YouthQuake: Public transport the key to a less congested Singapore (published on The Online Citizen on 8 June 2008)The Workers’ Party Youth Wing (YPYW) held its second YouthQuake forum session yesterday titled “Moving with the times -A Transportation Road Map by Youths in Singapore”.Chaired by WPYW executive committee member and chairperson Bernard Chen, the public forum, with an audience of about 30 people, took place at the party’s headquarters in Syed Alwi Road.Three youths were invited to speak — 20-year old Republic Polytechnic graduate Jamilah Lim, Nanyang Technological University final-year accountancy student and entrepreneur Kelvin Quee, and 21-year old Alvinder Singh, who recently completed his National Service.Speakers gave their views on whether the current transportation system in Singapore serves the needs of youths. First speaker Jamilah Lim advocated a common national public transportation concession card for Singaporean students; second speaker Kelvin Quee suggested that privatisation of the transport system was the way to go, and last speaker Alvinder Singh called for a one-car-per-household cap.Be fair with fares: treat all full-time students equallyFirst speaker Jamilah Lim spoke on the current fare structure and concessions for students. She explained that while primary to junior college (JC) or centralised institute (CI) students pay a flat fare of S$0.50 on public transport, polytechnic (poly) students pay full adult fare if they do not buy, or travel more than what the tertiary student concession passes for them allow.Lim argued that it was very unfair to make poly students pay adult fares, as like their JC and CI counterparts, they were also full-time students. Lim shared with the audience the results of a survey of 100 people she conducted, of which 35 were tertiary students. Lim revealed that 40% of the poly students among the 100 felt that the fares were fair, while 50% of this group felt that they were unfair, that is, that their JC and CI counterparts received subsidised fares while they had to pay adult prices. 30% of the 100 felt that the fares were fair, while 20% did not care. Lim quoted one survey respondent as saying “we don’t actually complain with [sic] low prices”.“What is the purpose of having a concession pass as a student of an institution of learning in Singapore when the benefits of those wearing a school uniform are not extended to you?” Lim said.Lim advocated a common national public transport concession card for all full-time Singaporean students, that is, the same level of concessionary fares.Forum attendee Alex Au asked her how one decided what was “fair”, and gave an example of a 45 year old full-time student studying in a polytechnic. He asked if giving such a student concessionary fare rights would be fair. Lim replied in the affirmative. She confirmed that concessions should be given to all full-time students, that is, the educational status of the individual should be the decisive factor in whether or not to grant concessions. She clarified, though, that most full-time polytechnic students were of the same age as their JC and CI counterparts and that she was referring more to this group rather than the mature full-time student.To a question posed by forum attendee Gerald Giam as to whether full-time private school students also deserved concessionary fares, Lim also argued that yes, they ought to enjoy the concession as they were not earning an income but studying full time.Allow privatisation of part of the public transport sector to improve service qualitySecond speaker Kelvin Quee gave a summary of Singapore’s land transport initiatives and papers, studies ranking the transport systems and expenditure of different countries, as well as statistics on the profit margins of public transport companies. Quee also shared his personal experience with the bus service that serves the routes in his university campus.“Our country seems to have this obsession with the hub-and-spokes [transport] model…I think it’s good for flights or for large scale [transport flows], but what about direct point-to-point [transport services]? There are many routes that are unserved, or underserved,” said Quee.Quee argued that for such routes, the Government ought to allow smaller private operators to compete with the existing public transport operators, as while it might not be profitable for the latter, it could be for the former.Au asked him to clarify his position, whether he was advocating a fully-centralised public transport system, or a laissez-faire one. Quee replied that he had no fixed position as the two had their merits and drawbacks. Instead, Quee emphasised that the only thing he thought was necessary was the need to introduce competition for un-served, or under-served routes.Forum attendee Goh Meng Seng felt that the public transport problem needed to be looked at in a more holistic light, saying that the way housing was built in Singapore contributed to the current public transport problems. He noted that Singapore had to consider the pros and cons of structured central planning (housing is spread out so that you have average population density across areas), or business-centric planning (concentrate housing so that you have high population density, making it easier to provide public transport services to these areas).Agreeing with Goh, Quee added that there was currently a “capacity-management problem”. He said that while the population was spread out through housing planning, Singapore’s industries are concentrated in the city centre, with the city centre being made a transport hub. This invariably meant that the public transport system would be taxed to the limits at peak hours in the mornings and evenings, as there would be a large flow of people in the same direction at those times.Restrict car ownership to one car per household onlyLast speaker Alvinder Singh gave a summary of Singapore’s transport situation. He noted that currently, roads take up 12% of our total land area in a country that is already land scarce and densely populated. Singh also highlighted statistics on the increasing number of highly-educated, affluent young people, the increase in the car population, especially of large-capacity cars, and the more intensive usage of cars, and suggested that this group of people were likely contributing to the congestion problem on the roads.Singh gave an overview of the Ministry of Transport’s (MOT’s) policy strategies, elaborating in detail on integrated land-use planning and the making of public transport a choice option. For the former, he highlighted three initiatives in particular: 1) the Government’s buying of land around the rail transit system and then later selling it at a profit, 2) bike, pedestrian and car park facilities around MRT stations, and 3) the decentralising of commercial and other economic activities through the development of regional, sub-regional and fringe MRT stations.For the latter, he highlighted the Government’s efforts in building new rail lines, running more train trips during peak hours, new bus service frequency rules to take place by August 2009, and the expansion of the bus lane network, as well as the extension of the full-day bus lanes.Coming back to the restriction of car ownership to one per household, Singh said that for such a policy to work, there was a need to “integrate public transport into the daily living of Singaporeans”. He identified the Government’s efforts to move in this direction through the building of more air-conditioned bus interchanges at MRT stations, and LTA and Transitlink’s promise of an Integrated Public Transport Planner to be made available on the Internet by July 2008.Bicycle lanes, carpooling, and the perceived need for carsForum attendees were then given the floor in the open question-and-answer session. Questions relating to the viability of alternative forms/models of transport through a dedicated bicycle lane on all roads or a national carpooling scheme were asked. There was also a robust discussion on the vehicle-ownership aspirations of Singaporeans, and whether Singaporeans could do without cars altogether and rely on public transport, given the small land area.Bicycle lanesTo the first issue on the viability of having a bicycle lane on all roads, Lim felt that it was a good idea, but would not be adopted as widely as hoped. She felt that while students might consider the idea seriously, those working in the Central Business District (CBD) would not bite the idea as they would not want to get their work clothes dirty. The latter group would also find it a hassle to handle their work bags and ride at the same time.Quee felt that having a bicycle lane would come at “great cost” to Singapore. He felt the idea was not viable as there was already congestion on the roads, and having a dedicated lane for bicycles would reduce already-precious road space.Singh supported the idea and said that it was “the way to go”. Singh highlighted the example of Amsterdam, which has a “very strong cycling culture”. Additionally, Singh noted that it was a green and clean form of travel, and would have the added benefit of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.Car ownership and the need for carsThe issue of people’s aspirations of car ownership versus the need for cars as a form of transport drew spirited debate amongst the speakers and forum attendees. All more or less agreed that the growth of cars, if left unchecked, would cause a problem, but there was no consensus as to what extent the Government should regulate car ownership. Quee in particular disagreed strongly with Singh’s suggestion of restricting car ownership to one per household (i.e. if a household