Appendix to DPM Tharman's Description of CPF

To be read with the Straits Times article:

CPF is:

1. SUSTAINABLE - for the government that is, because a defined contribution scheme is by definition self-funded and hence the government bears no risk for you not being able to afford your retirement. Whether or not CPF is sustainable for *you* is a different story altogether. 


2. FLEXIBLE - to the extent that you can spend your *own* money only on the things that the government allows you to spend on, subject of course to the alphabet soup of gotcha limits, e.g. MSS, VL and WL, MMS, which incidentally, are moving goalposts.


3. SECURE - to the extent that debt issued by a sovereign government in its own currency can always be repaid in full in nominal terms. Don't ask Tharman about security relative to purchasing power or the continued strength of the Singdollar. He'll think you're being rude.


4. FAIR - in that the rates of interest paid are appropriate given the zero rate interest environment brought on by the Federal Reserve's ZIRP policy. No mention of how the ZIRP environment has been in effect for only a handful of years, while the CPF interest rate has remained unchanged for decades.
   
   Don't ask Tharman about how fair the interest rate is relative to the inflation rate, or how the concept of "illiquidity premium" applies in the case of CPF. He'll think you're an ungrateful git for not realizing how generous the government is compared to the interest accruing on your bank account.

Sumptuary Laws - the MOE Edition

“Sumptuary laws (from Latin sumptuariae leges) are laws that attempt to regulate permitted consumption… In the Late Middle Ages, sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to cap the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie of medieval cities, and they continued to be used for these purposes well into the 17th century.“ – Wikipedia entry

The Straits Times ran an article today on funding cuts for six independent schools, as well as requesting that schools moderate fund-raising activities.

I agree with Bertha Harian. The article was poorly reported and instead of informing the reader, left him or her with more questions.

It’s not hard to see where the motivation behind these cuts (and the accompanying loud but incoherent publicity) come from. Income and wealth inequality have become sensitive topics, and the government, in an effort to convince the citizenry that it’s behind the little guy (and hence not lose votes in the next election) is suddenly draping itself in socialist vestments.

Leaving aside how genuine the sentiment behind wanting to narrow inequities is, as opposed to merely a cynical exercise in electioneering, one really must tease apart how effective such measures are in achieving their purported goal. This post also aims to address other peripheral issues.

My thoughts:

1.       Even with official frowning over fund-raising for lavish new swimming pools and tennis courts, “good” schools will always find a way a differentiate themselves, just as the wealthy subverted sumptuary laws in centuries past. Latest example: five star hotels in China seeking to “de-star”themselves (but probably finding some other way to up the luxury ante) so that corrupt Chinese officials can continue to stay there. Gold leaf mooncakes are so passé.

Who knows what elite Singapore schools will spend on, now that conspicuous consumption is out?

I can think of a few ideas. I attended Anglo Chinese School in my salad days years ago on government largesse. I was in the school band for a year, and the set-up in the ACS band then was that new recruits had to sign up (and pay) for a few months of private group lessons with instructors. These lessons were held by section (e.g. clarinets, flutes, trumpets etc.)

The conductor for the band was an active member of the Singapore Symphony Orchestra (he played the trumpet), and the instructors were his colleagues from the SSO. While lessons were mandatory only for the first few months, we were strongly encouraged to continue having them on an ongoing basis to improve our abilities. I doubt any other secondary school band in Singapore back then (and perhaps even now) enjoyed the advantage of having musicians from the SSO as regular instructors for all their band members.

The lessons were paid for by students ($50 per student per month if I recall correctly). So, as far as I know, ACS didn’t finance the extra training. But that’s not to say ACS couldn’t have chosen to do so.

The experience of how the ACS band operated sure put the Singapore Youth Festival into perspective for me. Early on in life as a student, instead of knowing the SYF as a celebration of a well-rounded education, I instead learnt the importance of the role of money behind excellence and achievement. And school rankings needless to say.

(Post script: As a lower middle class student in the GEP paying just $12 a month in school fees, my father found it ridiculous that he had to pay $50 a month for private music lessons when education under the GEP was supposedly subsidized. There were a few ugly scenes in school, and after some wrangling between my parents and my teachers, to save myself embarrassment and long awkward conversations with my teachers, I left the band of my own accord and joined another CCA. On hindsight, this negative experience with money and education probably influenced me signing up for a government scholarship later in life.)

2.       Any curtailment in legacy admissions, which the article highlights as one of the measures to be imposed, is bound to elicit howls of protest or at the very least, grumbling from disgruntled alumni.

Which may not be a bad thing from schools’ perspective. Scarcity goods enjoy a premium. Expect even bigger and fatter donations from alumni parents anxious to get their kids into their alma mater. You know the Chicago song, “When you’re good to Mama…”? Exactly.

All this sort of makes the funding cuts and restrictions on fund-raising moot.

3.       So, what’s to be done if we really want to narrow inequalities in the educational system?

One way is to increase funding to lower ranked schools. One of the ironies in the Singapore educational system is that it is precisely the most advantaged students who receive the most funding, like the Gifted Education Program for instance. Although as a GEP alum I am grateful for the funding, the fact is that even by my time 20 years ago, the majority of the kids in my GEP class in ACS were indistinguishable from the regular ACS kids when it came to socio-economic background. I was one of the rare kids in my class who lived in an HDB flat, something really unusual in ACS. (I was odd in other ways too, such as walking to school and only entering the program in Secondary 1 instead of Primary 4, the so-called ‘supplementary intake’).

The article doesn’t go into specifics as to whether redistributing funding is what MOE is going to do going forward. A related measure is to make ‘bonus’ funding conditional on improving academic outcomes for incoming cohorts of students rather than on absolute achievement. This would favor schools with a lower base of achievement that prove that they can produce improved outcomes.

As for breaking open the “closed circles” that our elite schools have evolved into, encouraging kids from lower income households to apply to higher ranked institutions could be one solution. However, affirmative action or income diversity quotas may have very mixed results. Speaking as a formerlower income student in an elite institution, I can categorically state that psychologically, it’s tough to be a kid from a lower income household in a good school.

And I was one of the top students in my cohort. Without having private tuition which is ubiquitous today. Academics has always been low stress for me (compared to social interactions), but I can imagine that being lower income and struggling academically in an elite institution could be potentially an enormous source of stress.

My preferred strategy for leveling the playing field if I was in charge of setting education policy? Teachers. Sending the best teachers to the most disadvantaged schools.

