not treated as considerately as such scholars? My study loan took five years to pay off after I started working. The China scholars receive financial support, a free education and start their working lives debt free. Their six-year bond is seen as a contribution to Singapore.
Am I not contributing as much, if not more? Non-scholar Singaporeans are not treated in quite the same way as foreign talent, regardless of how well we perform. The disparity is disheartening.
Don’t Singaporeans like me who have done well deserve some relief? True, local scholarships are available. But not every Singaporean who graduated well, gets one.
Can the NTU or the Education Ministry tell me why graduates like myself don’t deserve some relief or reward for doing as well as, or better than, some of the foreign talent?
Zhou Zhiqiang
I’m glad Zhou has highlighted this unfair situation in Singapore. Singaporean students, as far as I know, never get this type of no-strings-attached full scholarships. The foreign scholars only need to work with some company in Singapore for 6 years. Singapore Government scholars have to work with the government for 6 years.
I just wonder where MOE is going with all this sponsorships of foreign students using taxpayer money. Do they really have so much money to give away in their quest to make Singapore an “education hub”? Is this really making us an education hub?
In Western countries like the US, UK and Australia, the foreign students pay full tuition and effectively subsidise the locals. In fact, education is a big money spinner for their economy. In Singapore, it seems the reverse is true. How unfortunate!
I’ve written a related piece on university education financing on theonlinecitizen.com.
.
This is an excellently balanced commentary on Myanmar/Burma by the International Crisis Group. Unlike most Western commentaries on Myanmar, it contains none of the sabre-rattling and calls for sanctions which have proven wholly ineffective. At the same time, it takes a different tone from that of ASEAN leaders, who seem content sitting back and saying there’s nothing that they can do about Myanmar because their influence is “limited”.
The only point I disagree with is that China’s influence over the Myanmar generals is limited. From what I understand, China is the number one supplier of arms and trade (a lot of it in the blackmarket) to Myanmar. Without those arms and that economic lifeline, the junta’s hold over the country would be diminished. China wants to curry favour with the Myanmar generals to prevent rival India from gaining more influence over them and threatening their supply lines to the Bay of Bengal.
Speaking of which, the author failed to mention about how India, the world’s largest democracy, can play an influential role in resolving the Myanmar crisis.
But overall a great article.
A Chance for Change in Burma
by John Virgoe, International Crisis Group10 February 2008
The Boston GlobeFour months after crushing massive street protests, Burma’s generals seem as entrenched as ever. There are few workable options for a way forward. Twenty years of Western sanctions haven’t worked. Neither has 20 years of “constructive engagement” by Burma’s neighbors. It is time to try something else.
A three-tiered approach – with a division of labor between the United Nations, Burma’s neighbors, and the wider international community – holds the best prospect of launching a process of reconciliation and broader reform.
The first tier would build on the work of the UN secretary general’s special envoy, Ibrahim Gambari. He has been able to establish a reasonable relationship with all the key players in Burma and abroad, and it therefore makes sense for him to coordinate the diplomatic efforts. Within Burma, his key role is to focus on political reform and national reconciliation between the government, the democratic opposition under Aung San Suu Kyi, and the ethnic groups. This will require sustained, low-profile mediation efforts. Retaining the confidence of the generals may mean it is sometimes better to leave public denunciations of their human rights record and other failings to others.
The second key tier would be informal regional talks. For years, Burma’s neighbors have taken heat for their defense of Burma, which has seriously damaged ASEAN’s relationship with the West. Now is the time for them to call in their favors with the regime.
Indonesia is particularly well-placed to take a lead. It is keen to show progressive leadership, and it carries weight in the region and in Burma. Its recent transition to democracy, reducing the military’s political role, and its experience with separatist conflict have obvious relevance.
Regional talks on Burma, based on the prospect of its reintegration into the region, should address the need for long-term stability, democratic reforms, and transparent economic policy. Without joining the generals in their paranoia, the participants will need to reassure them that Burma’s stability and territorial integrity are not threatened.
