Choo Zheng Xi
An angry tongue-in-cheek critique of ERP hikes (TOC op-ed).
If you are superstitious, a cave-in in the Central Business District (CBD) that left a 5m-wide hole in the ground could be more than bad engineering.It happened on the same day it was announced that five new Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantries were to go up by 7 July, bringing the islandwide total to a eye-popping 65.
However, signs are never easy to interpret. So if I were asked about what exactly the cave-in could be symbolic of, I would have to choose from several plausible answers.
1. Collapse in the credibility of the mainstream media
Anyone who read the front page article on the Straits Times would have been left slightly puzzled. How could such bad news have come off sounding so good? Upon deeper thought, that bewilderment will turn to anger, tinged with grudging respect for an excellently-disguised propaganda effort.
To add salt to the visceral pain any sane motorist would feel at this piece of bad news, the front page of the Straits Times trumpeted, in its subtitle, how “changes are aimed at making city traffic flow smoothly in the evenings”.
To me, this is the equivalent of cutting off someone’s legs to save him the fatigue of walking and expecting him to feel gratitude.
To add insult to injury, the article goes on to extensively quote from the Land Transport Authority (LTA) playbook, offering the public statistic after shocking statistic of ever-slowing road speeds. In the body of the article, an LTA spokesman offers the coup de grace: “The majority of people who pay do not get that experience [of uncongested driving].”
The logical conclusion, naturally, is that we should make it more expensive for more people to pay, hence making the experience more enjoyable for the ones left who can.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the last private cars left on the road in Singapore 2050 will belong to the well-paid individuals who made the policies which taxed everyone else off the roads.
If that’s not perverse, I don’t know what is.
This might have been mitigated if the ST featured a perspective from someone who actually drove a car without a motorcade.
Unfortunately, the other voices in the article belonged to Member of Parliament and head of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport Mr Cedric Foo, and his deputy chairman, Mr Ong Kian Ming. Because of their service to our country, they are millionaires (they don’t actually have motorcades).
Or perhaps I am just narrow minded, unable to see the big picture, and we really should thank the Government for helping us smoothen the gravelled arteries of our county.
Unfortunately, we have little to be thankful for, which brings me on to the next possible interpretation of the cave in.
2. Collapse in the ingenuity of our leadership
It never strikes me how incapable our top civil servants are of finding a creative solution out of the problem we’re in.
The syllogism by which they’ve derived the solution is as follows:
1) There is congestion from people driving cars.
2) People drive less if they have to pay more.
3) Ergo, the more we make people pay, the less they will drive, hence eradicating the scourge of congestion.
This syllogism might make us all happier if there was a corresponding cap or decrease in cost of public transport. Unfortunately, the “Private Vehicle Department” people and the “Public Transport Division” staff do not seem to be on talking terms. Taxi fares have recently gone up, and bus fares were last raised in September 2007. Call this a hunch, but I feel another public transport price hike in the air.
This leads to the sad conclusion that many of us will soon be walking to work in the CBD. Good luck to you if you live in Pasir Ris.
The use of the language of the criminal law is indicative of how the establishment views driving. Motorist need to be “deterred” from driving by a starting deduction of $2, as “it has become increasingly more difficult to deter motorists with 50-cent jumps”.
It has become apparent that Singaporeans are completely sanitised to this miniscule increment. In fact, with ever-increasing wages, job prospects, and inflation, monetary disincentive is next to meaningless.
So why stop at the language of the criminal law, when you can actually use the full force of the damn thing? A more creative method of solving this problem is to mandate specific days on which motorists are allowed to drive according to the colour of their car, and penalise the black sheep (or cars) that break this coding system with mandatory imprisonment. As the roads will be packed with uniformly-coloured vehicles, violators will be easily spotted.
As there are seven colours of the rainbow, we can have one for every day of the week, so no motorist needs to be left behind.
3. Collapse of the Singaporean dream
Is the Government trying to lose the next elections? Despite Mr Foo’s protestations that “We should not mix up road usage measures like ERP with means to cope with general inflation”, I think the verdict of the motorcade-less masses will be unanimous: this is bad timing par excellence.