A conversation with a teacher in my NS platoon during one of our interminably boring ICTs revealed to me that MOE scholars, the crème de la crème of the teaching profession, typically get assigned to the better schools after graduation. Again, this feeds back into the irony that the most advantaged students in our system receive the most and best resources, and you can’t get a better resource than a good teacher.

Ostensibly, the rationale for this is that MOE scholars are being groomed for leadership positions in the educational system and perhaps the larger civil service. So, exposure to opportunities is important for their career development, and what is true for students is just as true for the teachers. Good schools simply have more to offer teachers in terms of resources, interesting projects and resume-building opportunities.

While I understand that there is a master teacher career track for teachers who wish to specialize in *gasp* teaching, I don’t think it’s a terrible leap of imagination to realize that between the management and the teaching track, one track enjoys far greater prestige and money. Ergo, that’s where the talent gravitates to.

Which is why the Equity Project in New York City is so interesting. In this charter school, teachers are paid USD125,000 per year, twice as much as other public school teachers, and the idea is that the quality of the teaching talent will make a real difference in student outcomes These teachers are literally a ‘dream team’ – the Physical Education teacher was Kobe Bryant’s personal trainer. Given the longitudinal nature of educational outcomes, it’s hard to know if this experiment will pan out the way its supporters expect it to. But it certainly bears watching.

Riot in Little India - What could happen next: Considerations and Consequences

I was a little surprised to hear that a riot happened last night in Little India. But not very.

The benefits and necessities of massive immigration have been repeated ad nauseum by the government. In contrast, for years, I have warned of the unintended consequences of immigration, which include erosion of social cohesion and the increased risk of civil unrest.

I do not intend to recap the details of the Little India riot in this post. If you are reading this, you should be well-apprised of the details reported in local media. What I will discuss are perspectives that I think not many people will realize, and what I think will happen next.


That a riot happened is not a surprise. That Singaporeans are genuinely shocked is.

Seriously, with fully 30% of the population here foreign-born, and a large chunk of migrant labor coming from lower educated and poorer countries with more violent histories of protest than Singapore, why should it be a surprise that a riot can occur? Forbes has an article with a similar sentiment as mine.

The police commissioner said that "the incident last night was not the Singapore way".

Indeed. However, one third of the population here is not Singaporean. On balance, looking at the sheer numbers of immigrants, arguing that everyone who lives here should conform to the "Singapore way" is foolhardy at best, and at worst, rings of either naivete or hubris.

As to why foreign workers could be so unhappy as to riot in the streets, I do not know. It could simply be a case of emotions running high after seeing a kinsman fatally knocked down and then escalating into a riot.

What I do know is that based on well-documented incidents by TWC2 of how foreign workers are abused in Singapore, there are plenty of reasons for a foreign worker in Singapore to be less than happy. If later investigations reveal an underlying current of simmering resentment that drove the workers to riot, I would not be surprised to find out.


The government has no good choices of how to respond to this incident. Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again.

A riot by foreign workers happened last night. Nothing can change that fact.

This raises so many obvious questions among Singapore citizens and residents.

Is it safe in Singapore? Is it safe to go to Little India?
Why did the riot happen?
Will riots happen again?
How should the rioters be dealt with?
What will this do to labor relations with our migrant workers?
What does this mean for our country's immigration policy?

The most damaging consequence of this incident is that it illustrates that Singapore is not immune to civil unrest. The illusion that massive uncontrolled immigration is an unalloyed good has been shattered.

That the riot was caused by foreign workers calls into question the wisdom of our immigration policy AND underscores the importance of how we as citizens and Singaporeans navigate our relationships with the foreigners in our midst.

The government has no good choices as to how to respond to this incident. If they are seen as not prosecuting the arrested to the fullest extent of the law and meting out justice, some Singaporeans, the more xenophobic ones, will perceive this as softness. Already, we can read comments online excoriating the rioters and blaming them for threatening Singapore's stability.

If the government does not exercise restraint in its response however, the consequences could be dire too. A harsh response could be reasoned to have a deterrent effect; yet it could equally have a inflammatory effect and lead to a higher likelihood of more riots and civil disturbances, such as strikes.

Remember, there are thousands of foreign workers here. And even though we think of rioting as irrational behavior, when you are a foreign worker in a foreign land incensed at what you perceive as unfair treatment of your peers, the calculus of what is 'rational' is very different.

Even irrational behavior looks reasonable when you can find enough people to agree with you, and again I remind the reader, we have thousands of foreign workers here.

If I were an employer in the construction industry hiring hundreds of foreign workers, I would be worried.


"With so much chaos, someone will do something stupid."

I'm aware that I'm probably hyperventilating a little here, but let's hope that no one actually does something stupid, either foreigner or Singaporean. Something stupid meaning another incident that could fan the flames of discord and lead to another major civil disturbance.

The quote is from the movie V for Vendetta. It is taken out of context here, but the parallel should be clear. It is right for the government to appeal for calm.

Despite the riot, imposing a curfew, rules on assembly or stricter policing in Little India is asking for trouble.

Why are there so many foreign workers in Little India anyway?

It should not be hard to empathize and understand why. Because Little India feels like home to many foreign workers. And for a few hours at least, a foreign worker can pretend that he is not far away from family and a life he understands and instead in a cold metropolis of glass and steel.

So, why do I think that imposing heavier rules and policing in Little India is a bad idea?

Here's a passage from The Front Runner by Patricia Nell Warren, possibly the most celebrated gay love story ever. The passage is from the protagonist's recollection of the Stonewall riots and I reproduce it here to illustrate what might happen when law enforcement encroaches into a space occupied by a marginalized minority:

"The street was full of cops and flashing red lights.But what was more amazing, the street was full of hundreds of gays, and they were fighting the cops. For years they...submitted to harassments and arrest...But the night of Stonewall, they made the instant visceral decision that they had had enough. They were throwing rocks and bottles...They were fighting New York's Finest with their bare hands.

I watched with growing anger and sorrow. I didn't drink, but those bars were about the only public places where gays could be themselves. No straight could understand how precious they were to us. I had always believed in law and order, supported the police. But those cops were busting me...They were riding over me with their big horses and shoving me into vans handcuffed...

Then an amazing thing happened. I had a rock in my hand, and I threw it."

A enlarged police presence in Little India will likely have the effect of fueling resentment and ironically, may lead to a higher risk for future riots. Yet, some may feel that the government needs to make a show of force to demonstrate it takes public order seriously. I am neither for one or the other. Again, I reiterate. There are no good choices here. Humpty Dumpty lies broken and in pieces.

