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 the MRT Breakdowns

The MRT system suffered two breakdowns in as many days. This has sparked a significant negative outcry from the public, and not entirely unwarranted. 

My first thought is on the nature of the criticisms of SMRT. It is indeed true that SMRT should be censured, but not for the breakdowns. Unless given evidence that the breakdowns were caused by SMRT, whether through neglect or incompetence, it is unfair to fault SMRT for what is essentially beyond their control. Accidents and failures happen even given the best of engineering and maintenance. It makes no more sense to punish them on this basis than to fine an employee for falling sick. 

What SMRT is culpable for is a flagrant and utter failure in crisis management. Few steps were taken to inform or redirect commuters from stations after the lines were down, and even that response was sluggish; stations should have refused passengers if no trains were to come. On the stuck trains, passengers were forced to smash windows for ventilation, which suggests that staff were unable to either calm or tend to passengers on the stopped trains. Furthermore, it highlights the lack of emergency supplies, be it torchlights or simple rations, on the train. The poor crisis response is damning as a whole on SMRT. It is not sufficient for any transport operator to only be concerned with its daily operations. I contrast SMRT's performance with my experiences on the London Underground. In terms of sheer number of breakdowns and scheduled line closures for maintenance, the Tube far far outnumbers the MRT. There, it's not unusual for some line to be down or closed. Yet the line information is always clearly displayed, whether on electronic or marker boards, at prominent points of entry and on the station platforms. Status updates of each line (whether a line is delayed, or whether service is good) are displayed by default. We should learn from this, especially since our lines and rolling stock is aging, and breakdowns are only going to get more frequent.

Apart from the breakdown itself, there was also some outrage over the perhaps insensitive wording of a taxi operator, who sent a message advising cabbies to seize the opportunity to ferry stranded passengers. Myself, I find there to be little reason for such a reaction. Those who are claiming that this is exploitation or profiteering are making an absurd statement. They're not demanding extra fares or anything, merely optimizing their chances of picking-up passengers. What's wrong with rerouting taxis to points where there is high demand? Surely, the situation is superior to one where all the cabbies are roaming around the island with empty cabs and stranded commuters are left waiting? The sole fault is a poor wording "Income Opportunity", which though possibly callous in a deontological sense, does not really strike me as being particularly offensive.

UPDATE:
As of Saturday the MRT has broken down yet once more. Thrice in a week hints at systemic problems in maintenance. It will be difficult to put this down as a series of random occurrences.

Time-Differentiated Public Transport Fares

The frequency of public transport during non-peak hours is typically lower than that during peak hours. This can result in extremely poor service quality during non-peak hours, with long waits for buses or trains.

It is possible to increase the frequency of public transport for off-peak hours, but that typically requires additional resources. This could mean a general rise in public transport fares. However, I am wondering if a time-differentiated fare structure would be a superior option. Such a fare structure would charge different fares, dependent on the time of boarding/arrival.

A first thought is to increase off-peak transport charges, to pay for the additional services deployed. This helps to make off-peak transport less of a loss-making venture, or even marginally profitable. However, increasing charges on non-peak rides would change public transport usage patterns, as some riders may instead seek to leave earlier or later to use the cheaper peak-hour transport. This increases  the peak-hour burden, and simultaneously decreases the ridership (and profitability) of off-peak public transport. Therefore it is not a good option to charge more for off-peak fares.

The reverse fare structure seems to be a better idea. Charging more for peak-hour fares reshapes transport-usage patterns in a beneficial way, reducing the rush-hour load and increasing the ridership for off-peak transport. Furthermore, the additional charges ought to go a far way in subsidizing buses or trains running during less-profitable hours.

Evidence for Hub and Spoke Model of Public Transit

It seems to me that during rush hours, more passengers alight from the front entrance of the bus rather than from the rear entrance. This could mean one of several things:

1)That passengers who board earlier take longer trips.

2) That passengers who board later drop earlier.

Taken together, there is some evidence that people use buses for one of two modes, trunk or short trips. It is correspondingly less efficient if a service caters to both types of passengers; much of the vehicle capacity is taken by trunk passengers, whereas the frequent alighting and boarding reduces the overall speed of the route.

NUS Notebook Tender Scheme

It was once that prices for notebooks under the NUS Notebook tender scheme were attractive. This is no longer the case.

I was dumbfounded to find the prices for NUS notebooks to start at $1.4k. These prices would be reasonable perhaps only a few years back, but not today. It is possible, and in fact not difficult, to purchase a decent notebook for slightly more the half the price. You're not even getting crap at $800; you'll easily get a 2nd generation i5 processor, and if you're astute, a discrete graphics card more than capable for graphics, video, and games.