Perhaps to test the waters of public opinion for the sharks of dissatisfaction, Mr Foo and Mr Ong have been unhappily chosen to be the first to defend the hikes. One almost feels sorry for them. Almost.
Coming on the back of increased prices of basic foodstuffs like rice, vegetables and chicken, the Government isn’t just shooting itself in the foot, it is taking a machine gun to its leg.
But, the Government will protest, people who fret over the price of basic necessities are not the ones who drive anyway!
And this is where, in all seriousness, the Government has completely lost touch with the sentiments of its people.
Those who are turning to temples for free food handouts today are precisely those who are dreaming so fervently of a better tomorrow. Materialistic as it may sound, many Singaporeans from all strata of society look forward to the day when they get their own car keys. The stories most prominently highlighted in the Straits Times are of scholars or businessmen who came from humble backgrounds and who have done well for themselves.
Pride in private ownership is a sentiment that our Government, which has based its rule on a foundation of economic performance legitimacy, should understand well.
It would be the darkest hypocrisy for them now to put this dream out of the reach of the ordinary Singaporean by pricing us off the roads and then have their propagandists make us believe they are doing this for our own good.
If these are the guys behind our country’s steering wheel, I can’t help wishing they’d hand over the car keys to someone else.
*The title of this article has been changed from its original one by request from the author.
—————
The big differentce in the transport policy between HK & Singapore is simply that the HK policy makers get down on the high horse and listen to feedbacks in a honest way to try its best to improve the system for the people.
I use to entrust happily all policies to the Government, and never questioned that they are not for the benefits of real Singaporeans. However of late , things have really changed as I see the ERP gantry signs resembling more light the mant traffic lights at the traffic junctions!
Try giving feedback to the LTA – you will get a thank you note and most often a defensive stance reply in the press; LTA’s mindset appears to be all made up – hence it cannot solve its own problems for the start . Look at the daily traffic conditions @ the CTE, @ the crowded trains, @ the horrendous no of REP gentries – they are beginning to look like menacing traffic lights already, the high cost COEs, the scrapped cars after 10 years – these are national assets put to waste and remain me of the days I used to stayed in the UK – where the British throw away chicken wings and pig’s livers (after 10 years – a good car is just running in), cost of car in Singapore almost highest in the world which Singapore coincidentally have the highest paid Ministers and almost highest paid Civil service as well.
What is the picture you see ? Complacency as in the Mas Selamat case, human error as in the collapse of the Nichol Highwayway collapse, collision @ sea.
Try to earn a dollar on your own.
Learn from HK if you can swallow your pride, tone up your listening skills and do something concrete and soon; not just giveaway a few hundred dollars a year to temporary offset GST increases, etc, just like giving a sweet to pacify small kids- it would soon not work anymore.
What all inclusive society – seems to be turning out to be an almost exclusive society of have on one side and have nots on the other.
The young can fly away ;but with FT and hordes of foreigners swamping here – we the older NS serving Singaporeans are conveniently forgotten; you can see all the private housing coming up in the Bay area – they are for rich foreigners, are they not ? Enough said. ………..
I hope that SMRT can improve the train service. Here are two suggestions.
1. Avoid Wasteful Expenses
SMRT offers a free bus ride from Dhoby Ghaut station to Chinatown on Sundays and public holidays. I seems to be SMRT’s way of diverting passengers from their competitor (ComfortDelgro) which operates the North East Line serving Chinatown.
Why is SMRT so wasteful, in creating unnecessary capacity? It will be better for SMRT to save this expenditure and reduce the train fares for their customers. I hope that the Public Transport Council will disallow SMRT from raising their train fares, if they can afford to be wasteful.
2. Disembarking the MRT train
The passenger has to disembark the MRT train using the right or left door, depending on the station. Although I am a regular traveller, I have to look out of the windows to see which side has the platform.
It will be useful for the train to display a green light on the door that will open at the next station. This helps the passenger to get ready to use the right door.
Increase of ERP will increase the cost of living indirectly , event you don’t own a car. Car owner pay more but you will pay much lesses. Will increase of ERP will lower the publice transport cost ? No, it will increase. So all of us end up pay more, right ?