With what has happened last night, we can only hope that such an incident is a one-off and Singaporeans can put it behind us.

Yet, the disquietude persists.

Diversity in the Top Echelons of the Public Sector

Eddie Teo wrote another open letter on PSC scholarships a few days ago. It was on *The Value of Diversity*. 

You may find it here. 

I commented on his previous letter here, and I will comment on his latest one here in this post.

My first reaction on reading his letter? Rolling my eyes inwardly, with the word "tosh" appearing in my mind.

It's all well and good that the PSC is actively soliciting scholars from less selective schools.

Unfortunately, it's a long distance from budding scholar to head honcho policymaker. And guess what? The head honchos today are the products of yesterday's scholar selection process, which means that while today's scholarship recipient may have a slightly lower probability of coming from Raffles JC or Hwa Chong, s/he almost certainly will be working under someone who did.

And who gets promoted faster? Not the mavericks, misfits or outlier types who come from non-pedigreed backgrounds, that's for sure.

"Those aspiring to be public servants should realise that their performance will often be enhanced if they can bring a new perspective to help tackle a public policy issue, gained by their stint in a “non-traditional” university or “non-traditional” country."

Oh, originality and imagination certainly get you brownie points, but Singapore's favorite kind of innovation has always been the kind that comes in a nice, neat box with a bow tied on top.

Science and engineering research? Only if there's a financial return on investment.

Arts and culture? Only if it's pretty and non-controversial, and preferably can be marketed as a tourist attraction.

Family values? Yes, certainly. No problems with keeping Section 377A on the statutes, but steamroll the casinos into Singapore over the protests. Sometimes, I really wish they did condone spousal rape and would sentence people to death for adultery here. At least it would be consistently medieval here and we would all be treated equally as serfs.

Scholars fresh out of university, who have had good grades throughout school and the same sparkling CCA records, are the most vulnerable to craving external validation. I should know: I was a scholar once upon a time too.

Your unconventional scholars with non-traditional perspectives are going to adapt to innovate within a tightly circumscribed space, drinking the Kool-Aid as it were, which will render them indistinguishable from their more pedigreed peers, or they will exit the system out of sheer frustration. 

We also do not care what schools they come from when deciding on whether or not to award a scholarship. Several of this year’s President’s Scholars came from neighbourhood primary schools [Emphasis mine].

Translation:

Yes, because of the angst-filled and heart attack-inducing process of primary one registration (just ask young parents), we know that getting into a name brand primary school is a complete crapshoot. So, obviously, we won't hold it against you.

Now, secondary schools on the other hand...

What is not said is sometimes more important than what is said...

Just as the government is changing the way it governs Singapore, Public Service leaders are learning how to manage a new generation of younger public servants, who want greater participation and more voice. The PSC’s effort to bring diversity into the Public Service will come to nought if divergent views are discouraged within the system and those who dare to question assumptions and have a non-conventional perspective are not valued and appreciated.

Eddie's thinking here is that by recruiting these non-traditional scholars from non-traditional backgrounds, they will be the leading edge of the Public Service's transformation into a more diverse and dynamic civil service.

My problem with this view is that these non-traditional scholars will either exit the system before they attain leadership positions, or they will be assimilated by the system they were meant to change from within.

Do we have evidence for the latter? Of course we do. 

While it does not follow that only those with a less fortunate background can empathize with the poor,...

...Yes, there are a few scholar public servants who lack humility and have forgotten that they are where they are because of the support and help from those around them.

The converse is not necessarily true either. The kicker is that sometimes, it is precisely the people who rose up from the bottom who turn out to the least sympathetic ones of all. Mah Bow "affordable" Tan and Ng Eng Hen came from supposedly humble backgrounds, but look at how sensitive they are to the lower strata of Singapore society. See here for instance.

Groupthink already exists in the public sector. We know this because our government willfully sticks its fingers in its ears and went "la, la, la" when we told it years ago that current immigration policy is unsustainable, and that housing and public transportation is badly in need of new investment. 

Groupthink by its very nature perpetuates itself. Thank you Eddie, for striving to put new wine in old bottles. Personally, I would do something about the bottles instead, but good on you for trying.

On the Parliament Vote to Endorse the Population White Paper - Redux: Who didn't vote?

As promised in a previous post, I kept a close watch on the release of the votes and proceedings of the parliamentary vote held on 8 February to endorse the controversial population white paper.

You may find the proceedings here. Naturally, I saved a copy to my hard drive. Even with legislation that compels the government to release this information, I have zero trust in the PAP in such matters.

And given the compromised nature of the mainstream media in reporting political news, you will never hear the specifics of the proceedings in the Straits Times, so if you find this blog post enlightening, please disseminate this as far as possible. Our citizenry need to be informed citizenry if we are to have influence in charting the course of this nation of ours.

Given the short attention spans of most people, I would not be surprised if many Singaporeans have forgotten about the specifics of who voted for what. And this was probably something that the PAP was counting on.

This post will serve as a reminder of the voting record on that fateful day.

From the parliamentary proceedings, in the matter of endorsing the population white paper, there were 77 ayes, 13 noes, and 1 abstention. There were 5 absentees on that day.

All opposition party MPs voted no.

All non-constituency MPs voted no.

Of the nominated MPs, Eugene Tan abstained, as is well known. Janice Koh, Faizah Jamal and Laurence Lien all voted against the motion, as is also known.

What was not stated in the mainstream media was that of the remaining five nominated MPs, Tan Su Shan was absent, while the remaining four voted aye.

These four, whose names were not mentioned in the media, are Nicholas Fang, Mary Liew, Ramy Dhinakaran and Teo Siong Seng.

Remember these nominated MP names. When the time comes to re-appoint the nominated MPs, it will be interesting to see who gets the nod for re-appointment, and who doesn't, and see how the re-appointment reconciles with this voting record.

Now, the most interesting part of this post.

There are 99 MPs in parliament. With 77 ayes, 13 noes, 1 abstention and 5 absentees, that still leaves 3 MPs unaccounted for.

It was known that Inderjit Singh absented himself during the vote, and well he did, given the misgivings he voiced out prior to the taking of the vote.

But who were the other two?

The answer is: Indranee Rajah and Ng Eng Hen. 

Read into that what you will. Myself? I would note that Ng Eng Hen is a Cabinet Minister, while Indranee Rajah is a Senior Minister of State, unlike Inderjit Singh who is just a regular MP. It's bad form for people that high up in the PAP hierarchy to absent themselves from a vote as widely watched as this one.