Western nations are generally reluctant to accept that others are sometimes better placed to take a lead. But Burma is such a case. It is possible that the junta might agree to constructive actions with a group consisting of, for example, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, and China. It is inconceivable that they would do so if the United States or EU were present.
But the wider international community has a vital role to play too, providing the context for the regional talks and the UN’s mediation efforts. This would mean keeping human rights at the top of the agenda; developing a set of escalating sanctions and incentives to encourage progress and punish recalcitrance by the regime; and monitoring the regional talks to ensure they do not degenerate into an excuse for inaction.
A donors’ forum could help address the urgent problems of hunger, poverty, and disease. It could also start contingency planning for a transition to democracy. The crisis in Burma goes beyond politics. After decades of conflict, institutional failure, and poverty, the country suffers deep social divisions, incompetent and corrupt governance, collapse of the education system, deep-rooted structural poverty and a health crisis of major proportions.
The creation of a donors’ forum would also send a powerful message to Burma that there is an alternative to hostile relations with the outside world.
Finding a way forward is complicated by three persistent misperceptions. The first is that ever tighter sanctions can force change. But the generals are used to ostracism, and they are not going to be forced to give up power. The second is that China holds the key, if only it could be persuaded to exert its influence. China’s influence is important, but it can be exaggerated. China has been as frustrated as anyone with the generals’ resistance to outside persuasion.
The third misperception is that all Burma needs is an end to the junta’s rule. But Burma faces real problems of internal conflict and instability – including conflicts with ethnic secessionists which have raged ever since independence. Military rule has also caused most formal and informal institutions to wither. Even many in the democratic opposition accept that progress will require close cooperation with the army. The junta’s so-called road map to democracy, though wholly inadequate, could be viewed as an initial offer for discussion.
Change will require compromises, and will be slow at best. There is a small window of opportunity to try something new. Burma’s neighbors, backed by the international community, should seize the moment.
John Virgoe is South East Asia project director at the International Crisis Group.
.
A 13-year old Sudanese child witnessed a rebel soldier being first shot in the arm, Film mogul Steven Spielberg made the most rattling move so far for the Communist Chinese government by pulling out as artistic advisor to the 2008 Beijing Olympics. His objection: Beijing’s complicity in the genocide going on in Darfur, Sudan. This was by no means an unexpected move. He had urged China as far back as April last year to do more to press for change in Darfur.
Spielberg’s announcement came on the same day that nine Nobel Peace Prize laureates — including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel and Jody Williams — sent a letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao urging China to uphold Olympic ideals by pressing Sudan to stop atrocities in Darfur.
I fully support Spielberg’s move. The PRC government must be held to account for its human rights abuses not just within its borders, but outside as well. Darfur is just one in a long string of human rights abuses which date back to the founding of the Communist state.
In more than four years of conflict in Sudan’s western region of Darfur, 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been driven from their homes. Just last Friday, Sudan’s government attacked three towns in Darfur, forcing about 200,000 people from their homes and leading thousands to flee into neighboring eastern Chad.
Closer to home, we are all aware of the role that China has played in propping up the Myanmar generals who are responsible for killing thousands of their own people and dragging their country down into an economic abyss. Not to mention their jailing of responsible journalists like The Straits Times’ Ching Cheong over trumped up charges, and not even giving him the benefit of an open trial to present his case.
China is trying to use the Olympics to show their world that they have arrived, that they are a superpower to be reckoned with, when their dismal human rights record clearly suggests otherwise.
The world should seize this window of opportunity to highlight China’s contribution to the suffering in the world. I hope that in the coming months, international pressure will be be ramped up on Beijing to force them to relook at their policies. I have no doubt that Ching Cheong’s early release was in part due to the upcoming Olympics. Imagine what more can be achieved if more influential personalities like Steven Spielberg stand up and tell China’s leaders that enough is enough.
