TR EMERITUS

I see the $7 million e-scooter Trade-in Grant as part of a very disturbing trend in policy making ($7m fund to help delivery riders switch from e-scooters, Nov 9). Taxpayers' money has been called upon again, as in the earlier incentive for early disposal of non-UL2272 certified e-scooter ($100 incentive for early disposal of e-scooters that fail safety standards, Sept 21). The plight of food delivery riders deserves to be addressed but I feel this is the wrong way to do it. The dangers to footpath pedestrians have been highlighted many times by the public. Yet, stakeholders such as the companies selling personal mobility devices (PMDs), food delivery companies, their riders, and PMD riders in general chose to ignore the call for better riding practices. At the very least, I would have expected the food delivery companies to equip their riders' PMDs with cameras and disincentivise bad riding behaviour. PMD sellers should have provided short training courses on safe riding and respecting pedestrians. And for bicycles and other higher speed contraptions like skateboards or kick scooters that are still allowed on footpaths, how about a footpath code (analogous to highway code) to govern their behaviour? I can think of a few rules that are rarely observed by riders - such as sounding a chime a few seconds before overtaking and overtake at a slightly faster speed, dismounting if unable to maintain full control, like on a slope, and being more alert to blind spots. I hope the Government will take a more comprehensive view on PMDs and bicycles. Most accidents involve young inexperienced riders who have yet to learn safe habits. Pushing them to the roads with this grant without proper training and guidance will only put more of them in harm's way.   Lim      Read More →

Tan Kin Lian The future for Singapore is bleak. On one hand, we have a PAP govt that implement policies that are bad for ordinary people. They add to the cost of living, depressed wages and give a poor return on their investments. On the other hand, we have the majority of people who think only of their selfish interest. If they have a job, they do not care about other people who lost their jobs due to factors beyond their control. In the recent episode on the ban on PMDs, most pedestrians support the ban as they want to feel safe on the walkways. They are not prepared to consider other measures to ensure safety without affecting the livelihood of the food delivery people. While some of the PMD riders have acted rashly, the other riders have their livelihood affected by the ban. The majority of the pedestrians don't care about this impact, as they think only of their self interest. I see a similar behavior concerning national service. It does cause a big impact on the future of our young males who have to serve two years of full time service and ten years of reservist duties. They find it difficult to get good jobs as employers prefer foreigners who do not have this liability. The people who support a change in the national service policy are the parents of the young people who will be conscripted in the near future. The young people do not have any vote in this matter. The people who support the national service policy are the people who do not have any sons that will be conscripted or those who have already served their liability and will not personally benefit from a change. They do not care that other people will have to suffer the same disadvantage that they went through. There are some people who support the current national service policy because they think it is necessary for our national defense. What is wrong with a review of the current policy to ensure that the burden of our national defense can be shared more fairly among all the residents of Singapore? I suspect that the underlying reason is a selfish one - they don't really care about the unfair burden being shouldered by other people. It is also the selfish attitude of most of the voters that the PAP continue to be in power, in spite of their bad policies and incompetent leaders. The majority of the voters still think that they are not badly affected yet, but they do not think about the others. The future of Singapore is bleak with the PAP in power, and the majority of the people thinking only of self interest.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

ITE and some polytechnic graduates in Singapore earn low salaries. Starting salary for ITE graduates is about S$1,700 or so, for polytechnic graduates it's about S$2,350 and for university graduates, it's about S$3,500. Roughly, about 30%-35% of Singaporeans have public university degrees, about 40% from polytechnic and about 15%-20% from ITEs, which means about half of the population would have difficulty earning higher salaries at some point in their lives, or their whole lives. Therefore, they have to turn to jobs in sales, insurance, real estate or food delivery to be able to earn twice or more times what their educational qualifications can pay them. Is there any reason ITE or polytechnic graduates should earn such low salaries? There is no reason except that their wages are being artificially depressed to make them cheap workers. Even for university graduates, their starting salary is only about the minimum wage of Australia (for all workers). The starting salaries of Singapore’s university graduates are also similar to what low-income workers in Finland, Switzerland or Sweden earn, and is only about 60% what low-income Danes and Norwegians earn - countries in which the overall cost of living is similar to Singapore. So, you see, for university graduates in Singapore, they are already earning the bare minimum. So you can imagine how much more difficult it is for ITE and polytechnic graduates. Simply put, wages are being depressed in Singapore artificially. When looked at it in this context, can wages be increased for ITE and polytechnic graduates (and actually for university graduates too)? Yes, they can. Alternatively, can prices be reduced to ensure the wages people currently earn would be enough? It is doable too. For example, Singaporeans are paying enough into Medisave for free healthcare, so healthcare prices can actually be reduced. The tertiary institutions already earn enough in surpluses to give Singaporeans free education, so education prices can be reduced. The government collects levies for domestic foreign helpers from families, this is not necessary and can be removed (or paid to the worker instead of the government). Even the profits earned by companies controlled by the government in telecommunications, public transport, etc, can be reduced, so that prices can be reduced. Prices on necessities like diapers, etc, can also be subsidized. So, yes, there are many methods. But the PAP government has chosen not to increase wages or reduce prices by levels sufficient to ensure Singaporeans can have a higher purchasing power. Then, they ban PMDs which formerly lower-income individuals have to rely on to earn higher incomes. This can only be said to be highly insensitive, or worse, there is a disregard of the lives of those who are trying to make ends meet in an honest way. What signals are we sending to people? That if you are low-income, you are not worth policymakers thinking through too much about the policies? Even if they work very hard to earn an honest living? This issue requires a holistic approach, to look at how wages and prices can be adjusted, how infrastructure is better planned (the furor over the PMD ban isn't the first time the lack of planning of infrastructure is an issue - the MRT subway system was one major one). This could all have been anticipated. For a government which claims to adopt a whole-of-government approach, the way the PMDs have been dealt with is sorely lacking. But fundamentally, this is an issue about the economic inequality in Singapore, and how policymakers are not sensitive enough to the needs of Singaporeans, especially those at the lower income. Personally, there is no point trying to ask for more from the PAP, because they have operated on the basis of Lee Kuan Yew's eugenics beliefs - this is hardwired in PAP's core values. PAP simply does not operate on a basis of equality. If you want fairer polices, you vote for a party which will be fairer to you. Voting for a fundamentally unequal party to be fair is like asking a cat to lay eggs for you. It will sit on things for a while and nothing will happen. You will be the one disappointed in the end.   Roy Ngerng      Read More →