But I digress. Perhaps it is indeed possible to purchase a low-cost laptop outside. We might argue that the NUS laptops are much higher spec, which accounts for their comparatively higher cost. However, after doing some comparisons, I find that in general, it is possible to purchase similar or superior spec laptops at lower prices outside. The price differentials generally work out to be on the order of $100 ~ $200. These figures were obtained by comparing the prices listed on the NUS website and flyers from the recently concluded COMEX.

It now appears that in terms of price, the NUS notebooks are not attractive, nor even competitive. Perhaps the only saving grace comes in terms of the software packages bundled; all NUS models come with Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite. Only if one does indeed need these software packages, and factors in these at their full selling price, does the NUS option become competetive. However, I am very much doubtful.

There are several points that I find distasteful about the entire affair. The notebook prices are uniformly high, and in my opinion cannot possibly be optimally suited for the needs of every student. Not every student needs, or wants, a superior laptop in the course of his studies. Not every student uses Adobe Creative, or even possibly Microsoft Office. The main factor of choice appears to be neglected in the equation. I fear that students have been made to tolerate paying for unwanted features that are merely the result of some administrator's list of 'necessary features'.

FPTP and Information Loss

I hesitate to draw the conclusion that the majority of Singaporeans do not want TT as their president. This is akin to holding a contest amongst friends for the most-loved person and concluding that the losers are hated. 

The information provided by a FPTP vote is binary in nature. Each vote only tells us who a candidate most prefers, and nothing else. Perhaps he approves of all or some of the other candidates, just slightly less. Perhaps he disapproves of everyone, but he hates his choice the least. But such important information is destroyed and irrecoverable with a FPTP system.

My preference is for approval or Condorcet voting.

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.

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.

Kindness Survey and Illusory Superiority

A recent survey concerning kindness, conducted by the Singapore Kindness Movement, "found a significant gap between Singaporeans' self-perception on how they performed when it comes to graciousness versus their perception on how fellow citizens fared.

Forty-three per cent of those polled rated themselves high on graciousness, while only 15 per cent rated others likewise."

I fail to see how this is good research. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of psychology is aware of the effect of "illusory superiority", where people tend to rate themselves as better than average. 

To draw truly interesting and useful results, the survey should have included further controls to eliminate the influence of this psychological effect.

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.

Chope!, or The Problem of Seat Reservation

If I were to have lunch at noon at the campus canteen, the following would invariably occur: I would walk down the stairs leading to the canteen and observe that many tables are unoccupied, and think to myself, "Oh, lucky!". A few moments later, on a closer approach, I would realize that the seats at the "unoccupied" tables are occupied with bags or items - Yes, these tables have been 'Choped', or reserved by the owners of the items. It is a culture prevalent in Singapore.

It is not that I have a problem with items being used to reserve tables. My objection would be equally great if someone (of presumably a party greater than 2 members in size) was left behind to take watch over the tables. The issue is seat reservation. It does not require extensive thought to realize that seat reservation reduces the useful seating capacity of the canteen (or hawker center); simply consider the amount of time that a table is not put to useful work (ie, being used by people in the act of eating). A table is not being actively used when the reserver is out ordering her food. If we were to parametrize the amount of time spent eating as E and the amount of time when the table is reserved as R, then the useful capacity of the canteen has been reduced to a fraction E/(E+R).

The problem can also be considered from the perspective of game theory. The choices available are to not reserve, hence exposing yourself to the risk of having no table to eat at but marginally improving everyone's chance of obtaining a seat, or to reserve, ensuring that you have a seat when you have purchased your food but decreasing everyone's chances of finding a table. In such a situation, given that largely non-observable and minor benefits of not reserving a seat as compared to the considerable benefit of reserving a seat, the outcome is understandable.

Observations During the Safari Zoo Run

Yesterday, I participated in the Safari Zoo Run '10. It was a run of intermediate distance (6.2km) through the Night Safari and the Singapore Zoo. The route wasn't perfect, with some uneven terrain near the end, and a lot of slopes (minor and major) during some parts of the run. Still, despite my relative lack of training (consider 4 years of no exercise and perhaps 4 weeks of running prior), my run timing was more than satisfactory from my own perspective (42 mins).

Though the attraction of the event was ostensibly being able to view the animals while running, I actually found the fellow runners to be of more interest. Some observations made during the run:

1) The Japanese Trio: There was a group of three Japanese runners, each armed with a digital camera. One of their member would sprint perhaps 100m ahead, and take a photo when the group caught up. Another member would then himself run 100m ahead to take the next photo. In such a leapfrog fashion, they managed to capture photos of themselves during the run. It was quite amusing, and the Japanese runners appeared to be quite enthusiastic and jolly about the entire affair, posing and waving for each photo-take. It couldn't have been an efficient method of running, though; I probably left them behind after perhaps the 1 or 2 km mark.

