The Buzz About Fare Increases

So this is a piece about the bus-fare increases.

Of course, it going to be difficult for me to really rant about it, because I'm not at home right now and not exactly feeling the pinch. In fact, when the suggestion was first mooted by the other writers on this page that we all do a piece about the fare hikes, I actually didn't think that there was too much to say. I do think that public transportation in Singapore is actually quite affordable (of course, that's if you exclude taxis, which I hardly take/took). Plus, there was that statistic that tried to prove that fares are increasing at the very low rate of a cent a year. Of course, there are arguments about the timing of the fare hikes (after an Election) and whether the SBS and SMRT need to turn in a profit (no, I don't think they do), and whether we need such luxurious TV-fitted public transport vehicles or air-conditioned bus terminals (no we don't). But all that aside, I think that fares are pretty reasonable.

Adding to my reticence to plunge on ahead with a slew of criticisms is my frame of reference. The crazy cost of transport here in New York, does make me quite aware of the fact that Singapore's got a pretty good system going and one that is quite affordable. When I first got here two years ago, it cost 60 dollars to get a month's worth of unlimited rides on the subway and bus-system. Soon, there were rumors (which turned out to be true) about an impending fare hike: of 24 dollars! Protests ensued (I still have a poster from one of them ...) and the final compromise was a fare hike of 16 dollars. So it still costs 76 dollars a month for me to get where I need to be and at two dollars a ride, regardless of distance, it's pretty hard to make any kind of substantial savings. In fact, the wife and I share a month pass (even though the logistics of passing the card around sometimes get tricky) for when we don't need to be out at the same time.

So relatively speaking, the fare increases back home aren't that bad. But I'm intrigued by the fact that it's become a hot-button topic for lots of Singaporeans while simultaneously being safe enough to get lots of play in the media. As a partial explanation of this, I'm wondering about the primal associations lots of Singaporeans form with their MRT and bus-routes. These are the kinds of associations that go beneath the "world-class transportation system" rhetoric, and resonate more deeply, hopefully, than the white noise generated by those darn TV Mobile programs.

For instance, I fondly remember the silly enthusiasm with which I would walk to the Newtown MRT station when it first opened (and when the trains only ran from Newton to Clementi), take the MRT and then hike home from Clementi, even though there were more efficient bus-routes in existence.

Another case in point. I've had the good fortune (ok, that's questionable...) of having taken the same bus-route for a large part of my life (about 25 years). That's the good ol' "154" that runs from Eunos (I believe) all the way to Boon Lay. Of course, I'm only intimately acquainted with the portion of the ride that runs from Bukit Timah to just a few stops after Clementi. I've ridden the bus since it was a rattley single-decker with colored tickets and bus-conductors with their ticket punches and many-pocketed leather bags. When they turned "OMO" (one-man-operated?) in the late 80s, I "stole" one of those wooden signboards that explained the details (but was made to throw it out by my mom). It was with excitement that I took the bus when the first double-deckers were added to the fleet and you could sit right up in front and wait for the untrimmed branches of the trees along Clementi Road smack into the windshield. I took it as sleepy schoolboy, smelly NS guy, confused NIE trainee and exhausted teacher, always certain that I knew the right spot to stand at the bus-stops to ensure "priority boarding" and which seats on the upper level offered the most leg room. I've done homework on that route, graded essays, sung songs and played guitar, gotten scolded, gotten laughed at, slept all stretched out in the back .... My point is that we develop bonds with these buses and trains that we depend on daily: idiosyncratic, nuanced, and often solitary (I've never had a travel companion on my daily commute) connections with these vectors through space. Of course, the same applies (and I suppose with greater intensity and clearer logic) for individuals that actually become acquaintences, friends and lovers all because they took the same bus route. Unlike the driver of a private automobile (who forms a rather distinct bond with the machine), public transportation enables mulitple connections to form and circulate on the premise of a social space that straddles the public and private in a rather unique fashion.

So, I think that goes at least some way (through the winding paths of romanticizing nostalgia, I might add) toward explaining why people don't like fare-hikes, no matter how "reasonable". I think a lot of older people get their heckles raised by rising transport costs because they symbolize a fading link to a time when things were simpler and, well, when life in general was more enjoyable.

