Who's responsible for safety on footpaths?

Feb 24, 2009

I REFER to last Saturday's letter by Ms Amy Loh ('Why Singapore must license bicycles now').

I strongly support any proposal to license bicycles. The point is that licensing bicycles should impose some sense of responsibility on those who own bicycles and those who ride them. This is especially important now that the authorities are considering allowing narrow pedestrian paths to be used by cyclists.

I live in an estate where a pedestrian path (about 1m to 1.2m wide) leads to the MRT station. The side of the path is lined with trees with branches jutting out.

The estate is near an industrial area and it is rare not to see a bicycle - or have one flash past you from behind - while walking on the path. Often they ride fast and give no room to manoeuvre in an emergency.

Even during peak periods, when there are many pedestrians on the path, inconsiderate cyclists still ride there, some at speeds that are unacceptable and dangerous. The situation is an accident waiting to happen.

I wrote to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) about the situation and suggested that the path be widened. The first reply was that widening the path would encourage more cyclists to use it. I then suggested low obstacles such as humps to discourage cyclists. The reply: that would make it difficult for people in wheelchairs to use the path.

So it seems everyone else takes priority over the safety of pedestrians. In my final letter to LTA, I pleaded that something be done about the dangerous situation. LTA said it would refer the matter to the police. To date, the situation is unchanged.

Yik Tze Kong

[I've seen responsible cyclists, but it is the irresponsible ones that stick in the mind. They cycle like they have the right of way on pedestrian walkways. And they cycle way too fast and way too inconsiderately. But licensing and registration is a waste of time and money. There are more efficient and effective use of limited resources. ]

Where did you go, my Singapore of old?

Feb 24, 2009

I AM a 45-year-old Singaporean much in love with this country, which I am proud to call home. Over the years, I have visited a few other beautiful countries, but I cannot see myself living anywhere else but in Singapore.

However, as much as I call Singapore my home, there is almost nothing of it I can connect to when I try to look back in memory.

A few weeks ago, I decided to drive my parents around to revisit places to try to recapture the fond memories of our earlier years. There was almost no place familiar left to go. Almost everything has been eradicated. It was a sad morning.

I am sure, to the zealots of change and development, this means nothing at all, and others may say people like me are like a broken record (nostalgia) that gets stuck and plays the same thing over and over, but I feel it is very sad.

The little we have left is also about to go: the last kampung in Buangkok, the New Seventh Storey Hotel and so on. Who needs the kampung in Buangkok when there is the shiny plastic version in Geylang Serai, right? After all, it is clean, safe and pristine.

With reference to last Monday's letter by Ms Lisa Healey-Cunico, 'Let Singapore shape itself naturally', I fully agree that Singapore has lost much of its soul. It truly seems we have an unquenchable need to wipe out and develop anything and everything. Alternatively, if a place is deemed worthy of heritage, redevelopment sets in with the original tenants, who contributed to the colour of the place, removed because of high rent and commercialisation.

Maybe I am just getting old, but I would like to be able to visit some places in Singapore with nothing added but a few coats of paint over the years. I resort to flea markets for photocopy pictures sold at three for $10. I used these to share old stories with my parents and daughters. That is all there is. Needless to say, one of my favourite haunts is Sungei Road. I am certain it is already in someone's plans for eradication.

I appeal to whoever can make the difference, please leave some things as they are.

I love you, Singapore, but I fear I do not remember you.

Vincent Paul Carthigasu

------------------
online reply
------------------

Hi Vincent,

This is Ms Healey-Cunico who wrote to the forum last Monday. I really enjoyed reading your article. It was very eloquent and it is comforting to see that some Singaporeans are very apt to preserving what was once crucial to our identity. I realise that there are many people who take the offensive route of having a thug mentality rather then a gentleman's mentality of an opinion towards the plight that people like you and I see as an important one. I was once accused of being nostalgic - but I disagree. I think preservation of one's heritage, and to do it so eloquently like you have (and hopefully myself included) will lend itself to making others understand the importance of keeping some tradition in architecture.

I will refute anyone who tells me that I am old fashioned. I am 36 years old. Hardly old-fashioned.

Best Wishes,

Ms HC.
Posted by: snowqueenhibiscus at Tue Feb 24 13:07:43 SGT 2009

An on-line comment on "market subsidy" of HDB flats.

libra168
Today, 03:12 PM

"No country in the world treat their PR's better than us.Please check this up and stop complaining, you should help to promote peace and not create a fracas. Pr's should not get to buy HDB too because it's heavily subsidized by our Government."

The thing about subsidised HDB flat need further clarification :

1. PRs are not allowed to buy new flat from HDB unless spouse is citizen
2. Resale flat are not subsidised

EVEN in the case of new flat from HDB, the selling price is not subsidised, it is what HDB keep saying is "market subsidy" . If you have been following discussion of HDB "market subsidy" on this DB, you would have concluded correctly as with all other Forumers that "market subsidy" is no subsidy. HDB just pluck a condo market price in the vicinity and give a discount and call it a subsidied flat.

