The Efficiency of Voting Selfishly

Is it more efficient to vote in our own interests or in the interests of the society? Prima facie, this seems to be a useless question with an obvious answer.

I approach the question using the framework of efficiency; that is, the extent to which preferences are satisfied by the allocation of limited resources.

 

It is almost certain that we are much more privy to our own preferences than the preferences of others, much less that of society as a whole. Thus, if the sole metric was to be the maximization of our preferences, it is clearly more desirable for the resources to be allocated with our own hands. After all, nobody ought to know our needs and wants better than ourselves. 

If we acknowledge that our intuitions on our preferences are more accurate, and if we were to consider voting as a means to most accurately determine the preferences of society, then it follows that voting is more accurate if everyone were to vote in their own interests, rather than in their guesstimates of what the common interest is. By adopting the pretense of voting in society's interest, there is a risk of converging on something which is merely a fiction, a perceived preference instead of an actual one.

The Implausibilty of Political Gridlock in Singapore

The common argument against a two-party system in Singapore is that of political gridlock. I find this to be implausible, given Singapore's political structure. There are three main factors which strongly inhibit the formation of political impasses.

1. Singapore has a unicameral legislature.
2. Singapore adopts a first-past-the-post voting system.
3. Singapore has strict limits on parliamentary speaking time.

Therefore, I think it is unlikely for political gridlock to exist in Singapore. To elaborate upon the previous points:

The United States is often cited as one example of an indecisive (if not impotent) legislature, which is probably true. Yet, it is invalid to extrapolate this to Singapore because the underlying political system is significant. A bicameral legislature, where a law has to be sanctioned by both chambers, is clearly different from a unicameral legistature. At the very least, a law faces more obstacles to being passed. It is also not uncommon for bicameral legislatures to be 'won' by different (and opposed) parties, which contributes to factionalism.

None of these are applicable to Singapore, where there is only one chamber.

When discussing the malalise in American politics, another important weapon to force an stalemate is the fillibuster. A fillibuster prevents the passage of a vote; in the US, 60% of senate votes are required to force a vote, which has degenerated into a situation where 60% support is required for a motion to be passed (otherwise any objecting party can simply prevent its passage by fillibustering).

Singapore has strict limits on the amount of speaking time each MP has. Thus, it is nearly impossible to delay the passage of any law via filibustering.

Beyond simple factionalism leading to political gridlock, an indecisive legislature can also arise due to the weakness of political parties. Some european governments have adopted proportional representation, which allots seats (approximately) based on the voting share each party has garnered in the previous election. Unfortunately, this tends to lead to the formation of legislatures comprising of numerous small, fratictious parties. If major parties are unable to secure outright majorities, the only option is a coalition. Coalitions are unstable, and may lead to shortsighted, incoherent, and piecewise policy.

Singapore has a first-past-the-post voting system, which tends to amplify the vote share of the winner. While this does not guarantee outright majorities (as with UK's last election, which necessitated a coalition), it is nontheless more stable than a proportional represention.

The fear of an indecisive government seems exaggerated. In my opinion, the greater danger is that of having insufficient safeguards to moderate the political process.

Thoughts on Education

I doubt that education is a universal panacea to society's woes.

Education is often held to be a solution to the problems that ail society; the moral degeneration of our youth, the stagnation of our economy, the increase in incivility, the demise of the family, all these and more. While education may indeed prove helpful to these issues, I don't think it's wise to consider it a silver bullet to each and every problem.

At the very least, pushing everything to schools and teachers isn't going to work.

Every problem that affects us on a national level isn't a simple one that can be traced to a single root cause, much less a cause stemming from an inadequate or flawed education. If we fail to recognise problems for what they are, and address the entire basket of root causes, not only will we fail to resolve the initial problems, we will also end with a compromised education for an entire generation of students.

My belief is that most issues are socioeconomic in nature, and can be better addressed by dispensing funds to social programs, or to needy receipients. While increasing funds alloted to education isn't a bad idea per se, I believe that funds can be spent more intelligently. Improving school facilities, raising teacher wages, or increasing teaching staff aren't bad ideas, and will indeed help resolve problems stemming from inadequate infrastructure or low quality of teachers. However, simple initatives like school lunches have been shown to have as great an impact on educational outcomes. Thus, we should make proper assessments as to whether our spending is directed to obtain the greatest effect.

Elections and Cognitive Costs

Research has suggested that the prevailing economic conditions are a strong predictor of the incumbent's reelection chances. 