I do not have information on how or why they absented themselves. And our mainstream media doesn't seem to either, or doesn't want to tell us, or just plain doesn't want to know.


*Remember, if you found this post noteworthy, please disseminate.  As citizens, all of us need more information.

On the Parliament Vote to Endorse the Population White Paper

So much ink has been spilled on the Population White Paper. And many, many commentators have shredded it most capably in their analyses that I feel I have nothing fresh to add.

[In truth, I do have some unique opinions on the white paper and their 'sanguine' population projections. But because there are some uncertainties in my own predictions, I would prefer to wait for certain events to pass  before publishing my thoughts in the fullness of time.]

So, I am left to comment on peripheral issues. There are two in particular, one unrelated to the title of today's post. That one will be in a separate post. The topic for this post is below.

In the recent Parliamentary vote to endorse the White Paper, Low Thia Khiang called for a division to the motion.

The news article that I linked to above described it thus:

"WP leader Low Thia Kiang stunned those in attendance by standing up to ask the Speaker for a division to the motion, effectively meaning the House could not decide to pass the paper by a verbal vote. The House doors were then locked and the assembly took to an electronic vote.  "

Low Thia Khiang is more canny than most politicians. Certainly more so than your regular PAP MP who most likely coasted in on the coat-tails of a "heavy-weight" in a GRC.

Here is why Low Thia Khiang's request is important:

In the USA, there are many websites that record and consolidate the voting records of senators and representatives on bills presented before Congress.  One such website is Project VoteSmart. The idea behind such websites is that citizens can better distinguish between what politicians say and what they actually do. 

In particular, as a citizen, because you elect someone and send him or her to Parliament to represent you and your interests, it behooves you, then, to check that your representative votes on legislation in accordance to your wishes. Checking your representative's voting record is one way of seeing whether you've been taken for a ride during the election campaign.

In the vote to endorse the White Paper, there were 77 "ayes", 13 "nays" and 1 abstention. All "ayes" came from the PAP. The sole abstention was from NMP Eugene Tan. 

Notwithstanding the PAP party whip, tellingly, because there are a total of 99 MPs, there are still 8 MPs unaccounted for, 5 of which are NMPs and 3 are from the PAP. Inderjit Singh was the most prominent in being absent from the vote, being a PAP MP and one who had openly voiced his misgivings prior to the vote.

In another news article, he was quoted as saying, "All I want to say is I was not present for the vote. I spoke from my heart and will do what I can to change things."

Thanks to Low Thia Khiang's request for a division to the motion, who voted for what is now a permanent part of the parliamentary record. Clearly, a lot of people are interested in this. I expect that the record of that parliamentary vote will be found here soon.

We will see what the coming years ahead hold. And in 2016 or earlier when the next elections are held, some PAP MPs may regret not absenting themselves as Inderjit Singh did.

Even if they backtrack on their endorsement in the interim, if nothing else, because of Inderjit Singh's example, the voting record would show them to have been either spineless or indecisive.

SMRT Strike - Breaking the sacred chain of command

Yawningbread had a post on the recent SMRT bus strike. In his post, he commented on the ineffectiveness of official channels for dispute resolution. Here’s the pertinent section:

The government has also said, repeatedly, that workers should have “discussed” their issues with management. Knowing Chinese workers, I am sure they have, many times and loudly. It’s in their nature. The problem is that the system is stacked against them. It’s a very Singaporean system: where lower-rank people don’t have rights to justice, but can only plead for better treatment. It’s a microcosm of the political system this government has created. Citizens have no substantive rights; they can only plead for their wishes to be taken into account. There’s a term for this: The petitionary state.

My first reaction to this was: but the Chinese workers came from *the* original petition state (see here for instance), so surely they should comprehend the Singapore system perfectly. 

But I digress. Snarky humor aside, I have another insight to share. But first, let me tell you a story.

I used to work in a division of a quasi-government company headed by a former SAF general. He had a pet peeve, and here when I use the word “peeve”, I really mean (from the perspective of the general) reprehensible, egregiously bad behavior that deserves to be excoriated in the strongest possible terms.

You get the idea.

This pet peeve was what the general called “breaking the chain of command”.

He would expound on the importance of the chain of command every time a complaint surfaced from the staff at the ground level, bypassing him to reach the ears of human resource, other senior management, or the CEO himself.

In simple terms, he hated it every time a problem in his division cropped up without coming up through the official channels, namely through him. He probably thought it made him look bad, which to be fair, is a pretty logical deduction to make.

His take was that even if a problem required the CEO’s intervention, the request should be escalated through him rather than brought up directly by the individual.

It never occurred to him that part of the problem was with him, that some staff were either not comfortable coming to him with their grievances or that they felt their concerns would not be properly addressed.

The uncharitable would add that most people avoided coming to him because they expected (correctly, as was unfortunately often the case) that his initial reaction would be to stonewall them.

In my experience, the expectation of the general that all staff adhere to the chain of command was really not that unique of a trait among SAF personnel, both former and current. I clearly remember the commanding officer of my NSF battalion espousing a similar sentiment.

The point of the foregoing story is this:

Our government is stuffed to the gills with people who think this way, from former fulltime professional soldier officers like the recently anointed Chan Chung Sing and Tan Chuan Jin, to our Prime Minister who formerly held the illustrious rank of Brigadier General.

It should hardly come as a surprise that the government likes to stress the importance of working through official channels when it comes to resolving disputes.

There are lots of issues worth exploring here.

One issue is whether recourse can truly be found through official channels in Singapore. Whether you think so or not depends on how cynical you are, and whether you have had firsthand experience navigating the system.

Yawning Bread has brought another issue into his post: namely the lamentable state of our petitionary state. That sounds quite anodyne really. I prefer to call it the PAP’s dictum to Singaporeans to “Be silent and be governed.” Citizens’ opinions don’t matter until seats in Parliament are suddenly up for grabs. The recent national conversation is really just a grand exercise in perception management.

My preferred issue to focus on is what this strong aversion to anything that doesn't originate from official channels tells us about the decision-making processes in the higher echelons of the Singapore government.