chooses to buy a car, they can only buy one), as he felt that this would be excessive Government encroachment into his personal life.On the same vein of personal choices versus the public good, there was also a philosophical discussion on whether one would actually leave one’s car at home in favour of public transport after spending so much money to buy a car.In general, though, everyone agreed that people were buying cars because they felt that the current public transport system was not good enough and not meeting their needs.CarpoolingQuee felt that a national carpooling system would not be viable. He argued that a lot of people considered their car as a “personal item” and that a car was about “ownership”. Not many people would want to carpool as they would want to have exclusive usage of their car, he argued.Singh was in favour of carpooling. He suggested that the upcoming Integrated Public Transport Planner could be merged with a national carpooling match-making database, providing a one-stop shop for people to plan seamless journeys.Private operators will plug the gap between public and private transportThe forum closed with each speaker being presented the WP’s anniversary publication as a token of appreciation.In a summary of the forum’s discussion on the most immediate and viable solution to the public transport situation in Singapore, forum attendee Gerald Giam said that the there was currently “[a] gulf between public transport [and private transport]” in pricing and quality. Private operators could be the key to bridging this gulf, as it would not only introduce more competition in the transport system, but it [would also] provide a more convenient way for people to get from point A to B.“If [we] pay a bit more, so be it, but…at least [we] do not need to pay taxi fares to get to those places,” he said. Eco-tourism, green research and suchlike. Here's a good article from the NY Times on how hotels are realising the (economic) benefits of being environmentally friendly. I foresee, though, that it will be a long time away before hotels in general do such things. It will be caught up in red tape, fears that consumers will not bite the new idea, etc etc.In Singapore, the environment does not figure much in the society's, or the Government's consciousness, unless it makes money (read: solves the world's energy problem due to depleting oil stocks, great time to cash in on green energy). But being green is not just about renewable energy, as good as that is. It is also about the other boring, but practical 3Rs, and I fear that as a nation we are still far from having a 3Rs culture.How we've done so far (the list is not exhaustive)ReducingThere's some effort by the utilities board to encourage people to save electricity. Tick. There are also electrical appliances with green labels on them stating their energy efficiency. Tick.Reducing plastic usage -- big red cross. Despite the Bring Your Own Bag Day (BYOBD) effort in supermarkets, people by and large still get plastic bags quite freely. I've also noticed that stallholders now charge 20 or even 30 cents for plastic/styrofoam containers for takeaways -- but from what I can see at lunchtime in Raffles Place where I work, people still readily pay.I am heartened, though, in reading in ST's print edition of this article just yesterday that BYOBD may be becoming a weekly, rather than once-monthly, affair. This is a step in the right direction.However, we still can do better, especially for mealtime takeaways. Besides the takeaway containers, people also take plastic bags for carrying said containers. But for people to bring their own bags and containers (I do) requires a societal mindset change. This is not something the government can legislate.ReusingI'm not sure if there's any national effort for reusing. I guess Newater could possibly be considered reusing, if not recycling. Tick. But on a personal level I doubt there's much reusing going on.RecyclingAh this one. We can do much, much better than we're currently doing. Recycling is one area where the Government can do much more. We have a recycling scheme currently (tick), but it's not good enough. In other countries, your trash is weighed and you're charged for how much you throw away. But the recyclables in your trash are not charged, so people do actually bother to sort out their trash.May I propose we do the same thing here? I'm advocating this because it's only when one experiences the direct monetary cost of one's consumption of resources that one will be careful with what one uses. Currently, everyone within the same category of housing (i.e. I am not comparing the charges for waste disposal in HDBs with private housing -- I mean as in within each category) pays the same rate. Charging people according to how much they throw away will also be fairer for everyone, as those who consume less will not be indirectly "subsidising" those who consume more.In other words, there are cost savings to be made.The Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources aims to have a 60% recycling rate by 2012. While laudable, I feel that we (as in Singapore in general) are moving too slowly on implementing green plans. The National Environmental Agency (NEA) already controls the licensing for Public Waste Collectors (PWC) and General Waste Collectors (GWC) -- this centralised solid waste management system puts the Government in an excellent position to implement a better recycling program, and implement it quickly. Why wait till 2012? Go green and live "off-grid" I'm proud to be an environmentalist. If I could, I'd generate my own electricity too.I really need to think of more ways to step up my involvement in all things green, beyond my personal efforts. Have been mulling over the idea of joining/setting up an environmental group for some time now. ICA, MOM refuse to release Burmese statistics (published on The Online Citizen on 18 May 2008)Why is labour information being hidden from citizens? Is a culture of secrecy healthy for good governance in Singapore?Getting official statistics from government agencies is next to impossible, as The Online Citizen (TOC) recently found out after reporting on the gridlock outside the Burmese embassy on 27 April 2008. Burmese nationals had gathered there to vote in a referendum on a new Constitution.The night of 27 April saw Channel NewsAsia reporting on television that the Burmese community in Singapore is estimated to be 30,000 strong.Members of the Burmese community TOC had spoken to, however, put the size of the community at around 100,000.On 29 April, an article in the Straits Times (ST), “Three-day extension for Myanmar poll”, put the number at 50,000. On May 3, yet another article appeared in the ST on the Burmese community in Singapore (“Myanmar community here gets bigger”). The article noted that the Burmese embassy in Singapore estimated that there are “100,000 of its nationals living here, up from 60,000 at the beginning of last year”.TOC on a number investigation launchThe huge discrepancy between the size of the Burmese community as expressed by different sources prompted this writer to try and confirm exactly how many Burmese there are in Singapore.On 28 April, this writer sent separate queries to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Immigration and Checkpoint Authority (ICA) requesting statistics relating to the Burmese community.MOM was asked if it could provide statistics relating to the number of Burmese nationals who hold employment passes/work permits, and the number of Burmese nationals who hold student visas for the current year and if possible, for the last five years.ICA was asked if it could provide statistics relating to the number of Burmese nationals in Singapore currently residing long term, and/or working, and/or studying in Singapore (excluding those who have become Singapore citizens); the number of Singaporean PRs who are Burmese, and the number of Burmese student pass holders (and the breakdown of how many are PRs, and how many are foreign nationals), again for the current year, and if possible, for the last five years.Automated replies from MOM and ICA indicated a response time of three and five working days respectively.“We regret to inform that the required information is unavailable” — MOMThis writer received MOM’s response on 2 May, the fourth working day after 28 April. The reply? “We regret to inform that the required information is unavailable.” Unsure as to what “unavailable” meant, this writer emailed MOM again to ask if “unavailable” meant:a) the information does not exist as MOM does not log who it gives employment passes and work permits to,b) the information exists, but no one has created and/or compiled statistics on breakdown by nationality, and therefore it is not possible to know the number of Burmese in Singapore,orc) the information exists, but it is classified.MOM replied on 7 May confirming that the information was “available, but it is classified”.The long wait for ICA’s response5 May, the fifth working day from 28 April, saw no reply from ICA. Finally, on 12 May, ICA replied: the information was “not available”. As with MOM, this writer emailed ICA again for clarification.ICA replied on 12 May, apologising for giving this writer “the impression that the information requested is not available”. ICA clarified that while they had the statistical report, they were unable to release the information to the public.Secrets, transparency, and the peopleThe quest to find out how many Burmese there are in Singapore reveals one thing: nobody knows for sure how many Burmese there are. An iron veil of secrecy surrounds the information, which is tightly guarded by the government agencies.The