I don't think that people are optimizers when it comes to elections. That is, people don't immediately begin to evaluate the various choices available and to compare and decide on the best candidate(s) or party to vote. That's cognitively expensive. Elections are not about choosing the best person(s).

Instead, I think the very first question people ask themselves is, 'Is everything good?" If nothing is really wrong, then most people would consider that acceptable and vote for the incumbent. It doesn't matter if the other candidates have a possibility of being superior; if it's not broken, why fix it? That's the power of the status quo. It isn't exactly wrong; cognitive costs and information costs do exist, even if it trivializes elections.

That's why challengers face an uphill battle; something needs to be wrong for them to have a good chance. Only when people have doubts about the incumbent does the second question come in: 'Which of these choices is better?' As a gatekeeping rule to conserve cognitive resources, this seems to be a valid strategy for making decisions, though it is somewhat reactionary. 

Of course, there are still many who rely exclusively on the first judgment. If things are good, they vote one way; if not, they vote the other. It suffices to say that such a simplistic, binary thought process fails to achieve much. Some of us only have the capacity to know that things are wrong, but not why, and not how to fix it.

Frequent Polling to Encourage High-Information Voting

Of the several polls available on the US presidential elections, the RAND poll is probably unique in that it samples the same, consistent group of potential voters each week over the course of the election. By tracking the preferences of the same people, it is possible to obtain a less noisy estimate of how public opinion on each presidential candidate has changed over time in response to their campaign efforts and other events.

One criticism of the RAND poll is that because the same voters are being polled on a weekly basis, this act of constant polling has itself an effect on the results. It may create a psychological incentive for the polled to pay more attention to the current state of the election, and to consider more deeply the merits of each candidate.

In other words, they are more likely to be high-information voters. 

This final conclusion seems interesting to me. One often cited flaw with democracy is that of the electorate; we all hope for the wisdom of the crowds, yet we also secretly doubt the intelligence of our compatriots. Low-information voters are more easily swayed by irrelevant variables, and may waver towards poor choices and decisions. At the same time it does not seem right to impose tests of any sort, as that is prone to manipulation and abuse. Of course, what should be done is to raise voter education, or at least attention and interest.

Constant polling seems to force this attentional factor, and may be helpful in reducing voter apathy.

Entry Barriers and the Singapore Presidential Election

The spoiler effect may well have been the cause of Dr. Tony Tan's victory in the recent 2011 Singapore Presidential Election. I do not wish to comment much on this, apart from making the point that First-Past-The-Post voting systems have several disadvantages as compared to other more complex preferential voting schemes.

What I do find interesting is this: It is known that there are very high entry barriers to running in the Singapore Presidential Elections; these entry barriers manifest themselves first in the high standards required to obtain a Certificate of Eligibility, and second in the hefty election deposit. High entry barriers act to deter and perhaps to impede alternative candidates from participating in the elections. Yet from this election it appears that allowing more candidates to participate actually improves the chances of victory for the establishment candidate.

Lowering the entry barriers allows more candidates to participate in the elections, and increases the fragmentation and splitting of votes (though tactical voting will limit the effect, but I despise the very idea of tactical voting). However, at the risk of adopting a binary view of the political system, I speculate that the establishment may be assumed to be sufficiently disciplined to put forth only one candidate, and hence is less susceptible to split vote effects. 

Therefore, I wonder if the governing party would be more advantaged if there were actually no entry barriers erected in place.

To Know Better, To Execute Better

Advice is one of those items that is very much unwanted if unsolicited. The audacity of them to think that they know better about us then we ourselves! What are we, incompetent? Stop interfering!

Could we say the same of paternalism, or even government in general? We don't need a strong hand constantly looking over our shoulder, prodding us in "our best interests". To be nagged or beaten, just to force us to act in line with some projected notion of what's best for us, strikes many as being quite unacceptable.

It's difficult to argue that others know us better than ourselves, though in several cases our confidence in our self-understanding is merely an illusion. So, let's just grant that we know what we want, for argument's sake. However, knowing what we what doesn't actually make us any better at obtaining or fulfilling such desires. Motive does not imply competence. This is even more true when it comes to more complex phenomena, such as society or government.

