Random Thoughts on Tobacco Labels and the Sugar Tax

I'm not quite sure how effective including gory graphic warnings of the various unsavory outcomes of smoking on cigarette packets is. People who smoke, I would assume, are already aware of the countless health issues associated with smoking and thus would have, at some point of time, made the conscious decision to continue smoking. Thus, including the graphic reminder would add very little to challenge their decision if they had previously found the trade-off between their health and smoking to be, if not acceptable, at least tolerable.

Of course, it may be argued that the warnings, while ineffective on the hardened smoker, could yet serve to discourage budding smokers or smokers-to-be. However, I would imagine that social pressure is one of the reasons for picking up smoking, and if so, the health warnings would do little to overcome this cause. If anything, knowing about the risk-taking behavior of young punks, the gory graphic warnings would paradoxically enhance the emasculating image of smoking.

I've said it as a joke, but possibly the graphic warnings could be replaced with alternative imagery, preferably something deeply embarrassing that nobody would want to be seen with. My first thought was something pink and frilly, but that might boost sales in the wrong demographics. A safer bet would be pictures of old wrinkly ladies or dung beetles.

I could be entirely wrong, and graphic warnings could be extremely effective. In that case, I suppose we could adopt the same tactics on the war on diabetes. Instead of a sugar tax, we simply stick pictures of diabetics on every pack of sugary drink or snack. This would surely be more effective than a "Healthier Choice" logo!

Thoughts on the Uber-Grab Merger

Anyone who was under the impression that the pre-merger situation was the norm must have been painfully unaware of how unsustainable the situation was. In the first place, both Uber and Grab have been running prodigious losses (to the order of hundreds of millions per year), obviously as part of a strategy for acquiring market dominance. The endgame was always to become a monopoly, and then to extract profits.

It's far too late to cry of monopoly now. The public didn't when the prices where low, even as Uber-Grab used investor money to subsidize drivers and riders. Nobody cares about anti-competitive behavior when it makes fares cheaper.

Halting the merger or other steps to impose competition might prevent price gorging, but the inevitable fact is that prices will rise. Eventually, at least. Nobody will like it, but no company is in the business of losing money.

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.

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.

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.

Inhumane Treatment of Animals

I read in the forums section a letter by the SPCA regarding the inhumane poisoning of pigeons (for culling purposes). The phrase "inhumane treatment" was used more than once.

To be extremely pedantic, it is obvious that pigeons are not human. To speak of treating animals like humans seems somewhat difficult to support, but I am speaking as a sophist rather than as a philosopher.

Speaking as a philosopher, there does exist a gap between how we should treat humans and how we should treat animals; only the most fanatic would dispute this. But, as with most things, the devil lies in the details; how large should this human-animal gap be? Implicit in the answer also lies the value of the human race; are we merely animals or more than just animals? If we are truly more than beasts, then what separates us from them? And, most chillingly, when we justify X as being the reason for our superiority, what stops us from using X to label those more disadvantaged amongst us as inhumans rather than humans?

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.

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.

No, I Don't Care About Sports

Just last week, Singapore won a silver medal for the women's team table tennis event. As this was only Singapore's second Olympic medal (in its history), this victory was much celebrated.

Now, consider another fact. So far in this Olympics, Jamaica has won 2 golds and 3 silvers. One of the gold medals, and quite possibly the most spectacular one, was for the men's 100m won by Usain Bolt, who broke the world record while running with no tail wind and slowing down during the last 15m to celebrate. Another amazing feat from this nation was that Jamaica won all the medals for the women's 100m. Simply remarkable.

Jamaica has a population of 2.8 million people.

One could attribute this disparity to various factors, such as genetics or geographical suitability. However, I am inclined to believe that social factors are by far more influential. To put it simply, Singaporeans do not care for sport.

Now, let me clarify that there is nothing wrong with not caring for sport. As a bookish academic, my personal opinion is that sport is an absolute waste of time and effort. What I feel is wrong, however, is for a nation which assigns so low an importance to sport to win an Olympic medal.

If, as a nation, you don't care about sports, then by the same logic, you should not be concerned with the medal tally. A token example is India. By measures of medals per capita, their performance is abysmal. My Indian friend says he doesn't care, as Indians aren't really concerned with physical perfection.

In my consideration, the Olympic medal was not deserved. Some might venture that it was bought, won by an imported team. I am almost inclined to agree. While it is indeed true that much of their success can be attributed to the training and resources given by Singapore, it is worth asking whether the same success can be achieved if the same training and resources were given to the most capable (native) Singaporeans.

Of course, the most evident answer is that the most (athletically) capable Singaporeans are off studying for some stable and well paying career. If our priorities are as such, it is perfectly acceptable. However, we should then also acknowledge that our priorities are economic and not athletic in nature. We shouldn't be bothered with 0 medals, or even with not sending a sporting delegation. Our source of pride should then lie in the economic domain.