number of Burmese, though, is not the real issue. The real issue really is this: there is a lack of transparency from the bureaucracy. Without detailed statistical reports available to the public, how can the public trust the figures quoted by the Government every now and then? There is no way to verify the information.The issue of the number of foreigners in Singapore is very close to Singaporeans’ hearts. Taking the ST’s Forum page as a barometer of Singaporeans’ sentiments, it is clear that there is rising discontent over foreigner-related issues. Language barriers between foreigners and Singaporeans in retail situations; concern over the proportion of foreign students in local educational institutions, and worries over the criteria in awarding, and the number of scholarships and bursaries awarded to foreigners, versus Singaporeans; the rising number of foreign-born sportspeople representing Singapore in competitions; and the most touchy of them all, foreigners taking up a significant proportion of jobs, both blue and white collar ones.The issue that has garnered the most discontent is jobs; this is understandable as it involves the rice bowl. But if Singaporeans cannot even obtain basic information on how many foreigners there are in the country and the breakdown by nationality, what more information on economic sector participation (i.e. what percentage of jobs do foreigners take up in various industries)?How then can Singaporeans know where they stand in relation to employment competition, and prepare themselves accordingly?How then may Singaporeans know if they are indeed being given priority in employment (in terms of the citizen-to-foreigner ratio, not “blind” priority ignoring the quality of candidates) in their own home country?Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen feels that the government has “got the balance right” (“Tensions over foreign workers will continue: Ng Eng Hen”), and that Singaporeans got the majority of the “professionals, managers, executives and technicians’ jobs” last year. Perhaps Mr Ng is unaware of the reality in the streets – just one small example we have is the significant number of former white-collar professionals who are now part of the taxi driver fleet.Something is seriously wrong if so many tertiary-educated Singaporeans are ending up as taxi drivers.Singaporeans have come to expect good governance. One of the hallmarks of good governance is a transparent bureaucracy, which is able to provide citizens with information necessary to making choices that affect their daily lives. Surely, no information is as crucial as information relating to employment.The time for secrecy is past. Black Wednesday In all my years of reading the Straits Times, I've never cried after reading any of the news. 9 May, 2008 was the first time.The heading -- "100,000 dead" -- was splashed on the front page of ST. I read report after report of dying Burmese, and report after report of the junta's refusal to let aid workers in. These dying people are the same people I stood with, locked out from the Burmese embassy, on 27 April, 2008. When you've stood with people like that, they are no longer strangers from a distant land.For the first time, I cried after reading the news.In the past few days, I've read about more dying, but from a different land, China; massive numbers of schoolchildren crushed to death and many more trapped under schools. The schools -- the congregation place of the hopes of the future -- have become these children's graves, because somebody cut corners.For the second time, I cried.----------This is why I am a journalist, devoting my lunch breaks, my nights, and my weekends to writing for The Online Citizen. Journalism encapsulates my desire to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Putting into print people's life stories has captured my spirit, heart and soul like no other.This Wednesday I grieve for the dead, and the dying in China and Burma. And in my own small way, as a journalist, I will fight on, and continue to tell the stories that matter. spread the word More ERP "good news" in today's ST! Not sure if you guys have read today's ST, but there are 2 articles on ERP today.The more important article has reported on the Ministry of Transport's next move: installing a jazzy new toy called the Rates Variable Message System (read: electronic signboard) before each gantry.Placed 100m away before the gantry proper, these new signboards will show you how much to pay, so motorists can, according to Transport Minister Raymond Lim, make a "considered decision" over whether or not to pass through the gantry.Um, I'm not sure how much difference each of these $65,000 gizmos will make.I don't own a car and I don't drive, so I'm not sure just how far away is 100m -- but my first thought was, if I'm driving along a one-way road leading to a gantry, how can I kebelakang pusing?Secondly, if the gantry is right outside your house -- like the one in Toa Payoh that everyone is bitching about -- telling you how much to pay is useless, right, since, well...you still gotta go home?And these new fridge magnets -- 70 in total, one for each gantry -- will cost a cool $4.55 million.Wow. I don't think I'll even come close to earning that in my lifetime.-----------Read the ST articles:The first one: ERP cuts traffic while keeping Orchard buzz The second one: Rates to be displayed at all gantries Seeing the manager -- the outcome. I went the Kopitiam card counter and requested to speak to the manager. The receptionist apparently remembered that I had come last week. I told her that the manager had not called me as promised.She called up a supervisor, Z (not the same one who had took down my complaint last week). Z came, and I told him that I had heard nothing from the other supervisor, nor the manager, thus far.This supervisor proceeded to call the manager. The manager came, I spoke with manager. Apparently I was wrong -- the first supervisor had indeed spoken to her about my complaint. The manager also apologised for not calling me back -- she said she didn't call me during the day because she didn't want to disturb me at work, and she didn't do so at night because she was busy.Kudos to Kopitiam for taking customer service seriously.Anyway, she said that she had spoken with the fruit stall assistant involved. She said that the lady was sorry and wanted to give me a personal apology. I told the manager that that would not be necessary, and explained that I did not want to embarrass or put the lady on the spot; I was content that she had been told of the issue.The manager told me that the stall was given a warning letter. Apparently, receiving a warning letter is quite serious -- like a yellow card. The manager was explaining to me that if a stall receives too many warning letters, the owner will not be able to renew the stall lease.To be honest, I was kind of surprised at that, because I had made it quite clear from the beginning that I did not wish anyone to be penalised: I merely wanted the management to speak with them. Nonetheless I thanked the manager for her effort and action, and asked her to consider taking the letter back, as I was already satisfied that she had spoken to them.Whether or not she withdraws the letter is her own decision, but yeah, this was basically what happened. Customer service, and the lack thereof. A late post but I just gotta get it off my chest.----My workplace is in Raffles Place, so I eat lunch at Lau Pa Sat quite frequently. During the 1pm-2pm lunch hour stretch, Lau Pa Sat is crowded to the hilt. Subsequently popular stalls will see queues snaking for miles; stallholders feverishly dishing out portions and thrusting money into hands; women struggling with their wallets and handbags; a balancing act as people handle their bags, their money, and their food, and navigate their way precariously through the crowd to reach home base: their already-choped seat.The fruit stall is one such popular stall. One person takes your chosen fruit. Another cuts it up. A third person collects your payment and gives you your change. It's like a factory, with a lot more humans -- and a lot more room for mistakes.Last Monday, I bought a slice of papaya ($0.70), a slice of honeydew ($0.70), and a slice of pineapple. I was trying to add up the cost while my fruit was going down the factory line of choose it-cut it-payment and return change. You see, the board said "pineapple" is $0.70 and "Thai pineapple" is $0.90. I wasn't sure which one the lady had taken for me. Coupled with my abyssmal math (will post on this soon), I coudn't add up the total in time.So I just took it on trust. I gave one of the stall assistants (let's call her X) a $10 and got back $5.90 in return. Something bugged me then: that nagging feeling that the change was wrong. But I was holding my bag, my wallet, the change, and the fruit -- it was difficult to count it all. Moreover, there were so many people around the fruit stall -- if I stood around I'd be blocking the way.So I went to an empty table not less than 2m away from the stall, put everything down, and did the sums slowly (imagine the following going through my ultra-slow math processing brain):$10 - ($0.70+$0.70+$0.70)= $7.90.