Between AHPETC and SMRT

Which is the greater mishap for us, as the peasants of this aristocratically-ruled island country club? The perceived "failure" of AHPETC or the real-life experienced failure of SMRT? Which is a more costly failure for the peasants?

Direct impact of AHPETC’s “failure”

(1)State of cleanliness

Impact is limited to constituent level. The most disastrous impact will be hygiene discomfort, that is, cleaning work comes to a halt due to the breakdown of TC. That is based on the assumption that residents' Service and Conservancy Charges (S & CC) collected could not suffice to meet the cleaning cost somehow. That would at most impact the estate cleanliness.

Though a paranoid on cleanliness, I must admit that this is not even an inconvenient. The breakdown of MRT is inconvenient, considering the fact that peasants have to commute to work. As long as the services of shops, supermarkets, wet markets, post office, banks, public transport (if it is still in working conditions) and such still function despite the failure of TC, estate cleanliness does seem negligible.

In perspective, there are more pressing reasons, such as stubborn inflation, to worry about than estate hygiene discomfort really. NEA will tackle mosquito breeding and rats infestation in my constituent unless non-PAP wards are excluded from these services. Even if I have to engage an estate manager directly to manage our block of flats, that still won’t break my bank.

However, living costs do. Healthcare cost for myself and my aging parents will. I reject Mr Khaw Boon Wan’s aristocratic suggestion of putting my parents in any JB home care to reduce the cost of care.

In fact, a 10 million imminent population is more disastrous for me than failure of my TC.

(2) Lower Service and Conservancy Charges

Ironically, despite MSM’s repeated mantra of AHPETC paying more to their managing agent, residents still get to enjoy a lower rate of S & CC as compared to during PAP’s reign?!!! Doesn’t that show some form of efficiency and cost savings? Why couldn’t the TCs under PAP, paying relatively less to their managing agents than AHPETC, decrease the S & CC to benefit the residents? After all, they enjoy greater economies of scale than AHPETC. Yet, AHPETC which has been accused of paying their "friends" unfairly more, could help to bring direct savings to the residents. If paying more to managing agent could improve efficiency and brings lower service costs to residents, why not? We are already paying our political leaders the highest salaries in this universe to stamp out corruption and to attract talents into our political arena anyway. That didn’t bring about a cost savings unfortunately, to the peasants.

Greater implications

1) Doubts on the ability of AHPETC’s political party to govern at national level

Is that even relevant?

There is no relevance between Hsien Loong’s ignorance of our mee siam and his ability to run the country either. Cockles or no cockles in mee siam, he has been running our country for the past decade.

I doubt Hsien Loong knows about the details on the running of his ministries, nor would he know about the amount of money that is going into the sinking fund each month from his TC.

The management of a TC was thrusted upon the shoulders of our MPs when the rule of game for politics was changed to trip the opposition. Whatever justification said about MP’s additional role in TC management does not disguise the fundamental purpose of our MPs in their political roles. They are elected to shape our national policies to the benefit of our citizens, not just residents. A MP who has the abilities to keep his TC all in order but dead silent about the detriments of national policies in Parliament is a complete waste to taxpayers’ money and it defeats the purpose of even having a MP. An estate manager would just suffice for that task.

We have to understand that the purpose of our civil service is created to facilitate the daily functions of our country, and therefore leaving our political leaders to make decisions.

Our political leaders do not fret about our income taxes being paid on time or not; neither do they need to decide which cleaning company to engage. That would be under the purview of IRAS and NEA. In short, our politicians are not estate managers.

We do not need accountants, financial consultants, estate managers….to be our political leaders. On the other hand, we are in dire need of GENUINE leaders who can LEAD, who are not obsessed with their monetary sacrifices or aristocrat status.

2) Spread of corruption to the national level when AHPETC allegedly awarded contracts to “friends”

CPIB is there to ensure a corruption-free environment.

If there is really corruption involved, I have no qualms that our super efficient CPIB would have brought those involved to justice. The persecution of former chief of SCDF and directors of CPIB are fine examples of our super efficient CPIB.

If those were not enough, just look up there at the aristocrat level where Hsien Loong is. His wife is overseeing the investment capital of our sovereign funds. Such obvious conflict of interest. There must be a super robust system in place to detect any possible wrong doings of his wife. If such robust system exists, AHPETC would certainly be on the radar system.