We Are What We Read?

I was flipping through the Shin Min Daily News the other day and the news reports were worthy of any tabloid in the world. The front page was dominated by an alleged sex scandal in Taiwan, with an alluring picture of the victim and a forlorn looking old man accused of raping her plastered next to the headline. Inside the paper, a news story told of how a woman had thrown herself down her HDB block, committing suicide, after a tumultuous period in her life which included being spurned by her lover. The headline continued to inform that sorrowful wailings can be heard from that block. Bizarre? You bet.

If you think that I’m being too graphic with my description of the juicy stories carried by this local Chinese tabloid, please do note that I was merely regurgitating what I saw in the paper. And if we’re tempted to think that such newspapers in Mother Tongue pander to an older generation of readers who are not well educated and with a less sophisticated reading taste, The New Paper is an English language tabloid that carries stories just as sordid as the above examples.

I guess that my point is there is definitely a market for such sensational news in Singapore. Clearly, we do not subscribe to the theory of Asian values of harmony and community when it comes to the consumption of news. Not when we lap up stories about other peoples’ misery and when sex sells so well.

Why is it then, that when it comes to explaining the local press being supposedly respectful of authority, the government likes to invoke the mystical argument of Asian values? Is it true that being Asian, we are innately programmed to respect authority and expect others to do the same as well?

Our appetite for less than savoury stories in our tabloids have already shown that using Asian values to explain how our press works is at best a weak argument, and at worst a very misleading way of looking at the local press system. Since the Asian values of harmony and community do not apply in the local press, I’m guessing that proclaiming that Singapore’s press is respectful of authority because of Asian values glosses over the underlying reasons that can better explain what we are observing in the local press.

As for the underlying reasons, who else but the First Prime Minister of Singapore can state it better?

“Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government.” – Lee Kuan Yew 1971

Of course, the assumption is that the elected government will always be benign and that it will always exercise its powers correctly. The watchdog role of the press is suppressed in favour of a nation building one. Far be it for me to question if it was the right move back then, but 35 years after this quote, have the “overriding needs of Singapore” changed? The government doesn’t seem to think so, but more importantly, what do you as a Singaporean think?

"Follow the System"

Just the other day i attempted to use the public toilet at Clarke Quay MRT station. Yet before i could step in, the Malay toilet attendant stopped me with a gibberish exhort. I couldn't really make out what she was saying as it was in some kind of broken english (not Singlish). Only when i was near enough for her to shove the mop in my face could i barely make out the three words "Follow the System".

In her exasperation she had to point furiously at the sign bearing the toilet cleaning times before i could collect myself from the rude shock and nod in reluctant understanding. I wasn't really mad at her for prohibiting my use of the toilet though i was in high tide indeed.

What really shocked me were the words she used, "Follow the system", used almost like an almighty command that was supposed to set me walking away in obeisance just like any other Singaporean. The choice of words she used despite her seemingly poor command of English is amazing. She could just as simply have said "Toilet cleaning" , "Out of order" or plain uttered "Cleaning" and any Singaporean would have got the message.

But No. She said those three words "Follow the system" that still rings loud and clear in my mind everytime i recall that bizzare incident. Ok it may seem really weird why i'm bringing up such a trivial issue that i should have just dismissed like my friend who was my co-witness did.
It's just that those three words seem to resonate very much in Singaporean and modern society, where we face a non-organic, mechanical and supposedly impartial, dispassionate System in many aspects of our daily life and we are expected to adhere to the rules and instructions administered by the System for our day-to-day dealings.

Even in the aforementioned case, although there was technically a very much living and agitated female toilet attendant shouting the instruction to me, i see her more as a tool of the System. The system uses her to keep out people like me who are ignorant of the stringent cleaning times(Who memorises them man?), who have stepped over the line and are attempting to upset the System due owing to my private agenda that is insignificant as compared to upholding the sanctity of the System's cleaning timings.