$10 - ($0.70+$0.70+$0.90)= $7.70.Thai pineapple or no, I was short of $2. So, fruit still uneaten, I went back to the stall, and spoke to X about the wrong change.Guess what happened?X insisted loudly that she had given me the right change. I said no. She insisted again, even louder. Again I said no, louder this time, but in a firm voice. I even opened up my wallet, showing her the contents. She peered in with a vengeance. Then she looked me in the eye and accused me of dropping the $2.In short, she was accusing me of lying.Nonetheless, I stood my ground, and I repeated "No" in a firm voice. By this time the other patrons had noticed that here was a major standoff. She was glaring at me, trying to force me to yield, but I refused to budge, still holding my plate with still-uneaten fruit in hand.I am 100% sure I did not drop the money. The table I went to was only 2m away from the fruit stall, and I still had my $5 clutched in my hands.So there I stood, mano a mano with the fruit stall assistant.She didn't say anything, no sorry, no nothing. She just walked off to the front of the stall! Meanwhile, her colleague, Y, took a look at the plate of fruit and asked me how much change I got. I replied $5.90. Now here comes the incredulous part -- she said in Mandarin, "No lah, how can this cost $2.10? It costs $3.60!"Harrh?I was very sure that my fruit selection did not cost $3.60. She had obviously gotten it wrong as well. I realised that it would be another standoff if I argued with her. So I just said, 我为了两块跟你们吵干嘛? ("Why would I bicker with you over two dollars?").Before she could answer, X called me, and tu lan face aglow, thrust a $2 note in my hand. Before relinquishing it, she insisted loudly in front of everyone that she had given me the right change. I took the money, but before I left, I looked at the patrons, then Y, and then X, and said "No" for the last time.Y dismissively waved me off, and as I left I could still hear X saying loudly in front of everyone that the right change had been given.Redress had been sought; I had gotten my money back. Usually, when I've had had bad customer service, brought it up with the staff concerned/with management and gotten redress, I let the issue slide. But not this time. As I walked plate in hand back to the same table less than 2m away from the fruit stall, I boiled with anger.Even after I had finished my fruit I was furious. Nothing gets me angrier than a person who insinuates I am dishonest, because I am not. I decided to bring up the issue with the Kopitiam management -- I went to the booth where they were selling the cards, and spoke with the supervisor for the day. The supervisor said he would speak with his manager, who would speak with the fruit stall manager. I made it clear to them that I wasn't looking for X and Y to be scolded or punished, but to be spoken to over their lack of basic respect and also appalling customer service. I was also assured that the manager would get back to me within a week.It has been one week now, and I've gotten no call. I suspect it was a one-ear in, one-ear out sort of thing -- typical of the customer service one gets in Singapore.Unfortunately or fortunately, I'm not your typical customer. I will be going to ask them later about that promised call from management.----Too often, people take the lazy way out when they receive bad service. They don't first take the issue up with management; instead, they live with it, or they write in to the Forum page.I'm not saying that writing to the Forum page is a bad thing. I'm saying that it should be a second or third avenue of redress--one ought to be brave enough, and persistent enough, to stand up for one's rights against bad service providers. Currently the Forum page in the Straits Times reads like a running list of grievances, a lot of which, after you read them, you realise that the writer could have, but failed to attempt resolve it him/herself, and take it up with management. It's really...strange.Take back your own rights, people! Youths call for right to vote at YouthQuake forum published on The Online Citizen on 4 May 2008)"The power of Parliament comes from the people, and the power of the people comes from our right to vote."The Workers' Party Youth Wing (YPYW) launched its inaugural YouthQuake forum series today on the topic, “Should Singaporean Youths be Allowed to Vote at 18?".The public forum, targeted at youths, took place at the party’s headquarters in Syed Alwi Road.WPYW executive committee member and chairperson of today's forum Bernard Chen said that the YouthQuake forums aim to "promote greater awareness of youth-centric issues, to promote debate and discussion on issues that affect [youths]".Three youths were invited to speak -- 17-year old debater Anne Tan, first-year student at Anglo-Chinese Junior College and daughter of WP executive council member Eric Tan; 20-year old full-time National Serviceman Khairulanwar Zaini, and 23-year old Choo Zheng Xi, second-year law undergraduate at the National University of Singapore and the Chief Editor of socio-political blog The Online Citizen.Speakers generally agreed that Singaporean youths should be allowed to vote at 18, as this would engender political maturity amongst youths and give them a sense of ownership and commitment to the nation. All were confident that youths would exercise their vote responsibly."Head knowledge" never really quite hits the heartFirst speaker Anne Tan argued that encouraging a culture that allowed vibrant socio-political discourse would make for a more resilient Singapore society, and that giving youths the right to vote would be a formal recognition of the validity of different opinions.She also argued that if Singapore society did not encourage expression of different opinions for fear of destroying the social fabric, then perhaps the racial and religious harmony that Singapore prides itself on having was just "simply cosmetic". Anne was of the view that Singapore should not allow the "ghosts" of the pasts – the racial and religious riots in the 60s – to haunt its collective consciousness.Anne also gave her view on why the Government's efforts at repoliticising Singapore youths had failed. She argued that in educating youths about national issues, there was a wrong focus on "head knowledge"."The thing about head knowledge is that it never really quite hits your heart," said Anne.She also felt that the Government’s well-intentioned policies failed because the civil servants that carried out the policies were "entrenched in a cycle of fear" over encouraging political awareness amongst their charges.A corresponding trust from the state is neededSecond speaker Khairulanwar Zaini spoke on the rights of full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) to vote if they were18, as they were contributing to the defence, and thus protection, of the state's sovereignty:I believe that it should be an inherent principle of democracy that we extend suffrage to those who are serving the interests on the nation, in particular for those who provide for the finances and the defence of the state.Khairul argued that "those serving in the military should have the right to choose the authority that deploys them [for armed combat]". Citing historical examples of other nations with compulsory conscription, and nations during wartime which had done so, he argued that since the state entrusts its National Servicemen with the heavy responsibility of bearing arms in defence of it, there should be "a corresponding trust to enfranchise [them] into the electorate".Additionally, Khairul also argued that citizenship meant obligations and rights, and since in doing National Service male youths at 18 are fulfilling their obligation to defend the nation, they should accordingly be awarded their full rights as citizens as well, which includes the right to vote.Pre-empting the argument that giving 18-year old National Servicemen suffrage would be "politicising the military", Khairul stressed that there was a difference between the "rights" of the military as an institution, and the rights of each 18-year old national serviceman. He also noted that if one felt that allowing suffrage would result in a "politicised" military, and that this was unacceptable, that would mean that regular NS men would also have to be denied the vote.Lastly, Khairul felt that giving NSFs suffrage would give them a "sense of ownership in their country’s affairs", imbuing them with "a sense of purpose to serve NS".To questions from some forum attendees on giving 18-year old females suffrage, Khairul noted that there were many different ways to contribute to the nation, and since 18-year old women also work and pay taxes, they ought to be accorded the same voting rights.In response to another question as to whether one should allow 16-year old NSFs who were "just as good, just as well, [and] just as brave" to vote, Khairul replied that personally, he felt that the line had to be drawn somewhere, and that this was a minor issue as the number of males voluntarily conscripting themselves at 16 was very low.Right to vote not guaranteed in lawLast speaker Choo Zheng Xi spoke on how the right to vote was not enshrined in Singapore’s Constitution, and said that Singaporeans were "not familiar with framing [the issue of suffrage] in a rights perspective, but [saw it] instead as a legal obligation". He noted that it was more a compulsion to act, as the Parliamentary Elections Act stated that non-voters would have their names struck off the electoral register.Citing legal precedents where the courts affirmed the right of the judiciary to invalidate law inconsistent with the Constitution, Zheng Xi argued that this meant if a law was passed, barring people below a certain intelligence level to vote, such a law could be challenged in court."Political engagement is about participation and taking your rights seriously," said Zheng Xi. "The power of parliament comes from the people, and the power of the people comes from our right to vote," he said.Zheng Xi argued that the culture of political apathy has been actively encouraged, and that this mindset had to be changed. Without changing mindsets, changing