That the government constantly stresses that labor relations (and other matters by extension) can only be negotiated only within the ambit of official channels indicates that the government:

1. Cannot handle uncertainty. Our officials are world champions at planning, but are frequently caught flatfooted whenever a situation develops that they failed to anticipate. That’s not to say that other governments do better all the time in unscripted situations, but a tendency to over-plan typically means less of an ability to adapt to a changing situation. The fact that even elections are carefully choreographed affairs is not complimentary of our cabinet ministers. For supposed consummate actors in the rough and tumble world of politics, our ministers are in a word, coddled.
2. Cannot handle negative media attention. This has to do with point (1) above. Our officials are bad at adapting to dynamic situations. When was the last time we had a minister answer unscripted questions posed to them by an independent journalist or interviewer who had not been warned implicitly or explicitly to go easy on the minister?
3. Has an attitude that no news is good news.
4. And that what isn’t surfaced through official channels doesn’t exist and is hence officially NOT A PROBLEM. In other words, the PAP likes to operate within its own personal reality distortion field. Too bad they don’t have the charisma of Steve Jobs as well cuz they sure as hell need it.

Point number 4 above is the most important point. But the other points are related in that the PAP has been so effective at building a safe, controlled political environment for itself that it has started believing in its own propaganda and hence frames its governing decisions accordingly. That's a dangerous place to be, drinking your own Kool-aid.

The upshot of seeing things surfaced only through official channels means tunnel vision, and all the associated bad decision-making that goes with it. And we haven't even brought in the stonewalling that all too often blocks what you can see of the information that floats up through official channels.

Case in point is the recent SMRT strike where unhappiness had in fact been simmering on the ground for months.

The remarkable thing is that considering Singapore is so small, so tightly controlled and with such a precisely defined and controlled government machinery (including the media), that the government still cannot get reliable information and act on it is a severe indictment of its ability to sense-make and come to effective and appropriate decisions.

Who knows what other problems are out there just waiting to explode? All thanks to the reality distortion field associated with the chain of command.

But again, I come to the stupid or evil hypothesis for the PAP, which I can never decide between. Are they really that dense, or are they just plain evil and actually prefer the status quo, which while detrimental to the resilience of our society, benefits themselves and the entrenched power elite.

See Jon Stewart for a more elaborate explanation of the stupid-evil dichotomy.

I am personally more inclined toward the evil hypothesis, but I am also reminded of Hanlon's Razor.

SMRT bus driver strike - 2 years early, but still proven right

Today, local media reported on a strike by SMRT bus drivers hired from mainland China.

Local media called it a "dispute". The headline on asiaone read "SMRT bus drivers refuse to go to work".

What's that called again? Yeah, in other countries, it would be called a "strike", specifically a "wildcat strike" (raise up your hands and do the air quotes, people)

More than 2 years ago, I wrote a post on the unintended consequences of immigration. You can read it here.

I was early by 2 years, but still proven right in the end. Since I was proven right, it's useful to go back to revisit what I wrote because even I can't remember what thoughts were percolating through my mind back then and what *other* predictions I made that may eventually pan out as well.

The pertinent section from my 2-year old post:

We know of wildcat strikes in China at Honda factories. For better or for worse, immigrants to Singapore are generally not as ... tractable ... as native Singaporeans. If a critical part of our infrastructure like the public bus transport network is heavily dependent on foreigners of a particular ethnicity or creed, what happens if they have reason to get organized and demonstrate, protest or go on strike? 

Like the Falun Gong demonstration that happened in Singapore a while back? Or the diplomatic fracas that came in the wake of the Flor Contemplacion incident? There would potentially be a lot more unhappy Filipinos on Singapore soil today should a diplomatic incident like that happen again. And frankly, before 9/11, Singapore was lucky to not have sourced for immigrants from Muslim states that might subsequently have found our staunch relationship with the USA ... objectionable. 

What about our other industries? Electronics, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, construction? Any possibility of some adverse event occurring simply because we are so critically dependent on "hired help" in those industries? Nobody knows, and the MOM a'int talking. Maybe we should start asking. Just sayin'.

___

Perhaps our numerous generals-turned-cabinet ministers can advise us on what the national security implications are of depending so heavily on foreigners, when fully one third of the warm bodies here are not your typical compliant docile Singaporeans. That should be one area that they can truly claim to have expertise in.

If there has ever been a national policy document that details the risk-adjusted cost-benefit analysis of mass immigration, I'd certainly like to see it.

The drive for more babies...and the wrongheadedness of the approach.

The government is getting there...but still does not quite get it. Or chooses not to get it. Or believes it can have its cake and eat it too. Wishful thinking.

There were 2 articles and an editorial on encouraging Singaporean couples to have more babies. Very briefly, the first article was on NTUC pushing for 6 months paid maternity leave and an option to take a further 6 months unpaid. The second article was on changing employers' mindset to make for a more baby and mother friendly work environment. Finally, the editorial was on how a holistic approach was needed to encourage more babies, ranging from more hands-on fathers, to affordable childcare and preschool.

I shall deal with these one by one.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

The government had previously extended paid maternity leave by one month from 3 to 4 months, with our taxes picking up the tab. This was over and above the Baby Benefits, which are really tax breaks that are applicable only to those families that make enough money to pay taxes.

I will say this even if no one else wants to say it. Our Baby Benefits are targeted at couples in the upper middle class and above to have more kids, and no one else. The provenance of new babies matters to our government; heaven forbid that the poor go forth and multiply. This is one more example of how our government's policies favor the rich rather than the less privileged.

Let's also not forget state subsidies for in vitro fertilization, which is largely an option open only to the upper middle class.

After several years of the fertility rate continuing to languish at below replacement levels, I think we can conclude one thing. Throwing money at the problem, and increasing maternity leave is throwing money at the problem, is not a solution.

Why do I say increasing maternity leave is throwing money at the problem? Because no one makes the decision to have kids, a lifelong commitment, just for one or two more months of leave. Just like no one is fooled by the government's one-off or X-off GST rebates and Medisave top-ups in the face of what are permanent GST hikes and increased Medishield premiums.

My opinion on baby benefits has evolved over the years. Today, I believe that the couples who desire kids will have kids regardless of these Baby Benefits and perks. And those who won't, won't. The benefits are really just gravy for whoever already wants kids. In which case, these incremental benefits are a waste of tax dollars.

Is having a few months of maternity leave important? Yes. But is increasing it from 4 to 6 months going to help boost the fertility rate? No, I don't think so.

Thinking that applying the Scandinavian approach outside Scandinavia will work reflects an appalling lack of big picture perspective.


The second article was a wonder in naivete and ignorance.

In it, Ms Cham Hui Fong spoke on wanting to create a mini Denmark where there was high GDP growth, high female participation in the workforce and a high fertility rate.