C'mon, can construction cost be different if the flat is in Queenstown compared with flat is Jurong West or Sengkang if they are both built in the same period of time by the same contractor ? Obviously the cost is the same but HDB price it much higher in Queenstown than Jurong West or Sengkang. A truly subsidised flat would mean it should sell at the same price regardless of location and with reference to construction cost, not with reference to fluctuating market price.

Both citizens and PRs are misled by the "market subsidy" concept to think that HDB flats are subsidised.
Posted by: bumibumi at Tue Feb 17 16:01:08 SGT 2009

[Nothing new here, but I want to address this because of the specifics of the example.

Yes, construction costs in Sengkang, Woodlands, and Jurong West should be about the same for flats built around the same time. So if you are a new flat buyer, where should you buy?

If you are a rational buyer, you would consider where you work, how easily or how long you need to travel each day to get from your flat to your workplace and factor that into your decision all things being equal.

But all things are not equal. Resale prices are not all equal and if you treat your flat as an investment (as a lot of Singaporeans do) you would consider which flat will appreciate more in value. If all the flats are "cost-subsidised" then flats in Woodlands and Jurong West will have very little demand. With "market subsidy" you pay more for flats in areas where resale prices tend to be higher, so net gain when you sell your flat should be somewhat related to your purchase price.

And it is specious to say that HDB peg market subsidy to condos. They would peg to resale prices as far as possible. If they were indeed pegged to condos, then the "subsidy" would be huge.

So no. A subsidy cannot be pegged strictly to costs alone and all new flats sold at the same price no matter where they are. There are market variations and flat prices have to reflect this or someone buying a flat in Woodlands, or Jurong West will feel very put out.
The true reason for runaway resale price is very simply the use of CPF to purchase flats on the resale market. Without CPF, most people will be hard press to offer anything beyond their savings and what they can afford to pay in mortgage installments.

The Govt seems to realise its folly and has started to slowly pull back on CPF, but at the same time they cannot be too obvious or affect the market too adversely. ]

Comment uncalled for

Feb 14, 2009

I am writing in response to The Monday Interview with Jack Neo (Master Of One, Life!, Feb 9).

In it, he talked about Eric Khoo's film Mee Pok Man and implied that he could have done a better job by making the movie in a more comprehensible way.

I was appalled by Neo's apparent belittlement of the film and its director.

His comment is uncalled for, particularly when he is a Cultural Medallion recipient.

I would expect him to have greater respect towards the work of his counterparts, especially when he himself had said in the interview that he felt sad when his work was criticised by movie reviewers.

This leads to my second point. I personally agree with the unfavourable reviews of Neo's movies.

As a Singaporean who advocates good local movies of a high quality, I am very frustrated and upset with his simplistic way of presenting storylines that reinforce stereotypical ideas.

In my opinion, this does not advance the nation in any way, be it culturally, intellectually or spiritually.

William Soh

[Chill dude. First, I wasn't interested in reading the interview with Jack Neo. I like some of his movies, but many are formulaic and trite. Entertaining enough, but not "must-sees" so no interest in finding out more about the man. Then this "reprimand" for insulting Eric Khoo. Again, Khoo's films are either incomprehensible, or self-indulgent. I went searching for the interview to see what were the "implied" insult.

All I read and interpreted was one's man internal dialogue as to how films should communicate with the audience. On those terms, I would say the Neo communicates with the audience better than Khoo and on that basis, makes more engaging films.

Some critics may say that Khoo makes more artistic films, better films. Whatever. But Khoo's style and film is not going to be the future of Singapore's film industry. I hope Neo's films are not the future either. But the future will be decided by whoever can engage the audience better. Neo does that, but his reach is limited, and I am not sure if his films are fully representative of Singaporeans, or just the Channel 8 set.]

Jobs Credit: Two reservations and a compliment

Here's a letter from an armchair policy-maker.

Feb 13, 2009

THE Jobs Credit scheme has been allocated $4.5 billion (22 per cent of the $20.5 billion stimulus programme) to provide companies with incentives to retain workers and cut their wage costs. If it goes according to plan, the scheme will reduce the need for companies to retrench workers and reduce their costs, enabling more workers to stay employed and helping companies to stay competitive.

I have two reservations. First, companies are not obliged to keep their employees. They can easily retrench workers and use the cash grants to keep a minimum number of staff. There is no incentive for companies to keep workers on their wage bill if they have minimal orders, even if wage costs are partly subsidised by the Government.

This has been asked and answered. If companies have no choice but to retrench, they will retrench with or without Jobs Credit. But if they are on the margins where a little help can save jobs, Job Credit can make a difference.

This is not to say that the Government should not help companies alleviate the cost of keeping their employees. A more effective scheme is needed though. One way is to include mandatory rules for firms to qualify for the cash grants. Rules to limit retrenchment numbers to 10 to 20 per cent of overall headcount may nudge companies to limit retrenchment numbers. However, this seems inappropriate when the Government wants to encourage companies and not regulate with more rules.

Arguing with himself. Suggest rules, then concede that over-regulation is not the route to go. Edit your letter!