Well in fact, i was following the System. Perhaps she was not, for she didn't display the mandatory 'Cleaning in progress' sign in bright yellow, which if i had seen i would get the message and skip that toilet immediately. No issue. But no. She stood at the door with a mop and perhaps thus upset the usual System of recognising whether a public toilet could be used.

Moving on from this trivial issue, which i see as a reflection of a larger general mentality that the State adopts when it deals with individuals who attempt direct contact with the State. Ever tried to consult your MP for a personal issue? Well first you got to find out and be sure who is the MP directly in charge of your district is. Then you have to email (You'd be surprised how some organisations respond to email faster and are more receptive to them than phone calls) the administrative personnel to ask for available dates. Finally you may be given a slot based on the urgency of your issue, the nature of which must be revealed and screened by the administrative personnel. You might start wondering if you're actually consulting your MP at all, almost able to imagine his briefers whispering notes to him while he flips your docket right before seeing you after a long wait. How's that for increasing attempts to bridge the divide between the masses and those who rule over them and are supposed to hear and voice their popular concerns?

Yes it may seem only reasonable that a system is developed so that our overworked part-time MPs are not burdened by citizens with unjustifiable petty concerns or simply inundated by too many consultations at once. But to develop a system so entrenched in systemic efficiency that it ironically succeeds in expanding the divide between the citizen with concern and the powers-that-be, i guess this beckons a re-thought.

Here's a more extreme example of Follow The System. Quite a while back i found my library card missing and reported it to the good librarian immediately. Since i had lost it on the same day of reporting, i thought i was safe even if someone had borrowed it. Yet the good librarian was sorry to inform me that a Malay title was borrowed using my card just minutes before i had reported the missing card. Although i tried my very best at verbally explaining how i had lost it only a few minutes ago and that i had no reason to cheat good NLB of a cheap Malay title that i didnt understand, the good librarian said he had to go "law by law, book by book". I noted the nice pun but i was still furious. The good librarian dispensed me saying that i stood a better chance writing a formal letter to the head of the Branch rather than him as he was just a part-time frontdesk employee who held no influence.

A formal letter i wrote indeed to the Branch Head, which i also forwarded to the relevant NLB manager who was technically the Branch Head's superior. ANd i think this neat little trick did the trick and got me off the hook, given my understanding of the hierarchical relationship in governmental bodies. The fact that i couldn't settle the issue straight away at the Branch customer service desk was just amazing. What's more outrageous was that i had to type out a powerfully-worded letter of 'appeal' to a manager who would probably have been briefed even before the letter lands on his desk, in order to maintain organisational integrity and a common stand on issues. Well the greater point is how this was quite an extreme example of people following the System purely for the mechanical sake of following the Sytem. The very fact that the craziness and frustration such behaviour creates for end-users evades the administrators who perpetuate is just hard to comprehend. It's probably the kind of issues that hit you so hard you feel the need to just go and lie down to catch your breath.

And these are just 2 seemingly ordinary experiences from me. I'm sure somewhere along the line you have experienced this Follow the System mentality in-the-face. Sometimes i guess it is the ignorance or acceptance of such ridiculous attitudes that helps to perpetuate their constant existence. Sometimes we can reasonably accept it as a characteristic of a modern state and economy where the government and adherent organs of state are expected to posesss business-like efficiency. Yet when this seemingly impartial attitude is applied wholesale to all of society, some conflicts may arise and it is up to us to be more conscious of them to avoid being entrapped in systemic jargon that may inadvertently ensnare the unwitting citizen who crosses the line.

The Culture of Denial

“A Singapore culture is unlikely to emerge - not even in the next few hundred years, predicted Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew yesterday.” Straits Times, 6th September 2006

To gain a better understanding of what our MM has predicted for the country in the “next few hundred years”, we must first have a firm grasp of the meaning of a Singapore culture. What we are evoking is the idea that there can be an expression of traits, characteristics, behavioural patterns and arts that is special to Singapore. While doing the “Uniquely Singapore” campaign and the Singapore Tourism Board a huge disservice, the MM has also signalled to the nation that he does not view having a Singaporean culture as important.