The need to increase of ERP also mean that COE system fail. Our COE system, as long as I want a car, I will bid high because all the other will bid low on my behalf. This is a bad system. So the cost of ownership of car is high, . ERP will effective only if the cost of car ownership is low. Public transport must be efffective and reasonable low.
PC,
you brought up an interesting point. sorry, guys, if you all have commented on this previously.
COE and ERP. If they keep constantly putting up ERP and raising prices, then whatever happened to the COE?
I’m beginning to think that COE and ERP planners dont talk to each other. Why are they NOT TALKING? I’m beginning to think its because they are different “business units”? i say this, and not “departments” because, i beginning to think that their goal is to become a profit centre, rather than an administrative tool to SOLVE our land transport needs.
Are they in line with the overall Mission and Objectives of their organisation?
I’m looking at the LTA website, the senior executives who are supposed to run LTA, their names are not there. The first statement is “we are part of the Ministry of Transport”….who runs LTA? who’s in charge? i dunno. Who runs the thinktanks in LTA who come up with all these wonderful ideas and policies? I dont know.
What does this tell me? the lack of taking accountability. Whatever they do, its not their fault…its the Ministry of Transport. If we reflect this against the Mas Selamat case, the NKF case, we can begin to see what is wrong with our public sector. NO ONE AT THE LOWER LEVELS WANT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY OR ACCOUNTABILITY. Everything is back to the Ministers and the Govt.
Each ” business unit” goes about doing just what is nominally required, or just enough to make themselves look good to the boss. eveyrthing else is left for the Ministry to decide and take responsibility.
So – a small suggestion to solve the public transport issue,
1. Give accountability to LTA.
- Publish the names of the people who set these policies on the websites, the people who sit down to think about these policies.
- COE, ERP and whatever other departments they have in LTA, they need to sit down together and solve the problem together.
- remind everyone that their goal is “to provide an efficient and cost-effective land transport system for different needs”, and to achieve the vision of a “people-centred system”.
- They have to announce WHY certain decisions are made, i.e. whatever proposal they plan to bring up to government is open for public scrutiny for a certain period of months.
- Public / press/ NGO/ transport organisations have an opportunity to comment and feedback. (But we have to be responsbile too, in providing input. Not complain but constructive feedback).
- The Ministry implements a solution that been been reviewed and approved by the people most affected, THE PUBLIC themselves.
Oh and to add on the people who should comment…
its not just NGOs or press etc, I would suggest organisations like the Chinese/ Malay/India Chamber of Commerce, petrol companies, CASE, other Ministries too…
If there is an ERP rise, how does it affects schools, hospitals, the military?
Everyone should be INVITED and given an opportunity to comment on how an ERP rise can impact their members and stakeholders.
yes – it will slow down the decision making, but at least it will be a decision everyone agrees, and for the betterment of a “people-centred transport system”.
oh AND another suggestion:
- an annual report of sorts from LTA.
They take money away from us, then its only fair they tell us how they spend it.
“this is what we get from ERP last year. This is how we spent it. These are the activities we’ve done. This has shown results in that we’ve reduced bla bla bla….”
In business, private sector, we continually have to prove our existence and our roles to the bosses, every QUARTER. Since we’re Singapore Inc, then its only fair that civil servants stand up to the same scrutiny. And only then, i say, you can equate your salaries to the private sector and earn the same amount of money.
@aygee
You need to go visit the press release to get a clue who’s incharged. Here it is. http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=1853
Cheers!
@aygee
Sorry forogt to give you the link for their published Annual Report. You need to install Silverlight though to read it. Here is the link.
http://www.lta.gov.sg/corp_info/annual_report_0607/silverlight.html
They have those information publicly available. It’s just that we are confused who’s who.
One interesting point. If you go visit the SMRT site and search for “Schedules of Train”. You will be surprise what you will find. Assuming you are a foreigner planning your trip and had heard so much rave reviews about our transportation system.
For you convenient, I have posted the link for your pleasure viewing. http://www.smrt.com.sg/main/index.asp
Just do the comparison between the two links.
http://www.mtr.com.hk/jplanner/eng/planner_index.php?spot=1&start=12&destin=15&x=63&y=16
This work weel for local who sledom take the train as well.