Another more efficient way is a progressive cash grant rate, much like a progressive tax system. Rather than a flat rate of 12 per cent, the Government could adopt a progressive cash grant rate for companies with more employees. For example, a company with fewer than 10 employees might get a 12 per cent cash grant. One with more than 10 employees might get a 24 per cent cash grant or a staggered cash grant of 12 per cent for the first 10 and 24 per cent for the rest. In this way, companies are encouraged to keep their workers.

Let me guess. You run a company with more than 10 employees?

A second consideration is cost-efficiency. Some industries are resilient against recessions. Examples include firms that produce necessities, fast-food restaurants, second-hand car dealers and budget shops. These firms are defensive cyclically and have no reduction in demand for their goods; some may even experience an increase in demand in a recession. Thus, these firms do not need to retrench workers, regardless of the existence of the Jobs Credit scheme. Would it be better for policymakers to consider which industry or sector to target to make the scheme more cost-effective?

Second guess: It's not a second-hand car dealership, a fast-food franchise, or a budget shop.

There are also some doubts as to how the scheme will help companies remain competitive, given that wage costs take up only a small portion of revenue. Singapore's major industries include electronics, financial services and biotechnology. Most have huge fixed costs, and the last two have highly paid employees. With a cap of $300 per employee for the cash grant, how much will it help industries compete? No doubt it will help those that are more labour-intensive and have lower-paid workers, but should Singapore take that direction - providing incentives for companies that are less productive, with less skilled personnel?

Third guess: you're in electronics, or financial services, or biotech. Or have family members in these areas. And your business requires skilled staff.

Reservations notwithstanding, the Government deserves credit for considering the welfare of low- and middle-income workers first. These are the people most affected and the scheme does give employers more incentives to keep these workers. Given the complexity of the current recession, it is important for the Government to implement a fiscal policy that is not only altruistic and timely, but also efficient and effective. Changes should be implemented to make it more versatile and targeted, catering to employers' needs, which would have a multiplier effect and ultimately save jobs and improve welfare.

"Altruistic"? Really? Policies are made based on altruism? Naive or Stupid?

All policies should be decided on pragmatic consideration. The truth is, if there is a lot of retrenchment, there will be a lot of unhappiness, a lot of unemployed people, a lot more crime as people get desperate, and a lot more social problems. The purpose of public policy and govt is to ensure that society functions - that people who want jobs can have jobs, and people who need workers can have workers and their contribution enriches society. Altruism has nothing to do with it, or else public assistance will be $450, or $600 or $1200 instead of the $360 and that was only just raised from $330.

Pragmatically, employment is better than welfare. Growth is better than Recession or Depression.

"Timely, Efficient, and Effective"? Timely, means this rebate needs to get to the beneficiaries as fast as possible. Efficient means in the least troublesome manner. With the least red tape. Jobs Credit as it is is simple and efficient, and can be implemented fuss-free. All the proposals will make things more difficult and will raise costs - to decide what industry should get more, and which should get less, and who gets 12% and who gets more. The proposals as a whole is self-serving and complicates things without contributing anything significant or being more defensible.

In this different crisis, different and flexible solutions need to be considered.

Bernard Ting

Whatever happened to that CNY Chingay?

Feb 13, 2009

I WATCHED this year's Chingay Parade and came away disappointed. I found it hard to believe that a once distinctively ebullient Chinese New Year parade had morphed into an incongruously glitzy gala, utterly divorced from its original spirit and character.

If my memory serves me right, the Chingay Parade was introduced because the Government wanted to revive the festive spirit which was dampened after firecrackers were banned during Chinese New Year in the early 1970s.

The parade then was truly filled with a colourful, festive air. There were Chinese traditional dances, Chinese acrobats, Chinese opera, lion and dragon dances.

Today, such characteristic Chinese New Year staples feature only nominally at the parade. There was no dragon or flag-bearing dances and even the trademark lion dance was sacrificed. Much of this year's Chingay was unrelated to Chinese New Year: Items such as a Christmas-themed float and a finale that bore no resemblance to the roots of the Chingay Parade. In fact, the grandiose finale featured a contingent of grotesque characters such as demons and ghosts, which resembled Halloween more than it did Chinese New Year.

Furthermore, the organisers failed to recognise the irony in including demons and ghosts which are taboo for such an auspicious festival as Chinese New Year.

It would have been more meaningful if the parade had featured a traditional theme such as describing how Chinese New Year is celebrated. With 5,000 years of culture to mine, there should not be a shortage of imaginative offerings.

If the purpose of Chingay today is to boost tourism, I am sure tourists will be eager to discover more about Chinese culture in this part of the world, rather than sample an attempt at mimicking a Disney parade.

Nge Tuck Long

[I was thinking that this was going to be a rant by a indignant traditionalist but if what he wrote is true - no lion or dragon dance, and no flag tossing. And Demons and ghosts in the finale, then yes, I agree with him. But I wonder if part of the reason is that there are few or even no performers for these arts anymore? Where would people practice? Who wants their kids to grow up as acrobats?

We may have to hire foreign talent. And then the complaint will be that we have to use foreign talent.

Alternatively, we need to have a National Lion Dance School. Or it should be part of the Sports School?]