This is highly confusing, especially after years of national education telling us how we must be proud of how the nation has come back from the dead and progressed miraculously from Third World to First. I can almost hear the strains of “We’ve come so far together/our common destiny…” ringing in my head. Doesn’t forging a strong bond with the nation and feeling close to our roots (however shallow) as Singaporeans go hand in hand with developing a unique cultural identity for ourselves? Whatever happened to “We are Singapore… Singaporeans…”?

Of course, by now we well know that “our common destiny” is fast becoming making more money and “We are Singapore” because we run our country like a business. Anything that doesn’t serve an economic goal gets ruthlessly cut away. Our MM himself reiterated that “societies like ours have no fat to spare. They are either lean and healthy or they die.” Having grown up when Singapore had already achieved its affluence, I am inclined to believe this. The oft-repeated argument that Singapore is small and vulnerable and has no margin for error also comes to mind. But there is intrinsic value in forging a culture that we can identify with. It appeals to an almost primal instinct for a need to feel that we belong somewhere. To deny that we have something to call our own is to deny us from feeling attached to the nation.

This divorce of nationalism and cultural identity puts us as citizens in an awkward position. Sure, we can take the whole loyalty to country thing and try to prescribe to it, but there must first be something about our country that we be loyal to. The idea of a country does not stand by itself. The pillars that prop it up are its history, traditions, in some cases religion and ethnicity, but most importantly, culture. These ideas are dependent on one another; remove either one of them and the whole sand castle comes crashing down.

Is it then so hard to understand why Singapore is afraid of brain-drain? It isn’t a matter of there being too many push factors in our country and pull factors in another. Sometimes, there’s just nothing here that keeps us from wandering away from our home. Having been taught that a better life is what we should strive for, can Singaporeans be blamed for being a “quitter” if they see that Australia provides them with that better life? Thinking that there is no Singaporean culture to identify with leads to our country being no different from another, and it is no wonder then that some of us do not feel that it is emotionally difficult to leave this so-called home. National pride is just not enough without cultural identity.

In his argument, the MM has forgotten, or chosen not speak about, something very fundamental: Language is the root of all culture. Lest we too forget, we already have a language unique to Singapore – Singlish. While steadfastly trying to weed out the use of this colloquial way of communication, the government has also curbed the development of what could become a Singaporean culture. Of course, I speak of culture as if it is well-defined. We all know that not to be true, especially in Singapore’s case. But, cultural identity being a vague idea shouldn’t prevent us from developing and thinking about it, much less deny its existence.

Up for a Sabbatical?

Circular No. C19-23435-GH1
Classification: Secret

RE: Sabbatical for Teachers with 12 years of Service

As per the recent policy changes effected as a result of the Minister’s directive that more should be done to keep teachers in the Service, the following announcements were made in The Press (5 Sep 2006) following the earlier pronouncements made in The Speech (dated 1 Sep 2006):

But from next year, some 8,000 teachers with at least 12 years of service can take a full term off at full pay to study, do a work attachment or research.

This circular (No. C19-23435-GH1 dated 5 Sep 2006) is released to offer guidelines for the implementation of the above policy changes. It is meant to give School Authorities a sense of the how the policy changes that govern the Sabbatical for Teachers with 12 years of Service should be interpreted. As we are all busy members of The Service and are far too pre-occupied with making sure that teachers are making sure that students are making sure that everything is well and good, the Ministry as developed the following scenarios that are meant to guide the School Authorities in implementing the aforesaid earlier mentioned policy.

Scenario 1: Mr Tan Gu Gu is a teacher who thinks that he has 12 years of Service. He applies for the Sabbatical.

Mr TGG. : I started teaching in 1994. That should mean that I have 12 years service. I’d like to apply for the Sabbatical.
School Authority: Well, let me first check your records. It says here that you took 4 days no-pay leave in 1995.
Mr TGG.: Well, that was when I got married and before the Ministry started the compassionate leave scheme ...
School Authority: And it says here that you took two-weeks no pay leave in 2000 ...
Mr TGG.: ... but that was to extend my stay in the US because the exchange program that the Ministry sent me on lasted longer than the June Holidays ...
School Authority: Sorry, Mr. Tan. You do not have 12 years of Service. No Sabbatical.