2) The Tudong Runner: There was a Muslim woman running with the tudong headdress. I do not recall whether she was wearing the Safari Zoo dry-fit running tee; but in any case, running with a piece of cloth covering the head doesn't exactly seem very clean or hygienic. However, I do wonder if a specialized running headdress for Muslim women has been invented; I imagine that a headdress made of dry-fit microfiber (the stuff they make running tees and shorts out of that manages to absorb and evaporate sweat fast) would be better than one made of ordinary cloth.

3. Mother and Child: The Safari Zoo run was partly catered for young runners and the family, hence there were a number of parents running with their children. At around the 1km mark, there was a mother chastising her son (while running) for not adopting the proper running technique, while giving her son pseudo-advice (it's a short distance ! Before you know it it'll be over). If I were to be in the shoes of the son I'll be fairly irritated; I might have been motivated to run faster just to shake her off. Furthermore it is a waste of energy to talk while running.

4. Constantly Overtaken: The runners were dispatched in waves spaced about 5 minutes apart, probably to ensure that the running paths are not clogged with runners (which often happens during runs where bunches of runners can form, much like traffic jams). I was in the second wave. I probably overtook all the people that were slower than myself within the first two kilometers; for the rest of the race, I was constantly being overtaken. But, for the same reason, I could have tried to raise my speed as a result, hence I was faster than I expected (I was expecting 45-50 mins, based on some prior training).

5. Jacked Prices: After the run I went to the convenience store in the zoo, just to take a look at the prices. They were indeed inflated. A bottle of green tea usually costs about $1 at the right places; in convenience stores, they cost $2 (due to the 'convenience ' factor); at the zoo, it costs $3. I am intrigued; the traffic to the zoo couldn't have been poor. The rent must have been high, then.

GDP, GNP, and Quality of Life

It seems to me that measuring national progress against the benchmarks of GDP or GNP is, while not entirely unjustified, somewhat misguided. How does one benefit as a result of such increases in GDP or GNP? It is quite an abstract measure, but perhaps some might defend these queer yardsticks by claiming, "If GDP/GNP increases, this likely means that my income has increased!". Even if such a statement is true (which it may not be), I ask, "So what? How is that good?".

The subtext is, of course, that an income increase is good as it raises one's quality of life. But that raises a question- why not simply use the quality of life as a direct measure of national progress!

We of the modern age run the risk of mistaking financial strength as a core good. It is not; obviously our quality of life is by far the most important. Admittedly, GDP and GNP may be somewhat indicative of the average quality of life in a country, but this is at best a coarse measure. We ought not to focus on increasing GDP and GNP while losing sight of the true goal, which is to raise our quality of life. By concentrating on the wrong measures of progress, we are confounding ourselves, and exposing ourselves to a life of wealthy misery.

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?

New Thoughts on Organ Compensation

The idea of organ compensation has been raised in Singapore, and with considerable controversy. While there are many arguments on both sides, my view is that some forms of compensation, such as lifelong medical insurance, may be more morally (and politically) acceptable than other forms of compensation, such as outright monetary reimbursement. But that is not the point of this post, which is to question the basic assumptions of organ compensation.

Setting aside the moral assumptions of the policy (which is the idea of providing appropriate compensation to the donor such that he is not adversely affected by his altruistic act), the core motivation of organ compensation is to increase organ donations. Hence, the key assumption of the organ compensation policy is that by providing adequate compensation to a donor, there may be less hesitance or reluctance for a potential donor to donate his organ.

From an intuitive perspective, this assumption seems sound. After all, before one decides to donate an organ, one must invariably be hesitant due to the great negative impact such an act causes to oneself. Conversely, if one receives sufficient compensation to offset these valid concerns, such as a lifelong medical insurance plan to offset the risks to health caused by the act of donation, one would be more inclined to donate his organ.

The theory does seem intuitive. However, intuition is not always reliable, particularly when money is involved. I've recently read a book on social psychology, in which research notes that money causes people to think in different frames of thought. In particular, consider the example of the Swiss town of Wolfenschiessen, where a nuclear repository was proposed to be built. Then, a poll was conducted to test the receptiveness of the townspeople to the construction of the nuclear repository in their area. 50.9% were willing to accept this, as it was considered a sort of national duty. When a later scheme proposed some monetary compensation for building the repository, contrary to expectations, only 24.6% were willing to accept the building of the nuclear repository.

The example illustrates that contrary to belief, monetary compensation may actually have a negative effect, in that altruistic considerations are unwittingly converted to more monetary considerations. Hence, if not implemented correctly, the organ compensation scheme may backfire and reduce the number of organ donations.

---

I have previously written on organ transplantation; these articles are linked below. Note that not all views are consistent, some being explorations on the topic.

Goodworks Organ Bank
Organ Trading
Applying the Principle of Desert to Organ Allocation
The Dignity of a Corpse