the law in name would not change the way people think, and their valuing their vote. Nevertheless, he argued that people "[had] to start acting on being the creators of a system that [they wanted] to see, by voting at 18".Some forum attendees had some concerns. One asked if giving youths the right to vote at 18 would make a difference, since the current election process was flawed. Another asked if in talking about voting at 18, did one have in mind the general principle that everyone has the right to vote, or was voting rights tied to age.Speakers were of the view that allowing people to vote at 18 was the first step towards improving the flawed election process, to increase awareness, put aside their fear, and realise that "rights aren’t necessarily confrontational and self-centered" (Zheng Xi).On the age issue, speakers generally agreed that it was both the age 18 (the age one could get married, buy and drink alcohol legally, and get charged for murder, speakers noted) and the individual right to vote that were equally important. Forum chairperson Bernard Chen noted that a lot of countries were now considering lowering the voting age from 18 to 16, and Singapore was thus lagging behind.Heartening attendanceThe forum closed with each speaker being presented the WP's anniversary publication as a token of appreciation. WP members The Online Citizen spoke to, including WP chairperson Sylvia Lim, were heartened to see that the forum attracted a fair number of youths among the packed room who were "interested in Singapore’s future", and all supported the idea of youths being allowed to vote at 18."Leaders who youth can’t vote for today may send them to war tomorrow. Youth shouldn’t be held to a stricter standard than [that for] adults….intelligence and maturity should not be the basis upon which the right to vote [rests upon]. Lowering the voting age should be the just and fair way to make things straight," forum chairperson Bernard Chen concluded. SDP launches May Day Tak Boleh Tahan petition-signing campaign Members and supporters of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) yesterday stationed a booth outside Toa Payoh Community Library for the public to sign petitions on the rising cost of living and the deputy prime minister’s resignation over the escape of alleged terrorist Mas Selamat bin Kastari.The SDP and its supporters also walked about distributing flyers on ministerial greed and exploitation, and talking to members of the public about the petitions.Garbed in red T-shirts emblazoned with the Malay words Tak Boleh Tahan (“cannot stand it”), SDP Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan and fellow SDP members urged the public to sign the petitions.Among 3 other requests, the petition against the high cost of living urged the Government to refrain from increasing ministerial salaries and review immigration policy to show its empathy and understanding of the average Singaporean’s financial plight.The other petition called for the resignation of Deputy Prime Minister Mr Wong Kan Seng over the escape of alleged terrorist Mas Selamat bin Kastari.Curious members of the public who were unaware of the petitions were seen checking out the booth, which also had various merchandise – books, Tak Boleh Tahan T-shirts and buttons – for sale, proceeds of which would go towards funding the party’s outreach efforts.20-year old prospective university student Mr Raymond Fong was the first member of the public to sign the two petitions. Mr Fong, who had specially come down from his home in Marsiling to sign the petitions, had heard about this event through the SDP website. He said that signing the petitions was the only way “within the system” whereby he could express his views.Another member of the public, a 21-year old university undergraduate who only wanted to be known as Mr Ng, had heard about the event through popular local forum Sammyboy. Similarly, he felt that the petitions were his sole means of “voicing out [his] opinion”.As of 3pm, there were 68 signatures for the petition on the rising cost of living, and 56 for the petition for the minister’s resignation. The Online Citizen understands from the SDP that there are about 110 and 100 signatures respectively currently. The SDP will be submitting the signatures to the relevant government ministries shortly.More photos here: Tak Boleh Tahan!See here for the full text of the Tak Boleh Tahan (rising cost of living) petitionSee here for the SDP’s video May Day message by SDP Chairman Gandhi Ambalam Letter to ST Forum: Mediacorp's reply STILL misses the point! Sent to ST on 24 April 2008Received the publication rejection email today-----------I note with dismay Mr Yong's reply, "TV Mobile sound levels are monitored" (ST Forum, 24 April 2008) to my previous letter, "Reader wanted to know why TV Mobile couldn't be silenced" (ST Forum, 12 April 2008).Again, Mr Yong's reply misses the point. Mr Yong said "The suggestion to mute the audio would not be feasible, as not all TV Mobile viewers have easy access to FM receivers" -- however, as I pointed out in my previous letter, most mobile phones and MP3 players have an FM radio feature, and almost everyone owns a mobile phone and/or an MP3 player these days.To insist that "all" TV Mobile viewers should have the convenience of listening to TV Mobile without an FM receiver is ignoring the rights and wishes of the majority of commuters (as evidenced by the barrage of letters to this forum page, past and present, calling for TV Mobile's muting or removal). How is it fair to hold commuters aurally hostage in the bus, where there is no place to turn to for peace and quiet?SBS Transit has also been pin-drop silent on the issue, when it is clearly within their jurisdiction to ask Mediacorp to mute TV Mobile. SBS Transit, giving commuters a pleasant (which includes peaceful) ride on the bus is one of your service promises to commuters. Where is that promise now? AMD: Procedure needs fine-tuning Sent to ST on 19 April 2008Received publication rejection email today-----I thank Ms Karen Tan, Corporate Communications Director from the Ministry of Health, for her clarification that there is no discrimination against different AMD witnesses (ST Forum, "No bias against AMD witnesses", April 18 2008).Ms Tan said that the doctor only needed to give his/her office address and telephone number because he/she was acting in his/her professional capacity, whereas the second witness can be anybody, and therefore the person's personal address and telephone number is needed.But what happens if the doctor resigns from the hospital, and there is a situation where the hospital needs to verify the witnessing of the AMD? As the doctor witness would then be uncontactable, would that not render the AMD void?What safeguard measures does MOH have in place to protect the legality of a person's AMD declaration when witnesses cannot be contacted? Reply from MOH to my previous letter http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_228394.htmlI wonder if what Ms Tan said is really the case. I wrote a reply to her letter. We'll see if that gets published -- if not I'll put up the letter here later. My forum letters were censored Strikethrough = their deletions. Words in red = their additions.---------Jobs: Singaporeans have higher, more overheads than foreigners (published 14 April)Published version: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_226899.htmlOriginal version:I refer to the forum letter by Mr John Ng, "Jobs: Stop blaming foreigners" (ST 5 April 2008).I would like to ask Mr Ng what job he advertised for and how much he offered as salary for it. The particular group of foreigners that Mr Ng detailed as responding to his job ad are hungry for jobs here because they get paid a much better salary here than back in their home country. It is common knowledge that the Singapore dollar is stronger than the currencies of those countries which Mr Ng's job respondents came from. So what is a handsome salary offered to a foreigner is a low wage here forto a Singaporean.Additionally, Singaporeans have higher and more overheads than foreigners. Most foreigners who come here arrive alone. Their families are back in their home countries. They are also not tied down to paying a house loan in Singapore -- only rental. But the Singaporean has to factor in his family, his house (and housing is expensive here), his transport costs, and so on. It is unfair and myopic to compare the Singaporean job seeker to the foreign job seeker given such circumstances -- how can they compete fairly?I urge Mr Ng to stop blaming Singaporeans and start examining his assumptions. Have some compassion for your fellow countryman.-------AMD: MOH's reply misses the point (published 12 April)Published version: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_226388.htmlOriginal version:I refer to the forum letter by Ms Karen Tan, Corporate Communications director of the Ministry of Health, "AMD: Why details of witnesses are required" (ST 5 April 2008). Ms Tan's reply was in response to Mr Victor Gomez's forum letter (ST 31 March 2008) on the intrusive nature of the medical directive for witnesses.Ms Tan's reply completely misses the point of of Mr Gomez's letter. That details of witnesses are required for verification or contact purposes is not disputed. What Mr Gomez wanted to know is why there is discrimination with regards to the extent of the disclosure of personal details by different witnesses. As Mr Gomez had pointed out, while the doctor could just put down his/her office address and telephone number, the nurse was required to give her home address and telephone number.Ms Tan's reply reflects a grave misunderstanding of Mr Gomez's concerns and has failed to enlighten the public. A reply addressing the real concerns here -- privacy and discrimination -- is needed from Ms Tan.Ms Tan, the public awaits your reply.