Scenario 2: Of course, not every case is as easily handled as Mr Tan's. More complex cases can arise. For example, Ms Chin Bo Liaw is a teacher who has more than 12 years of Service. She qualifies for the Sabbatical but wants to “do her own thing”.

Ms CBL: As I understand the circular and the term "sabbatical", I should be allowed to take ten weeks paid leave, no questions asked. How I spend those 10 weeks is up to me.
School Authority: Ah, yes, in theory. But I need you to think about how you can Value Add during those ten weeks. Would you like to do a job attachment with a leading firm in one of our nation’s new high-tech industries so that when you come back you can share your experiences with your students during School Assembly? Or would you like to teach in another school during those ten weeks, learn some Best Practices and come back and share with the staff during Contact Time?
Ms CBL: I just want to stay at home and look after my plants.
School Authority: Ah, yes, that sounds like a good plan but don’t you want to consider how the Sabbatical might be part of your Upgrading Portfolio? When the Staff Assessment and Ranking Exercise comes around, it would be nicer for me to say to the District Superintendent that, “Yes, Ms Chin went on an attachment with a firm. Actually, come to think if it, he called me yesterday and said that one of our cluster schools have a shortage of Maths teachers and that we can post you there for your Sabbatical, to cover the shortage for a few weeks ....”
Ms CBL: I'd rather NOT go then!
School Authority: Ok, your choice. But we offered you a chance, ah.

Scenario 3: Mr Wah Bo Eng is a Head of Department who has more than 12 years of teaching experience. He does not want to go on the Sabbatical.

Mr Wah: I’m far too busy next semester. I’m teaching three O level classes, I have to mentor the newly posted teachers and I have to oversee the transition to the Integrated Programme that the school is moving towards. How can I go on Sabbatical?
School Authority: Yes, yes. But you’re the only teacher who has 12 years of experience in our school. Actually Mrs Wee would have been another one but she just quit last year. So you’re our only representative.
Mr Wah: I thought that it was a voluntary programme that was meant to encourage teachers to stay in the Service. I’m not leaving the Service anytime soon.
School Authority: Yes, yes. But I heard that the other Ps of our cluster schools talking at the last meeting and they all have people applying for the Sabbatical programme. I tell you what. I put you on the Sabbatical programme but you just continue your work as per normal, okay? Like when we send people on course but ask them to come back after the course in the evenings to catch up on work. Then, our school also can say that we have someone on Sabbatical.
Mr Wah: But when I go Sabbatical I want to do something meaningful ...
School Authority: Are you saying that what you're doing now is not meaningful?

The above listed aforementioned scenarios are by no means exhaustive. Indeed, they are meant to serve as guidelines rather than strict procedures. However, in view of the numerous concerns that School Authorities have expressed about the issue and the rapidly changing Educational Landscape that is a result of these fine-tunings of policy, we have started the Going On Sabbatical – School Issues Portal (GOSSIP), which is meant as an on-going forum for School Authorities to share experiences and tactics they use to overcome difficult cases. The use of GOSSIP is explained in circular C19-211111-GH23 (dated 7 Sep 2006).

Another circular, governing the implementation of the $400 or $700 stipend will be released shortly. Please make sure that you shred this circular after you have read it. The last thing we want is for it to fall into less enlightened hands and start circulating on the Internet!

Regards,

First Permanent Assistant to 2nd Deputy Secretary to the Minister

Wanted: A single brand for S'pore

Extract from The State's Times, 2/9/2006.


Uniquely Singapore. City in the Garden. Global City, World of Opportunities.

These branding campaigns have been used at some point or other by various government agencies to promote Singapore, often with sterling results.

But there is just one problem: Having each agency brand Singapore based on its own goals results in a fragmented image of the country.

So Singapore is now embarking on a search for a single, solid brand that will present the country to the world.


No wonder Singaporeans are always in one identity crisis after another. "Who are we?" "Where do we come from?" "Where do we go from here?" "Is racial tolerance the same as racial harmony?"