In politics, a false dilemma is often presented between a layman that knows nothing of the art of governing, but who knows the trials and tribulations of the populace, and a highly trained and efficient robot that unfortunately has no realistic idea of what anyone really wants. Let's avoid such false dualities. It does occur in nature, but only as a result of willful ignorance. It occurs when someone speaks from his experience, but does not study the consequences of his suggestions. It occurs when someone performs a correction, but does not bother learning whether there was a problem in the first place. Both are regrettable, possibly well-intentioned, but not correct.

Fare Increases and Nationalization of Public Transport

Yet again there are requests by public transport companies SMRT and SBS Transit to raise fares. I'll not go into whether such fare hikes are indeed justified, for it is beyond my present expertise. Still, as a footnote for future reference, my position on the matter is that I will be convinced that the fare increases are justified if:

1. It is shown that the public transport companies are nonviable in the absence of the fare rise, and that service levels will necessarily be impacted as a direct result of fares remaining unchanged.
2. There is reasonable effort on the part of the public transport companies at improving the cost-effectiveness of their operations.

As mentioned previously I lack the expertise and information to make a solid decision and hence I shall be withholding judgement on the issue.

However, some friends have indicated their disgust at the issue. They mention in particular that the privatization of public transport is unsound. Instead, they have suggested for public transport to be nationalized.

I can understand their position. While the free market is very often more capable of provisioning goods and services at lower cost then the public sector, I do not believe that this holds for the situation we have at present. Few competitive forces appear to be at work. There are some economic penalties for poor service standards, yet these are quite insufficient to modify the behavior of transport operators in a significant fashion.

Yet I do not entirely agree with nationalization of public transport. Competitive tendering of bus routes can bring forth a cost reduction of up to 30-40% [1]. It is merely that Singapore has adopted a poor model of privatizing public transport. Public transport operators should not be compensated on the basis of fares collected, because such models offer no economic incentive to improve service standards (demand being largely inelastic). Rather, public transport operators should be confined to being merely contractors of transport services, and compensated appropriately if they meet various service criteria. This helps to aligns the interests of the transport operators in line with those of the consumer. Competitive forces are also more significant during route tendering, hence such tenders should be held regularly.

A Novel Solution to the Problem of Ministerial and Parliamentary Wages

In Singapore, ministers are paid considerably more than any of their global counterparts; wages for even a junior cabinet position work out to at least a million Singapore dollars. Now, that sum is a considerable premium over the median wages of Singaporeans, and therefore the policy of benchmarking ministers' pay to top earners invites much criticism and causes much dissatisfaction.

This is not to say that the policy is ill-founded even in principle. I think that it is preferable for a nation to be governed by the competent, and if the competent are discouraged by the low wages of serving office, then the disincentives ought to be removed and office holders compensated.

Yet the devil is always in the details. How much compensation is sufficient? Clearly no compensation is madness, unless one is a supporter of plutocracy. Conversely, paying too much is distasteful to public sentiment and may divert public funds from other useful ventures. Some middle ground is the best solution, but deciding this proper price point is difficult.

I am quite a believer in the free market, and I think that free market principles can be exploited to solve this difficult problem. The general principle is the same- you get what you are willing to pay for. If you don't think that something is not worth it, then don't buy! This basic idea is elegant.

My idea is this: Each candidate for a position (be it parliamentary or cabinet) sets a price at which he would work for. This price must be publicized openly; if and when he wins office, his wages are fixed at that level throughout his current term of service (with perhaps an increment corresponding to inflation). For the voters, everything remains the same- they vote for the candidate they deem most suitable for office. Implicitly, though, the decision criteria has changed; instead of selecting the best candidate, it has shifted to selecting the candidate that provides the best bang for the buck.

What do you think of my idea?

On the WP's Proposal to Peg Prices of New Flats

I disagree with the Workers' Party's (WP) proposal to peg the prices of new HDB flats to the median income of Singaporeans. I will argue that such a policy is ineffective in moderating housing prices, and that simpler alternatives are avaiable for controlling the price of housing.

The high cost of public housing may be viewed in simple economic terms, that of supply and demand. High housing prices is a natural outcome when demand for housing far surpasses the available supply. Both the supply and demand for housing can be further differentiated into two categories; the resale market and new flats from HDB. Such a differentiation is important.

For the purposes of simpler analysis I will assume that demand for public housing is inelastic; that is, the number of people seeking homes remains relatively constant regardless of housing prices. I also assume that buyers have no particular preference between a new flat and one on the resale market, given that both are priced similarly.