To put things into words simply, we can't both have our cake and eat it. It is schizophrenic to collectively not be concerned with sport and yet, to be concerned enough to seek means to win medals.

---

PS: To clarify, I have no issues with "Foreign Talent". I do indeed support the idea that people are mobile, and that imported labor and brains is ultimately beneficial for the economy. This is consistent with my ideas as a classical liberal.

What I do say in this article is that if you are a nation with absolutely no interest in sport, it is consistent to not care about medal tallies.

The Problem with Online Shaming

Quite some time ago, I wrote a post on online shaming, where photographs of people behaving uncivilly in public were posted online. I then wrote that online shaming was a flawed tool, and could be symptomatic of an immature society.

After thinking about the issue intermittently for about a year and a half, I believe I am able to elaborate further on my ideas.

My basic assumption was that the photographers of such pictures, aside from taking photographs of uncivil acts and the corresponding culprits, had not done anything to stop the uncivil acts. If this assumption were true, I would believe that the photographers are in no moral position to shame the culprits behind the uncivil acts.

If one indeed feels that a certain behavior is unjustifiable, it is one's duty to stop the behavior. Conversely, if one does not stop a certain behavior, one is either being inconsistent (by not acting in line with his beliefs), or one does indeed believe that an act is justifiable. In the latter case, there is clearly no moral position to post the photographs, since nothing wrong was committed. In the former case, one would be a form of hypocrite if he were to post the photographs, for by not acting to stop the uncivil behavior, he could be said to be knowingly condoning the same uncivil behavior. Hence, in both cases, one cannot post the photographs without also posting his own photograph for abetting the uncivil act.

To a lesser degree, I also feel that even if the photographer was to participate in stopping the uncivil offender, online shaming is still undesirable. As I mentioned previously, such an act is more retributive than restitutive. It also feels a bit sensationalist, although technically this is not a logical argument but an emotive one.

One final consideration I would like to raise is of 'Asian Mind-your-own-business-ism', or non-confrontationalism. While I can certainly appreciate not having anyone poking their nose into my business, it should be noted that selfish and uncivil people should not benefit from this. Perhaps we should all grow some balls and stop the bad behavior on-site, rather than online.

Should you post photos of bad behaviour?

Should you post photos of bad behaviour? was the name of a Straits Times article which reported the controversy over some pictures, which depicted people with 'bad behavior', posted to the Straits Times' online portal. The controversy lay in whether such pictures were justified as tools to shame bad behaviour, or were simply unjustified, being nothing more than outrages of privacy. According to the article, both views recieved some support.

I don't claim to be absolutely certain of every nuance to this issue, but I believe that any society that believes in shaming as an acceptable resort to curtail bad behaviour is essentially flawed and immature. Why so ?

Let us just consider the particular case discussed in the news report. A woman, upon noticing that some commuters 'fell asleep' when a mother carrying an infant entered the train carriage, snapped a picture of those commuters and posted it to STOMP (the Straits Times online portal). Now, I have a very important question here. Did the woman perform any actions in order to solicit a seat for the mother?

If the answer is No, then I can detect a very singaporean angle to the behavior of the woman. Some would call this behaviour a complaint-reflex, in which the singaporean seeks to point out what is wrong with the situation rather than finding solutions for the problem in the first place.

Alternatively, we might say that singaporean society is a punitive rather than a restitutive society. In other words, as a society, we prefer to seek retribution rather than to find a solution. This symptom manifests itself most visibly in our legal system, where many sentences seem more concerned with punishment rather than rehabilitation (although this is improving gradually).

Of course, when I point out the previous two points, I must admit that I myself am very singaporean and hence would fall prey to the same base impulses. Perhaps, given time, we can all extract ourselves from such behavior.

In the meantime, if you see bad behaviour, just approach the offender and politely ask him to correct his behavior. Otherwise, hiding behind the safety of a camera certainly does not give one the moral ground to criticize the offender.

Letter about the Wifi Mooching Case

I was extremely interested by a letter in the Straits Times Forum. The letter referenced the Wifi Mooching case, in which a youth was found guilty of tapping illegally into a neighbour's wireless internet (this is known as mooching).

Apparently, many people do not agree with the sentence, or even the basic point of whether this was a crime in the first place. Two main arguments were raised to support the notion that this was not a crime. The first is that the act of mooching, at least in this particular incident, did not have any significant or discernable effect on the 'victim', since the youth was only engaging in casual surfing which consumed only a modicum of bandwidth. If we are to judge a crime based on the severity of the crime, then this clearly would only amount to a very minor infraction at best.