To Everyone
I have some very bold proposals
1) Make it mandatory that a sizeable amount of revenue collected from ERP, roadtax, COE and petrol duties MUST BE USED to upgrade and improve the public transport system and infrastructure.
2) Remove most of the regulations with regards to private bus operators so that they can operate much more freely and compete with SBS and SMRT
3) Merge SBS NEL and SMRT into one railway corporation to cut unnecessary duplications. The savings can be used to reduce the fares for passengers. This was done in Hong Kong when Kowloon-Canton Railway (KCR) and MTR merged into the now MTR Corp.
4) As taxis are closer substitutes to owning a private car than buses and trains, charge taxis much lower ERP such that people would avoid driving and call a taxi. They may even think twice of owning a car in the first place. You rather have more taxi rides than having more cars on the road.
5) Half of the PTC should comprise of those who DO NOT DRIVE and take public transport.
6) Agreements must be signed between the Government and the public transport giants that in return for having the monopoly to operate the railway network and bus routes for certain number of years, they must cap their profits at a certain %.
Anyone interested in taking up these suggestions?
Passerby, those suggestions have already been suggested…
* * *
Why Not Make Bus, Train Rides Free?
Other than the basic necessities of housing, food and education, the cost of transportation is probably one of the biggest expenditures of those in the last 20 per cent of the household income scale.
Statistics for the year 2003 show that households in this group have a take home pay of about $800 a month on average. A family of four would easily be spending about 40 to 50 per cent of this on transportation.
The money would go on the husband and wife’s combined bus/MRT fares just to get to and from work, and for their children to go to and from school. Trips to the market, a movie, tuition class or a hawker centre would be extra.
To people in such a tight financial situation, the catchphrases for the 2005 Budget (Creating opportunity, building community) and the 2006 Budget (Building on our strengths, creating our best home) will mean little – unless these are translated into something tangible, significant and pervasive.
Holistic approach
One way to do this, of course, is to help this low-income group. Considering the sum they have to pay for the necessity of travelling, the most effective way to ease their burden would be for the authorities to pay their transport bill.
Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on installing the Emas information system – which merely tells motorists how many minutes it will take them to get from where they are to various destinations – and other high-tech gimmicks of questionable value to commuters, surely it would make more sense to use that money to fund free bus and train services.
How can, you may say. That is tantamount to Singapore taking a giant step down the slippery slope that leads to a “welfare state”.
But that is far from the case, if the country takes a holistic approach to the matter, rather than view Singapore’s transportation system in compartmentalised silos of public transport and private transport, which is the situation now.
This is why: To pay for the free bus and rail system, I propose using the monies from motor vehicle taxes and vehicle quota premiums.
Consider – for the eight-year period from financial year 1997 to 2004, the average revenue collected from these two sources was $3.73 billion a year. Just over half of this amount – $1.99 billion annually – was used to develop the country’s transport infrastructure, that is, its roads, air terminals etc.
Which means, there was a surplus of $1.795 billion a year.
This sum is more than sufficient to fund Singapore’s public bus and rail services fully.
There would even be a hefty surplus of more than $1 billion if the two companies that run these services are merged.
According to SBS Transit’s 2005 annual report, the company’s total operating expenses was $533.2 million for the year ending Dec 31, 2005. Of this, 49 per cent or $261.2 million was spent on wages for staff.
SMRT Corp’s 2006 annual report reveals that its total operating expenses was $$572.9 million for the year ending March 31, 2006. Of this, 44.3 per cent or $253.5 million went to pay staff and related costs.
Private transport funding
If both SBS and SMRT are de-listed, then merged and converted into a non-profit statutory board running free bus and rail services, a lot of the expenses associated with fare collection – equipment, hardware and software – will be eliminated.
At the same time, most of the costs related to business development, investor relations, corporate disclosure and compliance, quarterly reporting and finance can be drastically reduced.
Having this new, merged agency will result in a much lower bill for wages, as only one set of administrative and support staff will be needed instead of two. Moreover, the cost of two sets of market-driven salaries for high-powered top management can be replaced with one set for an equally professional and competent team.