.
Senator Barack Obama mentioned Singapore at a Democratic party rally in Maryland sometime back. Thanks to reader “an old friend” who pointed this out to me.
Obama said, “How can it be that we haven’t made preparations to make sure we’re providing math instruction and science instruction for our children that matches countries like Taiwan and Singapore.”
Oops…he called Taiwan a country. Good for him! For one thing it shows that he is at least aware of Asia, a region that the Bush administration has largely ignored (except for North Korea).
Unfortunately some of our leaders do not think as highly of him as he does of us. Speaking at a recent IPS Forum, MM Lee Kuan Yew questioned the wisdom of supporting leaders like Barack Obama. He described Obama as a one-term senator with manifest intelligence and a gift for getting the right pitch.
“But you ask yourself: Is it going to be a safer world with McCain or with Obama?” he wondered aloud.
Maybe MM Lee forgot that he himself had only been MP for four years, and was only 35 years old when he became PM of Singapore.
I respect McCain and would support him if Obama wasn’t in the picture, but experience isn’t everything. In fact, sometimes the wrong experience can be worse than no experience. MM might have to eat his words if Obama really wins in November.
Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan has announced that means testing will likely be implemented in restructured hospitals by the end of this year. Although the details of how it is going to be administered have not been confirmed, one fact seems clear: Many middle-income Singaporeans are going to have to foot larger medical bills in the near future.
Low income Singaporeans can probably breath easy as means testing is unlikely to negatively affect them, since the Minister has said that only the top half of income earners who stay in Class B2 or C wards will undergo a means test.
Currently, patients admitted to Class C wards in restructured hospitals enjoy an 80 per cent subsidy on their hospital bill. With the introduction of means testing, many of them may no longer receive that subsidy, or may have to accept a lower subsidy.
The Government’s rationale for introducing means testing is to reduce overcrowding in Class C wards and ensure a sustainable healthcare financing system by providing heavy subsidies to only deserving low income patients.
Having heard the government’s arguments for means testing, many Singaporeans may be questioning whether it is really necessary, and if there are other better ways to contain rising healthcare costs.
Show us the numbers
The means testing concept makes sense in theory: Rich folks ought to be subsidised less than poor folks. Means testing could prevent “cheapo” rich people from consuming taxpayer funded subsidies when they can well afford to pay for their own medical expenses.
However I wonder whether the rate of abuse of the system is really as high as the government makes it out to be. Singaporeans have been presented with the rationale for means testing, but not the numbers to back it up.
The Minister has said that means testing is likely to be administered only for patients in the upper 50th percentile income bracket. How many patients currently in Class C wards are in the upper income bracket?
The median monthly income for Singaporeans last year was $2,330. That is not very much. Is it fair to consider a sole breadwinner who earns $2,400 a high income earner not entitled to Class B2/C ward subsidies?
Will the cost of planning and administering means testing exceed any savings for the government? These costs could be significant. They could include extra medical social workers to conduct assessments and investigations, new computer systems to manage the data, and time and effort spent by officials to respond to questions and complaints.
Mr Khaw, in fact mentioned that he is considering a graduated reduced subsidy from 80 per cent, point by point down, to 60 per cent for the top 20th percentile income earners. So after all this debate, we may be looking at just a 20 per cent reduction in subsidies for top income earners.
At the end of the day, the savings from means testing may not even justify implementing the system. It may be more efficient to keep the current system of letting patients decide which ward they want to go to, based on their own assessment of what they can afford.
Medical insurance and Medisave
Since means testing will be targeted at middle income earners, it is important to look into why so many of them would rather stay in Class C wards rather than more comfortable and less crowded B1 or B2 wards. Why do they still have to depend on government subsidies and why can’t their health insurance adequately cover their costs?