When a potential buyer seeks to buy a flat, there are two alternatives, a new flat from the HDB or a resale flat from the resale market. In general, the new HDB flat is cheaper than the resale flat due to a discount/subsidy, but the tradeoff is a waiting period for queuing, construction, etc (colloquially, waiting for keys). Thus, buying a flat from the resale market is naturally more expensive; this may be viewed as an "Impatience Premium" on those who have a more immediate need for housing. Demand for flats distributes itself naturally between the two sources of supply, subject to various influences. For instance, if housing subsidies are increased, a buyer may consider it worth waiting out for a new HDB flat, whereas if the waiting period for new HDB flats were to be increased, a buyer may find resale flats more attractive.

The WP proposes to peg the prices of new HDB flats to the median income of Singaporeans. The likely outcome of this policy is to reduce the price of new HDB flats, relative to existing prices. In the absence of other factors, this artificial price ceiling will have a modest cooling effect on housing prices, due to the reduction in the demand for resale flats. There is less demand for resale flats because more buyers will be persuaded by lower prices to wait in line for new HDB flats. Demand will thus be shifted from the resale market.

The chief effect of the WP's policy is to shift demand by manipulating prices. However, some undesirable outcomes result, namely increased waiting times for flats due to the greater number of people waiting for new HDB flats.

One objection to my arguments is that it is possible to avoid long waiting times by simply increasing the build rate of new flats. I agree with such astute observations. Increasing the supply of flats indeed alleviates the long waiting periods for new housing. But such an observation also highlights one important fact.

The problem with public housing is primarily one of mismatched supply and demand. High prices are but a symptom of this mismatch. Therefore, approaches that do not directly deal with either housing supply or housing demand are likely to be ineffective.

I believe that the housing problem is most effectively dealt with by scaling up the supply of new flats. This solution has a direct impact on housing prices, because if demand for housing is satiated by new flats, then demand on the resale market is correspondingly reduced, therefore reducing housing prices. In economic terms, by increasing supply, with demand constant, prices fall. With suitable management of supply, it is possible to control the cost of housing.

Let's revisit the WP's proposal. The plan to peg prices of new flats would result in prolonged waiting times for new flats, unless more new flats are built in response to demand. However, as I have argued, by simply ramping up supply of new flats, a moderating effect on housing prices is achieved. Hence, by Occam's Razor I would question the necessity of the price pegging policy. Let's only manage one variable, the supply of new houses to build, rather than also managing the selling price of HDB flats at the same time.

There are merits to the WP's intentions, though. While I disagree with their price pegging policy, I am swayed by the policy's objective of matching housing prices to the median income. My objection is merely that I do not believe price pegging is the best way to achieve that policy objective.

Quick Notes from A Political Forum on Singapore's Future

I've just caught the political debate between the PAP and the various opposition parties on CNA. As a whole the program wasn't too bad, though I would have preferred more substantial material.

Below are the quick notes I took during the programme. I'll post my thoughts and opinions at a later date, probably tomorrow.

** On second thought, since the programme has been discussed extensively, I shall no longer be posting my own comments on this issue.

---

A Political Forum on Singapore's Future

Opening Speech
PAP- global competition , income increase, best education, geriatric care
SDA- clean energy, innovation, education
SDP- those left behind
SPP- alternative voice, democracy, equality, safe place, financial hub, technologies
WP- wealth distribution, dignity, entrepreneurs, education (formative years, love for learning instead of drilling), affordable and quality healthcare, social safety net.
SDP- quality of leadership, whitely escape, ubs poor quality of living russia

Cost of Living
WP- hdb houses (pegged to median income), rentals (cost of business)
SPP- open door immigration policy forces increases cost of living
SDP- rising healthcare costs, waiting period (3mth subsidized, 3 mins unsubsidised) for medical care, 0 rate GST for basic services, hdb run as non-profit, assets locked into homes
SDA- housing (should not be a commercial issue, should be run as public good) healthcare, education, basic items
PAP- 23% servicing cost (cheaper relative to developing countries), medifund etc expanded (cities are expensive), poor get more than GST collected

Foreign Workers
SDA- harmful to jobs, level playing field, companies top up salaries of local worker
PAP- selectively recruit foreign workers (manufacturing 80% not sg, 80% managerial sg), not reduce, 2% unemployment, quota system (Singaporeans first),
SDA targeted industry
WP- rate of immigration not exceed capacity to absorb and integrate, no foreigners unless positions unable to fill, reduce reliance by increasing productivity (to fill with locals)
SDP- displaced due to cheap labour, Singaporeans first policy, demonstrate need first before hiring