Honey, we live in one of the most unequal societies on earth, where money is worshiped like a god, status is tied to how much you make and how much you spend, and the myth of meritocracy has taken root like the state religion. With meritocracy, you should get what you deserve, but the flipside is that you resent when people get what you feel they don't deserve. This is about as far from Scandinavia as you can get.

In a Scandinavian country like Denmark, the income and wealth distribution is relatively flat and taxes are progressive and high. This lends credence to the ideals of shared sacrifice both among individuals and companies, income redistribution, equal opportunity, societal values where family and relationships are prioritized, and work environments where workers are respected and valued.


In Singapore, GDP is what is valued. Economic growth is what is valued. Every time some form of social assistance is broached as an idea, the bogeyman of higher taxes is trotted out, we are reminded of what it will mean to our collective pocketbooks, and the idea is shot down.


Ms Cham is part of the establishment. She should know. We live in a society where we are taught to hold our noses to the grindstone early in life, that we need to scramble constantly for advantage.


Ms Cham spoke of changing employers' and colleagues' mindsets, saying that "Women need the peace of mind that they are not being victimized and marginalized just because they have a baby or have to spend more time at home."


Well, honey, guess what? In this country, when companies like SMEs are compelled to give say, 6 months of maternity leave, they feel victimized. In this country, when the norm for most working professionals is to knock off at 7, 8 pm, or even later, if they have to pick up the slack for a colleague on maternity leave, they feel victimized. When an unmarried worker has to shift their work patterns on account of flexi-work arrangements made specially for a worker with kids, they feel victimized.


Am I being anti-family? No, I am not. I am simply speaking of the realities on the ground. If we lived in a country where everyone knocked off at 5 pm and could go home and relax, the environment would be naturally kid-friendly and no one would bat an eyelid at maternity leave, paternity leave or family-friendly work arrangements.


But we don't live in such a country. Ms Cham talked about changing employers' and colleagues' mindsets. I have a news flash for her. You need to change the entire country's mindset.


A holistic approach is needed. 


Isn't it always the case? The editorial has it right in that affordable and available childcare and preschool must be part of the equation. I don't think the lack of hands-on fathers is a problem anymore, particularly among the upper middle class that the government is especially anxious to see reproducing.

However, I have one caveat to add, and this is linked to my second point above about changing society's mindset.

While it is thought to be important, providing greater and greater incentives to encourage couples to have kids may in fact, prove to have a divisive side-effect in this highly unequal, mercenary society of ours.

The benefits provided so far are in fact a form of affirmative action, but the reason that nobody complains is because most people see themselves starting families and having kids at some predefined point in their lives. But that may change in the not too distant future.



We already see sizeable segments of the population choosing not to have kids for various reasons. There are the avowed singles, the childless couples unwilling to sacrifice their careers and lifestyles, the LGBT community, and the marginalized minority, such as single parents.

In a Scandinavian country, such generous benefits would, as I have mentioned, not cause a furore, but be seen instead as a societal good.

In a country like ours however, some people may take issue with these benefits instead. Remember, we live in a country where being single practically bars you from owning your own home due to stratospheric property prices, the lack of a housing grant and affordable HDB loans, and being shut out from the market for new HDB flats.

Who can tell when benefits become too generous and arouse disgruntlement and resentment among sections of the population? I know I myself feel some disquietude already.

Quick Thoughts - "MPs rev up lobbying for more buses in their estates"

The front page article on today's Straits Times was "MPs rev up lobbying for more buses in their estate."

This is going to be a short and easy post, because shredding this article isn't going to take much effort.

The editors of the Straits Times obviously want to paint the story as one showing how the earnest, hardworking MPs (from the PAP) are doing all they can for their constituents as far as improving bus transportation in their wards go.

There's only one issue. If these PAP MPs truly had their constituents' interests in mind, they would have petitioned the government for better public transportation long ago. Instead, they whistled their way past the problem while hewing to the government's stand that "There's nothing to see here. Move along."

This is not your grandfather's "lobbying", as odious as that word is, bringing to mind bottom-feeding K street lobbyists. No, this is something more objectionable. Your PAP MPs are grandstanding and chest beating, jostling for advantage and strenuously protesting their constituents' needs now that there is official acknowledgement that "a problem exists". Funny how what wasn't a problem before suddenly afflicts every part of Singapore now. Our PAP MPs have never seemed more hollow and self serving.

In addition, to the astute and the observant, this is also a vivid demonstration of political influence. It's not going to be about which ward needs the most help. It's about who's closest to the center, and also where the most political points can be scored. It's about favor, reward and patronage.

Articles like this make me angry. Furious in fact. Our media isn't spineless or irresponsible. It's simply evil. It deliberately misleads, obfuscates and whitewashes. It makes people stupid to read it, smothers citizen engagement and in doing so, saps the vitality of the nation. Good citizens are thinking citizens. Calling the Straits Times the Singapore version of Pravda would be high praise.

Second, it has not escaped my attention that just two days ago, the results of a survey were published showing that overcrowding on public transportation by foreigners was a major gripe of survey respondents when asked about their attitudes towards foreigners and immigration.

It is no surprise then that the government is choosing to move in a big way to address public transportation woes. In doing so, it hopes to blunt criticism of its own immigration policy.

Again, there's just one problem, if you actually think about how people behave and how they think.

I think the unhappiness with foreigners here is multifaceted, and the average Singaporean, while being fed up to the back teeth with the situation, would probably still find it hard to articulate exactly what they're unhappy about. Add to that the fact that most people know instinctively that it is not politically correct to express disquietude over the situation, lest one be accused of being xenophobic. Nonetheless, the negative feelings remain, unexpressed.

This is why there are explosions of anti-foreigner vitriol and rhetoric every time some incident involving a foreigner happens, which in recent weeks have involved, as the stars would have it, traffic accidents. Three words apply here: incoherent, inchoate rage.

What is the most visible sign of what has become increasingly an intolerable situation? Answer: overcrowding on public transportation -- by foreigners. It is visible, and it is OK to criticize. And it's clearly a government created problem through their lack of investment. Types like Saw Phaik Hwa who didn't exactly endear themselves to the public also made public transportation fashionable to criticize.

That doesn't mean that alleviating the public transportation situation will absolve the government of blame for their immigration policy. Wishful thinking.

The hidden consequences of massive immigration

This post is terribly current given the state of the global economy and the spate of traffic accidents involving locals and foreigners. I didn't plan it this way, but here it is.