Most Singaporeans are insured under MediShield, Singapore’s national insurance scheme. MediShield helps cover the costs of catastrophic illnesses which require long hospital stays and result in crippling medical bills. The premiums for MediShield can be paid using Medisave, the national medical savings scheme. Typically, employees contribute 6.5 to 8.5 per cent of their wages to their Medisave accounts.
Unfortunately, MediShield’s coverage does not cover the entire hospital bill. For patients staying in Class B2 or C wards, an average of 40 per cent of their medical bill must be paid using cash or Medisave. Class A, B1 or private patients can expect to pay even more. Most of this payment is due to deductibles and co-payment. The deductible ranges from $1,000 to $3,000, depending on the ward chosen. Co-insurance will be 10 to 20 per cent of the claimable amount.
This means that for a claimable amount of $8,000, a Class A patient will have to pay a deductible of $3,000 and co-insurance of 10 per cent on the excess of $5,000. Hence, he will have to fork out $3,500 on top of the portion of the medical bill that wasn’t claimable under MediShield. Is it any wonder then that many relatively well-off people choose to be warded in Class C where the base charges are lower?
There are riders offered by private insurance companies to offset the co-payment and deductibles, but the premiums for these riders cannot be paid using Medisave. Consequently, most people do not take them up as it involves having to fork out additional cash.
This results in a vicious cycle of large hospital bills that MediShield doesn’t adequately cover, leading people to try to incur smaller bills by staying in Class C wards and costing taxpayers more.
To help to lessen this problem, the government should allow Medisave to be used to purchase not just MediShield, but also the riders to offset the deductible and perhaps even part of the co-payment. If CPF members are allowed to use Medisave to pay for these riders, surely many more will sign up for them. After all, many of them have more money stashed in their Medisave accounts than in their Ordinary accounts, as the latter is usually used to pay for their HDB mortgage.
This proposal was raised in Parliament by Nominated MP Cham Hui Fong during the budget debate in 2006. The Health Minister’s response then was, “This is not wise and we do not encourage this. That is why we do not allow Medisave to pay for the premiums of such riders, as proposed by NMP Cham Hui Fong. But if Singaporeans want to buy such riders out of their cash savings, I cannot stop them.”
I can imagine what the government’s concerns with this proposal might be: Excessive drawing down of one’s Medisave; over-consumption by patients and over-servicing by hospitals, leading to higher premiums across the board; and people buying unnecessary policies from aggressive insurance agents.
Fears that people will exhaust their Medisave by paying medical insurance premiums don’t make sense when Medisave can already be used make direct payments for huge hospital bills, and even the bills of one’s family members (including parents). These direct payments surely amount to much more than insurance premiums.
The concern that patients will opt to stay in hospitals for longer than necessary won’t apply to the majority of patients. Who in the right mind would want to stay in hospital if they have recovered from their illness? There may be exceptional cases, but these can be dealt with by doctors who have the authority to send patents home after they have recovered, or to step down care in community hospitals. As for over-servicing, surely we should have a little more faith in the integrity and professionalism of our doctors!
Lastly, to lessen the confusion about which rider to purchase, the government could simplify things by opening a tender for private insurers to provide a single, low-cost MediShield rider that people can choose from — much like how MediShield Plus was transferred to a private insurer (NTUC Income) through a competitive tender in 2005.
If most Singaporeans and permanent residents sign up for this proposed MediShield rider, the insurance companies may be able lower their premiums. With a system like this in place, Singaporeans will benefit from low cost and more comprehensive coverage and the government too will spend less on subsidies. Even insurance companies will find something more to cheer about.
Conclusion
Means testing is probably going to be one of the hot button political issues this year, as would any issue that involves the removal of key government subsidies. The Health Minister has got his work cut out for him convincing Singaporeans that it is the right way to go. Less than two years ago, his first attempt to impose it got beaten back during the heat of elections. This time, he will need to present more convincing arguments to an increasingly sceptical populace, or better still, explore a win-win solution by allowing Medisave to be used to pay for more comprehensive health insurance.
This article was written for theonlinecitizen.