There will also be savings from the synergies arising from the elimination of duplicate routes and maintenance equipment.
At the same time, the SBS and SMRT’s taxi companies should be privatised, which means the expenses associated with running these cab services can be excluded from the operating costs of the new merged agency.
Doing all this could slash the new agency’s total operating expenses by at least 40 per cent, from $1.12 billion a year, which both SBS and SMRT pay now, to around $650 million annually.
Win-win-win situation
If Singapore plumps for this radical route, it will probably be the first large-scale implementation of a free public transport system in the world.
And one that is funded not by the government, but by motorists.
This would avoid any taint of social welfare and allow vehicle owners to have the satisfaction of seeing their motor taxes put to tangible as well as good use.
Moreover, with free public transport, a segment of this group will be greatly encouraged to switch from private to public transport – something which the authorities are currently working to achieve. If the switch does happen, it would ease the demand for more cars and more roads.
As a side benefit, tourists will be pleasantly surprised to have the unusual privilege of free public transport, which could increase the number of visitors here.
At the same time, taxi services will be prodded to become more competitive, which will benefit consumers too.
That promise of “Building on our strengths, creating our best home” will no longer merely sound good. It will be seen to be actually happening. And once again, Singapore will underline its already recognised ability to solve traffic problems.
Most importantly of all, poorer citizens will have a huge financial burden lifted from their shoulders.
RH:
1. “T” above mentioned an article probably from this PAP site : http://www.pap.org.sg/articleview.php?folder=PT&id=1547
by a Mr QUAH Soon Tong.
2. The suggestions are good but surprising for a PAPist — surprising because they reveal an ignorance of what the LIEgime is all about, what its true 5 Aims really are [see my essay in http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/06/university-admissions-employment-and-help-for-the-poor/#comment-12416
-- just scroll down to my LAST Comment of 21 paragraphs, ignore the earlier, shorter, incomplete, versions].
3. They also reveal a hopefulness, a hope that the LIEgime is about good govt, or governing in the interests of the people instead of for itself [5 Aims], alas, a hope long betrayed right from 1959.
4. They also reveal a belief that things can change, for the better, and that all it takes is to suggest good ideas for improvements to happen. Another belief wrongly founded.
5. They reveal a misunderstanding of the nature of Power and how it Transforms almost every powerful man or woman into his/her worst manifestation possible, to the point of Absolute Evil even as they look themselves in the mirror every day and see a halo. Or wear White.
6. Finally, they reveal a naivete and a Sheepish mind to swallow all that PAPaganda, doubtless very powerful, the most extensive brainwashing in the history of mankind, over half a century so many have known nothing else, since, until the Internet, there WAS nothing else, to contradict the Offical Versions of Everything. This is why TOC is so vitally important. I state this somewhat worryingly, that my opinion thus may cause it to be destroyed, either bought out — its leaders and majors bought out, either directly or indirectly, even unknowingly, through job placements, deliberate time constraits, etc, in any of numerous ways the richest and most powerful govt in history has at its disposal. But I know that what TOC has already done, has started, will not easily be destroyed even if TOC is. Another will arise, and another, and another. ‘Nature abhors a vacuum’, which is why it abhors the LIEgime and the PAP. They are truly EMPTY.
Some observations on the stretch of highway before & after the Fort Road gantry. I use this highway everyday for the last 2 years.
About 1 KM after the gantry, there is a speed camera. Most drivers, just to be safe, slows down. Moving forward, there is the climb up Sheares Bridge and its common to see heavier vehicles (vans, bus and lorries as well) on lane 2. For heaven’s sake, this is a 4 lane highway! What are the slow moving vehicle doing in lane 2?
To make matter worse, the slip road from the ECP service road joins ECP just before the gantry. As all drivers would have noticed, vehicles will try to squeeze their way in the leftmost lane and quickly try to get into the 2nd leftmost lane. Well this slows down traffic considerable, and conviently just before the ERP.
With all these obstacles (slip rd, speed camera, steep bridge), how not to have slow traffice?!