Short and Long Term Challenges
SDA- wage does not match inflation, public interest ahead of commercial interest
SDP- shadow budget, public services (not private), cost of govt decrease (ministerial pay), 0 rate GST, Singaporeans first, minimum wage, build up SM enterprises
SPP- education build more universities, lifelong learning, political awareness in youth for platform for critical thinking, build more hospital beds (due to medical tourism), conductive environment for thinking, marginalized Singaporeans not normal (single mothers)
WP- lack of checks and balances in govt, need for parties to build strength to be alternatives
PAP- 85% utilization of beds, bulk of GST paid by rich and foreigners

Mother Tongue Reweighing

There has been much furore over the suggested (and later retracted) reweighing of Mother Tongue at PSLE. Much has been said regarding this, but from my observations of forum letters as well as of online views, almost everyone has made a crucial oversight.

The policy, despite being about Mother Tongue, seems almost inexorably argued or discussed in the context of the Chinese language. While it is not wrong per say to discuss one's experiences (which are obviously limited to one's own mother tongue), the apparent lack of consideration or input regarding other languages is disturbing. After all, the suggested subject reweighing affects students of all races and mother tongues, not merely Chinese students.

Despite my hesitance to invoke issues of race or ethnicity into discussions, I suspect that any move to reduce the weighting of Mother Tongue would have a greater negative impact on students of other races and ethnicities than on Chinese students; in general, they have better overall proficiencies in their mother tongues than do Chinese students, and hence would be more likely to be negatively affected by a reweighing.

Of course, now that the policy suggestion has been retracted, the contents of this may no longer be important. However, I do hope that future policies are more considerate of other ethnicities, and are more explicit in such considerations.

Polarization in Singapore Media

The mainstream media in Singapore is often accused of being biased. This allegation stems from the observation that the mainstream media tends to report only the positive aspects of Government policy. Clearly, this is insufficient, and a severe failing; good reporting should give attention to both sides of an issue.

At the same time, however, I can’t help but think that the online community has committed the same mistake, by tending to report only the negative aspects of Government policy. It may be possible to justify this by claiming that we should hold different mediums to different standards, but this argument is not entirely satisfactory.

My take is that alternative media is reactionary is nature, often in response to the mainstream media. For example, if an article about a policy X is reported favorably in the papers, then arguments against X will be reported in alternative media, to serve as a counterpoint. In this fashion, well-intentioned bloggers (or citizen journalists, though I dislike the term) describe the weaknesses in public policy which are omitted in the mainstream media; a discussion of the positives is often not made as it is implicitly assumed that the reader is familiar with the source material previously published in the mainstream media.

However, the precondition of familiarity with the source material may not be satisfied; thus the intellectually lazy may be presented with an unduly negative portrayal of matters. It is troubling if anyone subscribes to any one source of information, more so if the sources are polarized or biased.

I have portrayed the roles of the mainstream media and alternative media as being complimentary; perhaps those more skeptical will instead have a more adversarial view.

On the Property Tax Hike

I read with interest the news article on the impending hike in property taxes, and the resulting online responses to the hike.

The interesting thing is, despite the framing of the news article, the tax rate has not been raised at all. In fact, the whole article seems deliberately confusing, resulting in much negative reaction online.

It is, however, true that the property tax payable will be higher next year than it is now. But how is it possible for the tax rate to remain constant, while the tax payable is increased? The crux to the matter is that the property tax is rated at a fixed percentage of the annual rental value of the property (named Annual Value). This Annual Value is determined periodically by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS).

Now, logically the AV should be updated yearly to ensure a just amount of property tax is paid; it would be bad if the AV used to compute the property tax is higher or lower than the actual AV. Also, note that the AV is related to the market rates for rental (and hence, indirectly to property prices).

It so happens that the current adjustment of the AV is almost certainly upward due to an increase in the market rental rate (and indirectly, property prices). Hence, the property tax has increased, and yet the tax rate has not increased.

It would be unfair to accuse the Government, or any parties, of deliberate ill-will in causing the tax increase. In other words, the idea that the Government has created or levied a new, increased tax should be put to rest, for it is false.

The more accurate IRAS news regarding the matter can be read online.

On the Materialism of Society

When a person is too concerned with material wealth and luxury, we may condemn that person as being materialistic. If we were to take the same argument and apply it not to persons, but to societies, to national entities, then we will arrive at a single conclusion- that Singapore is exceedingly materialistic.