-------Mediacorp, what we want is a silent TVMobile (published 12 April)Published version: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_226393.htmlOriginal version:I refer to the forum letter by Mr Yong Han Beng, Senior Engineer for TVMobile, Mediacorp TV Singapore, "TVMobile is mindful of sound levels on buses" (ST 5 April 2008). Mr Yong's reply was in response to Mr Tan Shao Yi's forum letter, "Tune out TV Mobile, please" (ST 29 March 2008).Mr Yong's reply completely misses the point of Mr Tan's letter. Mr Tan is not complaining that the audio is too loud and needs monitoring. Mr Tan is requesting Mediacorp TV to mute TVMobile as firstly, anyone who wants to listen to it can tune in to FM 98.3, and secondly, some commuters just want a quiet ride home.I am with Mr Tan in this request. TVMobile is an intrusion into the individual'sa person's right to peace and quiet. Most commuters have no choice but to take public transport; were revenue from TVMobile used to subsidise bus fares, there would be some justification for its existence. However, we know this is not the case, as SBS Transit clarified some time back when complaints on TVMobile appeared on this Forum page. Mediacorp is essentially taking advantage of commuters, who are a captive audience in the bus.Most mobile phones and MP3 players today come with an FM radio feature. With a more than 100% cellphone penetration rate in Singapore and widespread ownership of MP3 players, almost every commuter has the ability to tune in to any radio station they want. Given this, I think a request for peace and quiet is not unreasonable.This situation would not have happened if SBS Transit did not agree to let Mediacorp install TVMobile on its buses. SBS Transit should be accountable to commuters for service quality in this respect, and ask Mediacorp to mute TVMobile.Mediacorp and SBS Transit, the public awaits your reply.-------I'm particularly pissed at the censorship in the TV Mobile letter and the letter on jobs. For the jobs letter, that one little change in preposition from "for" to "to" makes a whole world of difference in meaning. "To" suggests that the Singaporean is being picky. "For" makes it clear that it is a matter of whether the salary offered is enough.For the TV Mobile letter, I chose "individual" and not "person" because I wanted to make a strong point that it is a right. The parts on Mediacorp taking advantage of commuters who are a captive audience, well, I guess it's obvious why they censored that one out. Letter to ST Forum -- Tougher legislation, not new test, needed for real estate industry Sent to ST on 12 AprilReceived publication rejection email today--------While I welcome the move by the Association of Singapore Estate Agencies to introduce a new, scaled-down test for real estate agents -- it is a good thing that consumers can be assured of a larger pool of well-informed agents -- it is grossly insufficient.Despite the efforts taken by the real estate industry, such as coming up with a list of guidelines on conduct for agents and agencies firing rogue agents, the problem of unethical behaviour persists. The record-number of complaints to Case is testament to this fact.Most of the complaints against housing agents stem from unethical behaviour, and not lack of knowledge. This new test will therefore not solve the problems that currently plague the industry. Some examples of unethical behaviour includes reneging on tenancy agreements despite having accepted a tenant's signed letter of intent and cheque, to withholding information from flat sellers in co-broking agreements.When such scenarios occur, these rogue agents or their agencies are not legally prosecuted. Even if consumers complain to the agent's agency and the agent is fired, the agent can easily move on to a new agency, as there is no central regulatory body for the industry. Hapless, unsuspecting consumers then become the agent's new victims, and the process repeats itself.What is really needed to nip the problem in the bud is tougher legislation. Errant agents would then think twice before engaging in such questionable conduct as a fine or jail term awaits them. It is high time the Ministry of Law and the Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies discuss how to legally protect consumers without overregulating the industry. The message is more important than technology, says Gan, Tan Speaking in an evening forum titled “Cyberactivism: The Malaysian Experience” on 10 April at the Post Museum, Malaysiakini Chief Editor Steven Gan and Malaysian opposition Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) internet activist Nathaniel Tan spoke on the extent and effectiveness of the use of the Internet and other information communication technologies (ICTs) by Malaysian opposition parties in the recent elections.The two also stressed that content and strategy, not technology, was the decisive factor for the Malaysian opposition’s victory. The duo also spoke on the usage and sustainability of non-traditional media.In response to a question by forum moderator Alex Au on whether it was true that Barisan Nasional (BN) didn’t use the Internet, Tan said that it was “generally true” . The BN, he said, did not use the Internet in the same way or extent that they (the opposition) did.“The Internet is a very neutral tool…anyone can use it for anything,” said Tan. He said that the Internet was a “level playing field” where there was a battleground of ideas”.Tan explained that the BN stuck to traditional media so they could set their own agenda and not respond to what was being said online.“If they were to engage, they would be bringing a knife to a gunfight,” said Tan.Grabbing eyeballs and hearts through DVDsGan spoke about the launch of Malaysiakini.tv last year in response to a demand for videos not seen on national television. He explained that Malaysiakini had compiled some of their existing documentary videos on the Indian community and put them in DVDs. This, he said, was before the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) started its activities.The documentary videos were a series of reports done earlier to highlight the issues of indentured Indian labour in rural areas, and these were coupled with other reports like the government’s eviction of jobless Indian squatters and the demolition of Hindu temples from government land. These DVDs were then distributed to the Indian community.“A lot of them are very poor, they do not have access to the Internet…but for some reason, however poor you are you still have a TV set (to play DVDs),” said Gan to laughter from the audience.Gan said that when Hindraf came around to the rural areas on their nationwide tour to get Indians to go to Kuala Lumpur on 25 Nov for a big demonstration, they set up a large screen and showed the Malaysiakini videos. The videos, Gan said, galvanised them to trek to Kuala Lumpur to protest, and to also vote for the opposition in the elections.ICTs and their role in the electionsAdding to Gan’s recount on the use of videos, Tan said that PKR taped party leader Anwar Ibrahim’s speeches and played them at rallies as a “warmup” even if the man would not be there in person to speak.“We have to think innovatively,” said Tan. For example, as Internet penetration and accessibility is low in the rural areas, Tan set up a website with posters that were easy to download so people could photocopy them. The website essentially allowed for a viral spread of the content put up.On the usage of ICTs for election purposes, Tan stressed that ”it is a sin not to use every single media available to you (in elections)”. He said that in addition to usage of ICTs (email, sms, websites, videos etc.), the party also used “traditional” methods like printing and distributing leaflets. Tan also made clear that although many said that ICTs brought down BN, the real reason BN lost was because they were “corrupt, racist and very badly mis-managed”.In a similar vein, forum moderator Au asked Tan to clarify his answer to a question asked at the Institute of Policy (IPS) forum the day before: to what extent ICTs played a role in influencing people’s votes. The question by Professor Ang Peng Hwa was “whether an election campaign that relies on sms in effect privilege an emotional, irrational vote”, for “how [could one] have deliberative consideration when [one was] restricted to 160 characters”. Au wanted Tan to clarify if he meant that smses do permit deliberative consideration of voting, or that voters have the right to vote any way they want, even emotionally.In response, Tan said he did not think the campaign relied on sms and the Internet alone.