Straits Times Forum, 8 Feb 2008
‘Uniquely Singapore’ does not mean embracing all things uncritically
I FULLY support the decision of the Media Development Authority (MDA) not to grant a licence to organisers of the Complaints Choir Project.
This, despite the views of certain netizens that MDA should have allowed the public performance of this choir, since a version of this performance could be made available on the Internet.
Not all kinds of ‘arts and entertainment’ have artistic value. While it is true that an excessively heavy-handed approach towards censorship may stifle creativity and artistic expression, this does not mean that there should be no censorship or licensing at all.
Censorship has a legitimate purpose. We live in a community and we should be mindful of what may undermine the common good.
The Complaints Choir Project puts forward a version of common grouses in our society. Foreigners are involved in this project.
Lau Ai Ling and Lee Siew Peng, writers of the ST forum letters ‘Complaints choir penalised undeservedly’ (ST, Feb 1) and ‘Why squash singing bird amid renaissance drive?’ (ST, Feb 2) respectively, asserted that MDA’s decision undermines Singapore’s initiatives to become a ‘global’ and ‘renaissance and graciousness’ nation.
This reference to the term ‘cosmopolitan’ is a frequently misused and misunderstood refrain. Totally free ‘arts and entertainment’ does not necessarily advance our society’s interests, nor does it reflect an arts renaissance. Not all forms of expression are of value in terms of communication of ideas or even of artistic value.
‘Art’ is not defined exclusively through its ‘shock quality’; whether it is edifying is also a relevant consideration. Freedom of expression in all societies has limits and, to ascertain these limits, we need to examine the specific content of each expression and ascertain its artistic and social value. Firing cheap political shots in the name of ‘art’ or providing entertainment that titillates does not automatically qualify as creative and worthy ‘art’.
It is prudent to draw a line against certain initiatives involving foreigners who seek to impose their opinions and their own version of morality on our society. These foreigners leverage a small select group of disgruntled individuals who masquerade their grouses as views of the average Singaporean. Contrary to their misrepresentation, their values and opinions are not widely held and remain controversial even in their respective countries. We welcome foreign talent and perspectives only to the extent that our society’s interests are advanced.
Clearly, being ‘Uniquely Singapore’ does not mean embracing all things in an uncritical and unthinking fashion. One hopes that Singaporeans as a cosmopolitan people exposed to a wide range of ideas will preserve the discernment to consider what best serves the good of our society where we live and build our lives.
Christine Ang Cheng Moy (Ms)
Well written Ms Christine Ang! Get ready for an invitation to tea by the PAP!
Come on! Who is being uncritical and unthinking? Has Ms Ang even seen the lyrics of the Complaints Choir’s jingle? They are so benign it makes the police ban on it seem ludicrous.
“…this does not mean that there should be no censorship or licensing at all.”
I don’t think netizens are asking for no censorship at all. To make that assumption to counter criticism of the govt’s decision on the Complaints Choir is to cast a hyperbole.
“Firing cheap political shots in the name of ‘art’…does not automatically qualify as creative and worthy ‘art’.”
Spoken like a true minister in the making! But wait…that kind of accusation is supposed to be used only against opposition politicians, not a group of amateur singers which includes even civil servants.
“Totally free ‘arts and entertainment’ does not necessarily advance our society’s interests, nor does it reflect an arts renaissance. Not all forms of expression are of value in terms of communication of ideas or even of artistic value. It is prudent to draw a line against certain initiatives involving foreigners who seek to impose their opinions and their own version of morality on our society.”
I agree that free-for-all arts is not necessarily in Singapore’s interests — but where it concerns public morality, not in the context of the Complaints Choir, which is political expression. Ms Ang is conflating immoral expression with political expression — a common and convenient line of argument used by the governing elite to justify the continued restrictions protecting themselves from criticism.
Censorship is supposed to protect the weakest members of society (e.g., children), not the strongest (e.g., the political elite).
.