Even our dear fatherly Government cannot seem to make up his mind about what kind of overall identity we want Singapore presented as, much less us citizens who are already busy enough worshipping money and worrying about whether our work presentations needed for tomorrow has enough attention-grabbing visual aids.

For a citizenry that usually passively awaits and follows the Government's recommendations on everything from which overseas Special Economic Zone to invest in, to the type of bright tropical smile all 4 million citizens should maintain during the IMF-World bank meetings, we might be totally overwhelmed and confused by the different Government agencies' disparate branding of Singapore.

What's interesting is that this branding campaign takes on a very commercial function. Phrases like 'marketing image' and 'solid brand' seem to hint at a language of commerce. It seems that this new, unified image the Government so desires is made entirely for commercial consumption by the rest of the world. This of course reeks of crass pragmatism that we are so very used to. In fact, if i were asked for my opinion on how we might brand Singapore, I would say we are a pragmatic cosmopolis that listens to the demands of the 'world' and of the Government. Of course by 'world', what imean is those parts of this world that are internationally recognised and have important economic links with Singapore, be they neighbours or not.

Which brings me to my next point: Why aren't the local folks here being asked about what they would like their own country's unified corporate image to be? Hullo, i know not all of us have an MBA or a degree in economics, but i'm sure indigenous opinions carry a certain degree of importance and significance to such a branding campiagn. Imean hey, at least put out an online survey or sumthing, make it look like the folks here are actually being consulted on this issue, it may not be as potentially life-changing as the casino issue but at least it deserves the same veil of citizen consultation.

But no...What does the Government consciously choose to do instead? A tender bid is being put up by the Government for a consultant for this umbrella brand positioning. The cost for the exercise is capped at $3 million.

Oh yeah, do it in the way that seems most transparent. Nowadays it seems like the Government is holding open tenders for almost everything it wishes to be seen as open and aboveboard. The 3 lowest bids requirement instituted across the Civil Service and even the Army. Everybody who's experienced the 3 lowest bids system before knows the quality of goods/services you get in the end. But thats not my main point.

Hullo, instead of asking the folks here for opinions and in the process pacify the worst critics, our Government decides to throw 3 million bucks to any marketing agency able to come up with the most pragmatic, business-like and cohesive brand name for Singapore, that will perhaps last for at most 3 years before a name brand change is required to suit changing 'world' demands? 3 seems to be the magic number for the Government here, so i'm just following like a good citizen, and no prizes for guessing if a local marketing agency would actually clinch the deal if the Government in the first place discounted the cost-free views of its citizenry.

This also reminds me of one little-known fact about how the Government earlier on also went on a hunt for consultants to re-name/re-brand the Marina Bay area in preparation for the exciting IR and Marina reservoir developments there. So apparently millions were paid out for the marketing campaign but in the end the 'experts' concluded that Marina Bay was its most suitable name after all. If you haven't forgotten, even a 'reknowned feng shui master' was brought in to comment on Marina Bay's excellent feng shui during the IR hype.

What i find interesting is how a seemingly confident Government that professes the political will to chart its own foreign policy is so dependent on marketing/branding experts for affirmation of present images or the construction of new, abstract ones that bear great success to alienating the populace. And we may safely assume that these branding experts the Government has in mind are foreign ones. This perhaps exposes a socially nervous psyche that we posesss, one that is hungry for external affirmation but puts up a strong, stoic front that we are proud of our right to self-determination and our hard-earned economic success.

Why is it that we are so dependent on foreign opinions of ourselves? I guess that is a question all Singaporeans have to ask themselves from time to time. Do we judge ourselves based on a generally Western point of view or do we adopt an indigenously Asian perspective?

While the Government busies itself with closed-door meetings where open tenders are held, perhaps it would do us good to ponder what kind of image we are presenting to the world in the process of anxiously trying to re-brand ourselves time and again. Perhaps we could also have a good laugh about how the little autonomy the Government privileged the various self-serving agencies with has resulted in this identity tangle and mini-crisis that the father has once again to come out and iron things out.