Is it justifiable to charge ERP here? My experience (between 7:30 – 8:00 AM) is that there is practically no jam until after the Fort Rd flyover. At most, the jam is about 2 KM (from Fort Rd) and its all over 1/2 to 3/4 way up the bridge. With the new average speed method of determing slow traffic and ERP rates, I am waiting for the rate to go down. I am not holding my breadth though.
So, get rid of the speed camera, improve the slip road access or better still divert it and I am sure they won’t be anymore jams.
I have no idea how to get those heavy vehicle off lane 2 in a 4 lane highway though, short of having traffic cops there to book them for road hogging. Anyone know of this is still an offence?
I suspect that because it is so easy and relatively cheaper, compared to improving/widening the roads for e.g., that LTA will just build gantry to “manage” traffic rather than spend more $ to improve at least some sections of the highway (need not have 1 more lane the entire length of ECP) to alleviate the traffice jam.
remember in my previous comment, where i said, come election, everyone will vote PAP?
and that PAP will use scare tactics to make sure the public vote for them?
Check out what MM Lee has just said – Singapore will crumble if PAP is not in power….
http://news.asiaone.com/News/the%2BStraits%2BTimes/Story/A1Story20080626-72963.html
nice…very nice…
In other countries we see riots on increasing oil price. In Singapore we have to coup with rising oil price and rising ERP cost. I hope the Singapore government spare a thought for the citizens here. We are good but when rubber is over stretch it may snap one day.
Now they said more ERP putted up will overcome the slow flowing traffic, ( true fact more revenue will be collected too.) When one day many more traffic appears on the road due to our population increases or more arrival of the FT, b’cause by that time many more will drive. So additional ERP will need to be installed again . Will this end???? In real fact can ERP solve the problem, or is that the $$$ is the actual fact???
ERP is Tailor-made for rich ppl. Those who earns alot doesn’t care how much ERP to pay. ERP only deters to low / middle income earners.
SO i would say this is a plan made for the rich and for the rich to enjoy. The poor will suffer.
As to the ERP $$. Where does it all go? THe ministers bonuses? Why doesn’t we see these $$ being pump back into the community like preventing the hike of bus and train fares?
Can someone enlighten me?
123) Brucee on October 10th, 2008 2.55 pm As to the ERP $$. Where does it all go?
Direct or indirectly, they goes into maintaining the those obscene papee ministers salaries, no choice the old man needs all these ppl to pull votes for the next GE to win the next 5 years term and continue his tomenting of the citizens.
why don’t we stop for a moment, dismantle the erp concept and clear it off our heads and than think about this.
1. is there no other way than to tax the motorist in order to control car population and road traffic?
2. why must the motorist pay for a policy that discriminates against them?
3. why can’t the govt pay to control the car population and traffic congestion?
i think we are so accustomed to ‘paying and paying’ that we’ve forgotten that we need not have to solve all problems by paying.
why can’t the govt dangle some cash incentives to encourage the public to use public transport instead?
why can’t the public transport commuters be given rebates of say $30 – $50 a month? I am sure the car population and road congestion will vanish overnight.
if the carrot is not big enough, increase it to $100 a month. don’t tell me it won’t work.
the only reason it won’t work is because the govt is not willing to part with the cash needed for such a scheme to work.
it’s all about money. to use our money or the money with the govt.
Wonder whether our Millions $$$$ ministers pay ERP when they travel around the Little Red Dot island???
The Singapore dream has collapsed already , the government ran out of new ideas long ago , and is out of step with whats going on in the world. Also nothing is really done for the Singaporean population , only publicity and threats , all is done to attract so called talanted foreigners , and have cheap foreign labour . If this is read correctly and only outside talent will do , then the Singapore education system has failed .
And to be honest , will real talented people come to small insignificant Singapore , with little or no prospects , having worked in Singapore is not something to be on a CV or be proud of.
I wish we were following the HK system.
From Wikipedia: on a per-capita basis they have 1/2 the number of cars we do. 90% of daily trips are done by public transport. They have fewer km of public roads as well. And fewer taxis. Yet they are able to cope.
I really think we should start REDUCING the number of cars. Get people to wean themselves off the supposed “need” for them. Good for the environment too.
But to do that will require a MASSIVE investment effort into speed and accessibility in the public transport system (including taxis).