How so? It has been said that the key prerogative of Singapore's leadership is economic growth. And indeed, Singapore has experienced much success towards that goal. But to frame economic growth as the most important of goals, to focus the most energies on enlarging and strengthening the economy, and to then treat the outcomes of such growth as symbols of power, of modernity, of first-world-ness - is there not something missing?

It is sadly laughable for us to not develop the other tenets of society, to hastily ignore that which has no economic benefits, and to then exuberantly claim that "we have arrived!" It does have a hollow ring to it.

It is not to say that the path adopted is wrong, particularly if one does in fact agree with the tenets of materialism. For what could be wrong with more fast cars, more luxury bags, and more cash?

Explorations on Population Aging

Consider the following set of premises:

1) People ought to be responsible for the consequences of their own choices and actions.

2) People ought not be held responsible for the consequences of actions and choices that are not their own.

3) The economic problem of supporting the elderly is primarily the result of the diminishing base of younger taxpayers.

4) The lack of younger taxpayers is the direct result of the elderly not reproducing enough earlier on.

Taking the above four premises, one arrives at the following two conclusions:

1) From premises 2, 3 and 4, we conclude that it is unjustifiable for the younger taxpayers to assume a larger share of the financial burden of supporting the elderly.

2) From premises 1, 3 and 4, we conclude that it is justifiable for the elderly to be held to a greater level of responsibility for their own upkeep.

---

Note that the above argument is meant as an philosophical exploration on the issue of population aging, and does not reflect the entirety of the author's views.

On Patriotism

I do not think that watching little tanks and soldiers parade by is a mark of a patriot, nor is saying the pledge in unison a sign of patriotism. To believe so might be a tad superficial, in my opinion.

At the great risk of offending sensibilities, I feel that true patriotism is reflected by the love of a nation, and manifested by a desire to improve the condition of the nation's people. Waving small flags and singing songs does little toward improving our well-being; it might be nationalistic, but it is not patriotic.

Perhaps one does feel some pride welling up in the chest due to being a member of this nation. Perhaps one does think this is a great place to live. But if one does not help improve one's society, to improve the lot of others coexisting in that same society, one is not a patriot.

It is the little things that are the most telling; whenever I see the selfish and self-absorbed refuse to shift further in public buses, whenever I see people littering and bespoiling the streets, whenever I see food and drink being consumed on public transport, whenever I see people conversing loudly on mobile phones in libraries, I reach the undeniable conclusion- that perhaps there are very few patriots indeed.

Free Speech

What is free speech? I suppose some would think that free speech is the right to freely voice our thoughts, to speak our twopence. However, that is not all. We often neglect the second, and more important element, which is the reciprocal duty to have others, even those who hold opinions most contrary and repulsive to that of our own, voice their own views. That is free speech, for there is no right that does not come with a reciprocal duty.

If it were an ideal world, free speech would allow a dialogue between conflicting views, where listeners and debaters alike would calmly and amicably hear the arguments, and by the process of reason, arrive at their conclusions. But it is not an ideal world; it is a world where we often suppress the views of others.

There are occasions where a party seems to hold views so obviously abhorrent and grievously wrong, and yet vehemently continues to air these poisoned views to the public. And sometimes, we rise up and forcefully quieten these parties. Is this right, I would ask. Perhaps we have given in to fear, a fear that the naive or easily impassioned would fall for these venomous words.

If it were a perfect world, our forceful silencing would be immoral and wrong, for we have made meaningful dialogue impossible, hence doing disservice to our own beliefs and views, for those that believe themselves to be in the right ought to have no fear of having their views tested. But it is not a perfect world, nor are we by any means perfect. We are too foolish, and too easily impassioned. Perhaps only by preventing the extreme voice can we maintain our fragile peace. It is a difficult calculation nonetheless.

It is my hope that in the near future, humans might not be as easily deceived, or as easily moved to arms, as we are now. Perhaps then can we all enjoy the rights of free speech without destroying our peace.

The Knife Cuts Both Ways

In latest news, the Singapore government has announced some proposed changes to the electoral system which would increase the minimum number of opposition MPs in parliament to nine (this done by the device of the NCMP). This is intended to increase the range of views heard in parliament.