[BTW, the taxi-Ferrari accident couldn't have happened at a worst time for the PAP. The rational PAP elite would dismiss this as having no bearing on the Hougang by-election. Such a rational PAP elite would be a f***ing idiot in my opinion.]

___

As was amply demonstrated over the last several months since before the General Elections of 2011, the PAP government likes to strenuously protest that its ways are the right way. Then, after the GE campaign started looking less sanguine, it started getting religion, the highlight of which was the PM's unprecedented apology. 

But months after the GE, I think it's mostly been window dressing, backsliding and soft-pedaling on the hints of promises for reform and change, renewed justification of prior policies, and a belief that the current direction is fine, just that better perception management of us unwashed peasants is required.

Sort of the PAP equivalent of sticking the fingers in the ears and going lah-lah-lah-lah-lah.

Well, today, I'm going to talk about the hidden consequences of massive immigration [and this is over and above the spate of traffic accidents we are seeing]. 

Because I believe it is not going to be long before these hidden effects stop being hidden and start exerting themselves in ways that will make life very uncomfortable for the average Singaporean.

Even if the government is no longer handing out visas, PRs and pink ICs like candy at Halloween (and it's debatable that they have stopped doing so), the fact remains our population has almost doubled in the past 10 years, and the composition of our population has dramatically changed.

As a flaneur, an observer of the city, I am going to stick my head out and make some predictions. Take what you read here with a pinch of salt, as these are mere prognostications of an Internet blogger. Still, if these predictions come to pass, remember, you read them here first.

First, the preamble. I believe the precipitating event for these hidden consequences will the next global recession, or rather the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 Continued, since that particular drama hasn't actually ended; the debt was merely transferred onto sovereign balance sheets. For reasons too long to discuss here, I believe that the next recession will be particularly bad for countries that currently run trade surpluses. So, countries like Singapore that appear to be coasting along swimmingly just now will probably see their economies pancaked in the next couple of years.

The "morning after" of massive immigration...when the next recession hits:

1. We know that foreigners are quite often preferentially hired over qualified Singaporeans by employers, particularly when the hiring managers are foreigners, and especially so when they come from countries that are known to be more...clannish. Heck, some hiring managers are even brazen enough to advertise specifically for foreigners of a certain nationality.

Well, when the next recession strikes, don't be surprised if Singaporeans are preferentially retrenched over foreigners. There are no safeguards in place today, and even if there were, the government would be weak at enforcing them. Besides, as soon as employers cry hardship, the PAP government will cave like a cheap whore on a slow night.

2. Structural unemployment will almost certainly increase.

If you've ever had to look for a job in recent years, you'll know that today, job descriptions / specifications are written in incredibly narrow terms. If you aren't doing exactly the same thing in your current or previous job, you're unlikely to get callbacks for interviews. This is partly a function of an extremely open immigration policy where companies can source employees from wherever they wish.

This isn't just about hiring managers writing job descriptions in narrow terms so that they can hire someone they already have in mind. It's also about companies being unwilling to invest in training and wanting only to hire someone who can be immediately productive. And Singapore's immigration policy encourages this line of thinking.

When a recession hits, companies that have long been used to hiring staff that are immediately productive are unlikely to change their minds about hiring workers that may have industry-relevant experience, but no job-specific experience.   

3. In a bad economy, a lot of foreigners will leave the country. What works well on the upturn works just as well on the downdraft.

Singapore is an expensive city to live in. It's even more expensive when you're a foreigner. And foreigners are frequently singles who spend a big chunk of their income each month.

That means that foreigners probably account for a massive amount of discretionary consumer spending in our economy. If a foreigner loses his job and decides to balik kampung, he takes all his spending with him. That isn't going to be pretty by any measure. Suddenly, I think we'll see a lot more boarded up restaurants, bars, clubs, hair salons, nail parlors, retailers and the like. 

Which brings me to point number 3...

4. The market for goods and services will shrink. Expect fewer choices in the future.

Remember, a big reason why Singapore is oh-so-cosmopolitan and you can get your Gap, H&M and Topshop here now without going overseas is because having doubled or even tripled our working (and spending) population, Singapore as a market is now large enough to accommodate several niches for various consumer goods and services.

If you've gotten used to the wider range of goods and services, not just in retail, but in restaurants, bars, clubs, salons, bakeries, upscale grocers, boutique bike shops, rock concerts, theater performances, museum exhibitions...think about the bad old days when you wished Singapore wasn't such a cultural backwater...cuz those days could make a reappearance faster than you think.

5. With fewer foreigners, the property market will plummet, taking everyone invested in property with it.

No surprises here. The amazing thing is not that property prices have gone up in a big way in the last decade, or that people are up to their eyeballs in mortgage debt. The amazing thing is that so few people I've talked to realize that for these property prices to be sustained, not only do we need our foreigners to stay, we also need (a) the supply of housing to continue to be throttled (which is unlikely to happen now that Mah Bow Tan has exited stage right) and (b) the rate of immigration continues to be sustained at the high level of previous years.

(b) is simply not going to happen because it is politically untenable and the infrastructure is already coming off the rails (literally).

If foreigners actually start leaving because of a weak economy and the high cost of living in Singapore, the property market will collapse like a house of cards.

6. Many foreigners will stay on in Singapore. And that's actually a bad thing.

Realistically speaking, even in a global recession, prospects are still better for some foreigners here than back home, or elsewhere. I'm talking about Filipinos, PRCs, Myanmarese, perhaps the odd Greek or Irishman too. That's partly a function of how bad some other countries are doing, and also a function of how undiscriminating how government has been in the quality of the skilled/unskilled immigrants that it has let in. See the above comment on handing out visas, PRs and pink ICs like candy.

If you're a foreigner with a PR or short term visa, and you've lost your job, but you don't want to leave, what would you do?

Doesn't take a genius to figure this one out. You move out of your apartment and downgrade to digs with cheaper rent. Or you double-up or triple-up with other foreigners you know. Some Singaporean landlords are going to knowingly or unknowingly become tenement slumlords. And that leads to...

7. An increased incidence of petty crime, vice, panhandling, domestic violence, you name it.

Unemployment or underemployment, adrift in a foreign land with limited family support or frayed relationships, overcrowding in tenement apartments...it's a bad combination. 

It's likely you'll be seeing more foreigners in your neighborhood if you live in the suburbs, simply because it's cheaper to live there. Perhaps the occasional foreigner selling tissue paper at the hawker center. Or panhandling (begging) even.