“It was a very multi-pronged thing…there were lots of things going on at the same time. On an academic, analytical level, it’s true that there’s not a whole lot you can say in 160 characters. But if you write a two-page leaflet, there’s also no guarantee that someone is going to sit there and read two pages,” Tan said.Tan explained that while some of the smses were propaganda, most of the smses sent out were announcements on the time and venue of speeches. He also stressed that PKR was not acting solo in sending out the smses – there were a lot of private individuals doing the same, and there were also different types of smses ranging from the informative or reasonable ones to the propagandist kind to the racist and vitriolic types. Tan also widened his reply on smses to the usage of the Internet. He said that while there were mediums such as blogs (both pro- and anti-BN) bringing the discourse to a higher level, there were also people putting “all sorts of nonsense and false accusations online and through smses”. These things were “technology neutral”, said Tan.Au summed up the issue best: “Crap occurs on any platform.”Content and strategy, not technology, wins electionsTan reiterated that technology was but a tool in bringing the opposition’s message to the people. The message was the most important thing.Tan shared the several ways that the opposition presented themselves differently in the recent elections that won them the votes of the people. They were the “packaging” of the message, highlighting the right issues, broadcasting a simple, memorable and consistent message, and opposition unity.Screaming doesn’t work“I recognise a very, very pivotal difference between self-indulgent grandstanding and efficient strategy that gives you results”, said Tan. Tan said that the Malaysian opposition used to level blunt criticism at the BN, like how “BN is stupid, BN is corrupt, BN is racist”, criticism that was “fun to say” but did not resonate with the electorate.Tan said that negative campaigning was not as effective as positive campaigning, and that to win votes the opposition had to provide a viable alternative and “position [itself] as a govt in waiting” and “future ministers”.“Working with Anwar Ibrahim, I learnt all the time the difference between what rabble- rousers say, and what statesmen say…how they can say the same thing…[but mean it] and say it in a completely different way,” said Tan.Tan noted that the political scene in Singapore had moved “from rabble-rousing to more intelligent” discourse. Nevertheless, Tan said:“If you have 4 people marching to parliament, and it’s the same 4 people marching to parliament every time, you’re not getting anywhere. If marching doesn’t work, you have to think of other ways.”Tan said that the ICTs could be used in the Singapore context as well, especially in reaching people who were afraid or not bothered to hear the message that opposition parties wanted to them to hear.“People don’t want to come out because of the fear, so you bring your message to them,” said Tan.“The onus is on us. If the people are not responding to the message, it doesn’t mean that the people are stupid. It means that the message…the strategy…is not quite correct yet.”Highlight the right issuesTan said the Malaysian opposition used a “name and shame” strategy to great effect. Anwar had effectively talked to the populace on the Information Minister trying to defend himself on action taken in the Bersih rally in an Al Jazeera interview.Singapore, Tan said, could do the same. The opposition could be more proactive in “pushing the right buttons”. Tan said that wanting to take over the government, for example, is not a realistic goal in the short term and that it would be more effective highlight lack of press freedom and opposition representation in parliament. The opposition needs to look at specific goals it wants to achieve, Tan said.Have a simple, memorable, consistent messageIn an election, having a simple, easy-to-remember message and consistently using it was crucial. Tan gave the example of the Bersih rally, where the few demands of indelible ink, postal votes and cleaning up the electoral role were repeated again and again to great effect.Tan also talked about how, when he was detained, someone put up a single – not multiple – “Free Nat” poster which soon appeared on many blogs, which made for an effective, concentrated campaign.Opposition unity is paramountBoth Gan and Tan said that where there are 3-corner fights, the opposition would lose hands down. Citing the case of Sabah and Sarawak, which “were ripe for the picking for the opposition”, Gan said that the 3-corner fight actually affected the psyche of voters there, who thought that since the opposition were fighting among themselves, there was no point voting for them.In Singapore’s case, Tan noted that in the year the opposition contested only about half the seats, instead of more than half in the previous election, they actually got more seats.Aiming for incremental changeIn comparing the media in Singapore and Malaysia, Gan acknowledged that Malaysia does not have as tightly-regulated a print media as Singapore (the English and Malay newspapers are more highly regulated than the Chinese press in Malaysia), although this is slowly changing. In terms of speaking up, while there is still fear of personal repercussions, Gan noted that there were “more people willing to speak out and put themselves on the line… [making] it a lot easier for Malaysians”. Malaysia also has a more vibrant civil society.In summing up, Gan stressed that change will not happen just because of the Internet or a unified opposition. A vibrant independent media and civil society was also needed to bring about change.“For you bloggers, continue doing what you should be doing. Forget about the political parties. Hopefully there’ll come a time, and hopefully soon, that everything will gel together and that’s when you [will] have that perfect storm that will bring about change.” Homeless soon, thanks to HDB (published on The Online Citizen on 25 February 2008)6.5 million people. That is the projected number of people our government believes Singapore can accommodate. Already, 80% of the population lives in subsidised housing, and with the development of estates in Sengkang and Punggol, no one will have to be a vagrant. No one will have to sleep under the void deck with aluminium cans for a pillow, or at the beach with the sky as their blanket.Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Being homeless in Singapore is a real possibility, as theonlinecitizen (TOC) has found out, and you don’t even need to be old and dirt poor in order to have no roof over your head.In this special feature on home ownership in Singapore, theonlinecitizen tells the story of Andrew, a 34-year old young man who will soon be out of a home in 3 months because of the Housing and Development Board’s (HDB) lack of compassion and flexibility.In the beginningAndrew has a family of four: his father, his mother, (both in their sixties), himself and his sister. His father is a real estate agent. In 1992, the family bought an executive maisonette, taking out a mortgage loan of $464,100.The family woes started in 1991, when Andrew’s father, the sole breadwinner then, started chalking up less sales. Despite the financial difficulties, his father managed to pay the instalments.It was not to last for long. In 1996, the property slump severely affected his father’s income. Andrew’s father went into debt, and could not afford the monthly mortgage loan repayments, the utilities and the service and conservancy charges (S & CC).14 instalment plans and family conflictBecause the family could not afford to pay for the utilities, they worked out instalment plans with Singapore Power (SP). TOC understands that the family has drawn up 14 instalment plans to date since 1999, and the family have kept to the plans with varying degrees of success.“My father was always a dollar short and a day late,” said Andrew. “He tried driving a taxi, being an agent at a maid agency, but the money was never enough (to cover the bills). So he was always struggling to find a job (that paid enough).”“For a good 10 years (1996 – 2006), he was out of a (stable) job.”Because of the family’s inability to make repayments, the family’s electricity and water supply was often cut off. Andrew estimates it has been about 20 times now. The stress of being unable to repay the mortgage loan and the frequent utilities disconnections took a toll on the family. “Our quarrels just seemed to escalate,” said Andrew. “We always argued about why (we have) no money to pay, whose responsibility it is to pay, why my father can’t get a job, etc…”“There was so much finger pointing”, he said wistfully.Utilities cut so many times, he knows the routineAndrew’s electricity and water has been cut off so many times he knows the drill already. According to Andrew, a Singapore Power (SP) representative comes, rings the doorbell, the family opens the door and pleads with the representative not to cut off their utilities. The discussion ends with his father signing a document undertaking to pay the arrears plus late payment penalties etc.One family member then goes down to the SP office with the signed document to “settle” the matter, and a technician would be sent to reconnect the utilities the same day. Andrew said that the SP office usually asked them to pay in full, but because the family could not, they would “pay something, like anything” and their utilities would be reconnected.“There were times my entire family survived on my mother’s $600-$800 salary as a part-time worker in Yoshinoya to pay the bills,” said Andrew.Lack of compassion from SingPowerThe most recent incident in January 2008, however, showed SP’s lack of compassion.The family owed SP $2000+ in utilities, and they had kept to their latest repayment plan of $250 monthly. However, once they missed just 1 month’s payment last year, an SP representative was sent to disconnect the supply in January.Andrew recounts that that day, the technician had rang the doorbell, but because his father was in the toilet, no one came to the door. The SP rep thus proceeded to disconnect the supply.Halfway while Andrew’s father was doing his business, the light in the toilet went off. Realising that the electricity had been cut off, Andrew’s father rushed out of the toilet in a panic and pleaded with him, saying that he’d sign whatever was needed, as long as the electricity was reconnected. But Andrew said that this time there was no discussion and no immediate reconnection.