Would this measure work? Indeed, it seems that the number of alternative views presented would be greatly increased- this from a purely statistical viewpoint, since it is obvious that nine is greater than the number of opposition MPs, elected or otherwise, currently in parliament. And, since opposition MPs tend to be more active in parliamentry debates, one can't help but think that things are likely to be more vibrant.

What's the catch, then? Well, the catch is that the knife cuts both ways. Recall the effective "by-election strategy" employed in the 1991 elections, which resulted in great success for the opposition parties. That success was possible by contesting less than half the seats, and focusing the role of the opposition to be that of a watchdog and a provider of alternative views.

By legislating a significant amount of opposition voices into parliament, one can't help but think that the persuasiveness of the watchdog/alternative views electoral platform is somewhat weakened. However, I doubt that many would find the situation of having 2 elected opposition MPs as being significantly more preferable than the situation of having 9 NCMPs, even considering the reduced powers of a NCMP.

The real question is whether the opposition would lose ground in the next election. Possibly, due to the forementioned weakening of the watchdog/alternative views platform, though I think this might not be such a bad thing. I've always felt a bit ambivalent about the by-election strategy; it is the equivalent of aiming to come in second in a race just to win the second prize. It's not a reliable strategy, and it gives the mixed message of "we are not good enough to run the country, only enough to point out a few weaknesses in policy". The strategy really discounts some of the good work and thought that some parties have put into becoming a viable alternative for the PAP.

Though I suspect that it might be a moment premature, perhaps it's time for opposition parties to step up to the mantle, and present themselves as fully valid alternatives rather than mere complements to the PAP.

Musings on Transport Subsidies

During a dialogue session with Macpherson residents on Sunday, Transport Minister Raymond Lim, in response to questions on the rising cost of public transport, revealed that it would take a further 1.5 percentage point hike in GST if bus and train rides were to be made completely free.

On certain levels, the argument is attractive. As a libertarian and a minarchist, one of my beliefs is that governments should be as small and limited as possible. The argument for minarchism is similar to that raised by the Transport Minister- that ultimately, governmental interference (for example, in the form of subsidies) is circular, taking with one hand and giving with the other. More importantly, the objection is that such interference is pointless and inefficent.

Though the arguments for minarchism are actually deeper, the theory does appear to stick to the issue of public transport. It is a simple solution to demand transport subsidies from the Government, but ultimately, is not the Government funded by the taxpayer? In effect, transport subsidies are tantamount to the public transport user being subsidized by the private transport user, which may or may not be desirable, depending on your views on wealth redistribution.

There is, however, one mistake in the prior reasoning. That mistake is to assume that the game is zero-sum, and that subsidies take X from a person and distributes X to another. and that there is no change in overall utility. For certain goods, especially public goods, this may not be true. In some cases, total utility can be increased by redistribution. One notable example is that of economic stimulus packages, which, by taking tax money and redistributing it to the citizens, might initially appear to be foolish, but is actually somewhat a prudent measure, since it encourages economic growth in the hope that the tax money lost could be more than recouped by the growth in the tax base.

Having raised the idea that subsidies might not be zero-sum, let us try to explore how this can be so. To speed up affairs, let us ask whether a sum X spent in transport subsidies can possibly generate a greater sum Y in additional economic growth. To answer the question, we need to study the effects of the additional mobility granted by the corresponding reduction in public transport costs.

Firstly, I could postulate that the gain in mobility may generate a weak rise in consumer spending, since we are less deterred from going out, though I admit that any rise in spending would most likely be minimal. A second effect is that retail competitiveness would increase, as consumers are less likely to be locked in to vendors from the neighborhood. This might lead to smaller shops (pop-and-mom outfits) being negatively affected, since the advantage of locale would be eroded.

A more important effect is that of jobs. Traditionally, distance (from the home to the workplace) is one barrier to the choice of jobs available to a worker. While there may be many job opportunities, many jobs are not possible or at least less attractive due to the commuting distance, and also commuting cost. Corresponding reductions in the cost of commuting may see a rise in employment rates, or of worker quality.

It might be possible that subsidies for public transport may generate more utility than their cost, though very careful studies must be made to quantify arguments for it, as I admit that the arguments I put forward in this post are at this stage entirely hypothetical. In particular, the issue of how the subsidies are to be funded should also be taken into account, as certain forms of funding are likely to destroy or erode gains made from the subsidies. For example, additional consumption taxes are likely to dampen or even reverse growth in consumer spending. Hence, more research would be desirable to shed more light onto this matter.