The second argument is the failure of the 'victim' in securing his Wifi connection. In the words of the letter writer,

Take the analogy of two adjacent landed houses. One owner sets up a lawn sprinkler which sprays over the hedge into the neighbour's yard. The neighbour captures the runoff and uses it to water his plants. Is he 'stealing' water? Who is to blame here? Is there a crime, and who is the victim?

I believe the second argument is flawed. If someone forgets to lock the door to his house, is it then justified to take items from that house? Even if that someone were to leave his front door wide open, this does not allow us to misappropiate anything. At best, we can only reprimand the 'victim' for his negligence or even his stupidity, but this does not obscure the fact that a crime was committed.

Now, let us return to the first argument. Again, I believe that this argument is problematic. The problem lies in the false relation between harm and crime. Just because an action has no discernable effect on the victim does not mean that a crime has not been committed. Consider the following example: Each day, before you pick up your mail, I, out of pure curiosity, read through your mail and seal it such that you would not notice any intrusion. Given that I do not misuse any information thus learned, and furthermore behave as if nothing had happened, you would never come to learn of this nor be disadvantaged in any real or physical way. Would this then justify my reading of your mail, and thus the invasion of your privacy? If the answer is no, then the question is, what exactly is the harm done?

I would argue that Wifi leeching is at least morally wrong, not neccessarily because it 'harms' anyone, but because it reflects a mindset which is undesirable. The idea that it is acceptable to take anything, at no cost to oneself, is dangerous, even if taking the item cost others little. It is the same kind of selfish mindset which encourages, among other acts, software and media piracy. Surely, this mindset should be discouraged.

Of course, I would question whether we should make a crime out of what is merely morally wrong, or whether we should make it a crime only to discourage selfish behaviour. In this respect, I believe I am aligned with the critics, because if elements of harm are absent, then the crime itself should only be lightly punished.

Two views regarding the Public Transport Fare Hike

View One :

i) It is unreasonable to raise fares again, since there was already a hike last year.

ii) Futhermore, despite the previous hike, there has been no discernable improvement in bus frequencies and service quality.

iii) Another question worth raising is whether consumers should be made to shoulder the rising cost of fuel.

iv) Besides, although public transport has been corporatised, ultimately it is a public service. Hence, the desire for profit should be tempered with a concern for the public.

v) To expand upon the previous point, not only is public transport a public service, it is an essential and unsubstitutable public service. Quite simply, many, especially the poor, have no alternatives available. Raising fares would certainly, and greatly, affect the poor.

---

View Two :

i) The cost of fuel has been rising. It is unreasonable to expect the transport companies to absorb these costs alone.

ii) If increases in fuel costs were to be absorbed, this would definitely necessitate cost-cutting measures in other areas. Service quality would almost certainly be affected.

iii) Consumers desire improvements in service frequency and service quality. Consumers also desire increased fuel costs to be absorbed by the transport companies. Put together, these desires are contradictory. Something cannot come from nothing.

iv) Lastly, the fare increases are not large. A 2-cent per trip increase would, assuming 4 trips a day and 30 days a month, amount to a $2.40 additional monthly overlay. $2.40 is the price of a pack of chicken rice. Futhermore, student fares and concessions remain unaffected.

---

Pick whichever view you agree more with, but try not to ignore the other view. Also, try not to assimilate both views - that would be doublethink.

---

Technorati Tags : Singapore Public Transport Fare Hike

IMF-World Bank Meeting and Civil Society Activities

The Singapore Police say the lobby area on Level One of the convention centre has been designated for civil society organisations to express their views.

Those intending to get their voices heard will first have to be registered and accredited with the IMF and World Bank.

The above excerpt from Channel News Asia.

Some might find the above news distasteful. Admittedly, this appears to sanitise the loud and chaotic nature of demonstrations, leaving the "civil society activities" somewhat neutered, almost docile, and surely artifical. Yet, I find myself in support of this move.

My reasoning is simple. A question - what is the primary motivator of demonstrations? Arguably, it is to bring about change to certain percieved inadequacies. How, then, do demonstrations help advance these changes? Two possible ways: indirectly by raising public awareness, or directly by engaging those who are in a position to enact change.

Singapore's handling of the IMF/WB meeting cuts off the first route, but also facilitates the second. By excising the most disruptive elements of protests, it is likely that [IMF/WB] people would be more receptive to reasonable voices.

Of course, my approval of Singapore's move stems from my severe disapproval of prolonged and unneccessary conflict. Often I think that protests are among the least effective ways to advance any cause. Surely, there must be clearer and more direct ways to effect change. This, however, is only my opinion. Now back to the topic.

What is my conclusion, then? There can be no doubt that Singapore's proposal seems artifical. But perhaps a better word to use is clinical - a word which reminds us of the chlorine in the air, but also of the amazingly efficient, if sometimes unemotional, style that Singapore is known to be.

---

Technorati Tags : Singapore IMF World Bank Meeting , IMF World Bank Demonstrations Protests