I lived in Baltimore for a few years. There was a practically a panhandler on every street corner. And the crime and homicide rate was among the highest in America. So, I'm cool with this kind of situation. Not ideal, but hey, I lived in Baltimore, I can live anywhere.

Some Singaporeans would probably need some time to get used to such a situation though. Good luck with that.

8. Because these ill sentiments tend to feed off each other in a bad economy, expect tensions to rise between local Singaporeans and foreigners.

Singaporeans are going to go from grudging indignation to righteous anger to blood boiling rage. As for foreigners, they've long been accustomed to being treated with kid gloves by the PAP, so much so that there is an entrenched sense of entitlement among them. It would be funny if it wasn't so terribly tragic that should the first riots in decades to occur actually happen, they would more likely be fueled not by racial differences, but anti-foreigner sentiment.

No need to elaborate further, because the anti-foreigner sentiment that is current will simply be a foretaste of what is to come. And the PAP government will be heavily blamed. Then perhaps, the calculus behind massive immigration will finally be recalibrated to reflect the true cost of immigration, which can only be a good thing.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not a supporter of xenophobia; I'm simply predicting which way the wind is going to blow.

1.1 billion dollars more of buses will not help

I've waited a few weeks to post my opinion on the government's move to purchase buses to improve the public transportation system for a number of reasons, mostly because I wanted to wait to read the opinions of other bloggers.

As it turns out, the few people who blogged about this expressed opinions that differed little from the general sentiment of "It's a step in the right direction, but it comes a little late, and honestly, more should have been done earlier. But let's wait and see how well this turns out."

As always, I write only when I believe I have something fresh to offer, and this is my clear and unequivocal opinion:

I do not think adding more buses in the way that the government has envisioned will improve the public transportation system appreciably. And the train situation as it stands now will NOT improve because of this new addition of buses.

I take buses much more often than I do trains to get around, so I think I'm qualified to comment. And my reasons for being so unequivocally negative on this extra-budgetary measure are as follows:

1. If you read the puff piece that the Straits Times published a few weeks ago (follow the link in the first sentence of this post), the reporters wrote on how taking service 128 was in fact slightly faster and much more comfortable than going the feeder bus-MRT mode. The piece spoke specifically about how the bus was less crowded than MRT trains at peak hour.

A word to the wise: As anyone who builds or manages systems will tell you, adding more capacity to a mode of transportation that already has spare capacity (i.e. is less crowded) is not a strategy for improving operational outcomes.


It was this single fact alone that revealed the Straits Times piece for the cheerleading article that it was. Editors at a national propaganda machine should know better than this. Chances are, service number 128 was cherry-picked to "demonstrate" the merits of bus versus train travel.

2. Anyone who takes buses will know that journey times by bus are generally longer than journey times by MRT.

There are 4 basic components to journey time:
a) Walking times to and from bus stop / MRT station
b) Waiting times for arrival of public conveyance
c) Stopping times at bus stops / MRT stations
d) Actual travel time enroute to destination

MRT wins hands down over buses due to shorter (b), (c) and (d). It's no surprise that most people prefer trains for their speedier transit. Ergo, trains are crowded while buses less so.

There are groups of people for whom buses make sense over trains. These are people who can't stand crowds (yours truly), do not live sufficiently near to an MRT station to take advantage of its speed (and hence have to take feeder bus services or walk relatively long distances, yours truly again), or have to endure the hassle of making multiple transfers across rail lines even on MRT.

But by and large, for most people, the speed of the MRT wins out over buses.

Which brings me to this point: adding more buses on the roads generally only reduces (b). It does very little for the other three components that make up journey time by bus. MRT will still be faster for most journeys.

In addition, we have to consider the fact that even if the buses succeed in attracting passengers off the trains, they will only attract the marginal travellers who value space and comfort just that much more over shorter journey times. That's going to have limited impact on improving the train situation.

3. But wait, there's more.

Adding more buses on the roads will reduce waiting times, making journey times by bus shorter and hence a viable alternative to trains that more passengers will consider. That's what our public transportation planners would like to think.

As it turns out, there is already a way to reduce waiting times for buses to a minimum, as savvy bus travelers like myself know. Two things: schedules and bus transfers.

Going to work in the morning, buses travelling from the suburbs to the CBD area tend to arrive on time and on schedule because traffic is relatively light on the roads around the suburbs. After all, people live distributed all over the island. It's a different story in the evening when the roads out of the CBD are filled with vehicles all trying to get out at the same time, and arrival times for buses tend to become unpredictable.

When I head to work every day in the morning, I make it a point to reach the bus stop only 2-3 minutes before my bus arrives, a trunk service that brings me to within a 5 minute walk from my office building. No transfers, minimal waiting time. Granted, the bus takes a circuitous route and it's still slower than the feeder bus-MRT mode, but there's no jostling with the crowds and much less walking.

Going home in the evenings, I can take the same direct trunk service again to get home, but because of the aforementioned unpredictability in waiting times, I choose a different strategy instead.

I walk to a bus stop that has not one, but two bus services that take a very direct route toward home, but can only drop me off 4 bus stops short of my destination.

From there, I have two buses that can take me straight home, and another four that can take me 2 bus stops closer to my destination.

And finally, at this third bus stop, I have 4 buses that can take me the final 2 bus stops back to my home.

I call this extreme bus transferring. And it makes total sense after the transition to a distance-based fare system last year. At every stage of my journey, I maximize the number of buses I can take and minimize the waiting time. It's not uncommon for me to drop off a bus and take the next one that's either right behind it or in front of it at the bus stop. Total waiting time for my journey ranges from 2 minutes to perhaps 7 minutes, comparable to the MRT.

But even with all these stratagems, I have to say: the MRT is still faster. Getting from my office desk to across the doorstep of my apartment, or the converse, takes about 45 to 50 minutes by the walking-MRT mode. The same journey by bus takes perhaps 55 minutes to 1 hour 5 minutes. For reference, I work in the CBD and my home is in the Dover area.

So, despite the best intentions of our transport planners, the point I'm trying to make is that even with reductions in waiting time brought about by more buses, MRT still wins out.

Even with bus lanes and the newer concept of "bus hubs", it's unlikely stopping times and travel times will appreciably improve for buses and make them competitive with trains. Which is why I seriously doubt that more buses are going to alleviate the train situation.

The real kicker in this long post of mine discussing our woeful public transportation situation?

I run home from office twice a week, and I take just 1 hour 15 minutes to do so. Now that's fast.