“The man didn’t even want my father to sign anything, he just repeated again and again, ‘I’m sorry sir, I’m just doing my job’, and asked us to go down to the SP office to settle with them,” said Andrew.“What kind of system has created an employee that fears the system so much that he doesn’t even dare to go beyond what he was told he was supposed to do?”, said Andrew. Upset, he called the SP Customer Service Centre.“Where’s all the compassion in all this? I’ve been through all this before, I know the procedure,” said Andrew. He explained to the customer service officer that the previous reps had always discussed the issue with them, and had always reconnected their supply. In response, said Andrew, the SP Customer Service Officer “proceeded to give (him) an education on what is supposed to happen” and repeated the procedure that Andrew already knew, reiterating that if nobody answered the door, they have a right to disconnect the power immediately.“I told them, ‘I know the procedure. But why the previous people who came to disconnect can be compassionate, just sign the paper and they’ll reconnect immediately? Why not this time?”, he asks.It was evident that the talk with SP was fruitless, for Andrew said that his father was soon served a letter demanding payment by 5 Feb with no exceptions.Andrew added that the amount was originally in arrears for $2000+, but as of Jan it had been paid down to $700+.“That shows our effort since we made our first arrangement with SP that we pay, every month,” said Andrew. He said that they always paid the current charges plus a bit more to offset the original debt. The $700+ would have just taken a few more months to pay off.“But the hammer just comes down on us, and I don’t understand why. I don’t understand that.”No mercy from HDB eitherAndrew’s woes are not confined to SP charges alone. Andrew will soon be homeless as well, because the family cannot afford the S & CC and the mortgage loan repayments, the latter of which have to be paid in cash (no CPF because his father is self-employed).Andrew explains that since April 1999, they have received financial assistance in the form of deferred payments for their S & CC, or smaller payments of the interest only. Andrew makes it clear that they have only received these concessions due to their constant pleading.“I estimate my father has gone down to HDB to plead about 10 times already,” said Andrew. “We’ve also pleaded with them through our MP, Mr Wong Kan Seng, at least for 5 years already.” Andrew said that each time HDB sends them a letter demanding payment, his father goes down to the HDB office to pay a little to keep the family from being continually hounded.Andrew’s father had had a repayment plan of $120 per month for the S & CC charges, but had not been able to pay still. The HDB’s “compassion” finally ran out. In November last year, the family was served a lawyer’s letter demanding they pay their 20 months’ worth of S & CC charges of around $2000. The actual arrears amount to $1600+, while the remaining is a penalty for late payment.HDB also turned down their appeal to make partial payments of their monthly house loan instalments as they had been given extensions. The original instalments were $2000+ per month, but are now $3000+ (including penalties for late payments). A letter issuing an ultimatum was sent to them, telling them to register their flat for sale by 28 Jan, and sell the house within three months.When asked why they did not sell the house earlier, Andrew replies that the property market was not good, and if they sold the house, they would have made a massive financial loss and still be in debt to HDB. “My dad’s intention all the while is for the house value to appreciate, so he can cover all debts, be free of this burden of being in debt to HDB,” said Andrew.He also adds that his father recently had been sent a letter, informing him (father) that he had been barred from applying for a HDB season parking ticket because of the S & CC arrears. The move has made the family worse off financially, said Andrew, as his father needs the car (and therefore season parking ticket to park the car) for his work as a real estate agent.“Finding a house is tough as hell in Singapore”The family has no choice but to sell the house. The sale means that Andrew’s father will lose his entire lifetime of CPF savings. But Andrew sees a glimmer of sunshine in the gloom. The property market is good now, and their house has had a good valuation; the money they get from the sale will cover all SP, S & CC, and mortgage loan money they owe.Andrew’s parents’ eligibility to apply for a new HDB loan is in doubt because of his father’s debt history. Andrew himself, though, is going to get married, and he and his fiancée have the ability to buy a new house. The plan is to have their parents stay with them.The problem, however, lies in finding a house within the tight deadline of three months. “Finding a house is tough as hell in Singapore,” said Andrew. He said that if they bought a resale flat, they would have to pay a cash top-up of at least $30,000 - $40,000, and on top of that the 10% downpayment for the HDB loan. Andrew said that he and his fiancée have the means to service the HDB loan, but not enough to cough up a $30,000 cash top-up.Andrew said he has been looking for flats with a cash top-up of $5000-$10,000. Andrew and his fiancée have viewed about 30 units so far since August 2007, but have not managed to find one within their budget.Immediately he corrects himself – he did find one within their budget. “We saw one house in Sengkang, ground floor unit, 4-room, asking for $5000 cash (top-up) only,” said Andrew. “And we said, ok, we want, but when we called up 2 hours later, after we had viewed the house, the agent said [it had been] sold already. Because after I left, another 4 people (had come), and one person offered $7000, the other offered $10,000, and the last offered $20,000,” said Andrew. “It was like bidding, you know,” said Andrew.“So the loser is the one who doesn’t have the cash lah.”Andrew said that he also tried balloting for a flat, but was unsuccessful. He had applied for a flat in both mature and new estates, even unpopular estates, and each time his queue number has been unfavourable. In the recent Sengkang balloting exercise, he said that the 400+ units attracted 5,000 applicants, and his queue number was 2600. A recent balloting exercise for 200 units in mature estates attracted 10,000 applicants, of which he was number 5938.Andrew said he read on the HDB website that those who had submitted more applications and failed to get a flat would be moved up further the queue. “But nobody knows how many people are in the queue,” said Andrew. “Nobody knows how many have played this game, and (applied repeatedly) just to get ahead in the queue, and each application is $10 you know,” said Andrew.“I wonder, how many houses are out there in HDB ready to be sold, and how many are actually being released in every batch?”“Is this a money churning exercise?”No priority given by HDB for family to buy flatAndrew is desperate to find a house, “any house”, he says, for if he cannot get a flat within the next 3 months, he and his family will be homeless. Andrew said that he even went down to the Bishan HDB office to find out what he could do. The staff who served him told him that “even as staff (they didn’t) have priority to know what are the units that are not being released”.“Is there such a system that says that for those who truly need it on a case-by-case basis we give you priority?”, he asked.“Because I’m going to be homeless!”Homeless in Singapore?It is highly likely that Andrew’s case is not an isolated one. For more than 15 years, Andrew has slept through hot nights and used candles for lighting. He is helpless to improve his situation much. He does not have a degree – he is self-employed – his income varies from month to month, and he explains that he would earn even less than what he earns now if he took a regular job.Andrew’s plight also brings up more disturbing questions. Why do repeated appeals from an esteemed MP to the HDB and SP have seemingly little effect? Why must the HDB – a quasi-government body, no less – and SP, a major utilities provider, be so hard on one down-and-out old man? What is the breakdown of the number of people who have balloted more than once in order to get a higher priority in the queue for flats? Is balloting a money-making exercise after all, despite HDB’s claim that balloting is to give everyone “a fair chance”?In summary, these are the problems that Andrew and his family face:1. They must put their flat on the resale market by Jan 28, 2008.2. Repay $464,100 of mortgage loans3. Pay the $700 in utilities4. Pay their Town Council $3000 in S&C chargesAnd even if they manage to pay off the debts, Andrew and his family may still end up on the street – because he can’t afford a resale flat and the queue for a new flat will take some time.Yet, despite all that he is going through, he only asks that the HDB considers his circumstances and maybe move him up in the queue for a new flat.Andrew says that this is an opportunity for his family to finally get out of the cycle of being in debt for so long – if only the HDB would be compassionate about his situation.There are questions that only the relevant authorities can answer. The clock is ticking, and for those like Andrew who are stuck between a rock and a hard place, their next home may be the void deck. Let us hope that it will not be for lack of compassion from our government that people will sleep outside at night.Otherwise, thanks to the HDB, a family will be homeless.