Moreover, high pay has been used to entice politicians not to be corrupted, so that should apply to AHPETC team. If there is any shreds of doubt on our pay-more-to-reduce-corruption system, give politicians’ pay another boost then. And certainly Grace Foo will be the first to jump through the roof in joy.

3) Integrity of the AHPETC team

I maybe naive but politicians are not god-send angels. Also, absolute power corrupts any human heart. Which is why I would rather put my faith in an independent system or an independent body to check on ALL politicians than to believe politicians’ integrity.

A system that can compel politicians to uphold their duties with integrity is more effective than relying on individual’s integrity. In the real world, political parties’ power rise and fall, but the system in place do not. If we have such an effective system, we should not be worried about the integrity of the politicians at all. They will have absolutely no chance of enriching themselves at the public expense, like what SMRT is doing.

Direct impact of SMRT’s failure

For peasants without cars, public transport is not even an option. And because we are peasants, we have to work till we die, therefore, reliable and affordable public transport is crucial to our livelihoods. The impact of train failure goes beyond train commuters and affect across various groups of people who are in some ways connected to the train commuters.

I am not sure if our aristocrat leaders and ex-generals realize that. If they are fixated about productivity, they should know the relation between train breakdowns and our productivity.

Greater implications

1) Privatising profits; nationalising loss

SMRT fails on two levels. First as a private company which fails to deliver its core product; on a second level, it fails as a private company which is supported by public funds.

And SMRT has been given a credit card with no spending limit and is definitely a spoilt brat who has no priorities in spending. We have seen it happened in its interest of venturing into retail and telecommunication when it fails to maintain reasonable standard of its own core product, which is our public transport. Expensive infrastructure such as the stations and tracks have been built for SMRT’s operations. On top of that, public funds were used to purchase new trains and distribute monetary rewards when SMRT trains run on time. Do we also reward police with cash for catching thieves?

There is also an “independent” fare review committee that has been advocating higher fares for SMRT in 9 out of 10 years, amidst all local and external circumstances such as surging and slumping oil prices, fall of real wages for bus captains, growing ridership.

Why does Hsien Loong cringe at the sound of welfare for our people but extremely generous towards private companies which profits have not benefitted the general public? Not even when it comes to assuage the burden of healthcare costs on our people, Hsien Loong is more concerned about the breakeven ability of his Medishield Life than the out-of-the-pocket costs for our people. 

If we are worried sick about AHPETC's management of TC's funds; we should be million times more worried about how our public funds are being spent. It is an accumulation of successive reluctant prudent spending on our people, in the form of our healthcare, social spending etc, that built up our public funds. In other words, we the peasants are spending more from our own pockets to ensure the surplus of our public funds.

2) Profit-oriented

Think of the cheap plastic cables used to stabilise our sleepers. There will be no end to the corners that a private company will cut to boost its profits. Inevitable.  

But how did we end up with a profit-oriented private company providing public service?

Desmond Kuek made known his priority clear soon after he was parachuted to head SMRT. SMRT answers to their shareholders, not the peasants who have to board the train out of no other transport alternatives. Ironically, the public transport company and its CEO owes their very existence to the peasants who couldn't afford COEs. Desmond, Tuck Yew and Hsien Loong do not see it that way.

No compelling reason for such a private company to remain competitive or efficient when there is free-to-spend credit card thrusted into its hands.

3) The scariest part--No accountability of public funds

SMRT is a mutant, not entirely private and neither entirely public. How many of such models have been adopted in other services? Using direct or indirect public funds to boost the profitability of private companies. Think of Temasek’s monetary support given to Olam, a private company with dubious financial and accounting. It was an amount of S$2.5 billion spent.

The bigger question is, who actually condones the behaviour of channelling our public funds to satisfy the insatiable greed of private companies? WHO IS THIS PERSON?

Hsien Loong and Tuck Yew, on different occasions mentioned, that the public has a responsibility to ensure the profitability of SMRT, a supposedly private company. Coincidentally, they were silent on SMRT’s responsibility towards its commuters. And that paints the big picture.

That our public funds are used callously to recoup the losses of irresponsible private companies. This dwarfs the “sins” of AHPETC’s mismanagement of their TC. There hasn’t even concrete evidence of AHPETC’s misuse of funds.

Conclusions:

1. SMRT has nothing to lose but AHPETC has

A private company allowed to nationalise its loss while privatising its gain will have no worries about its efficiency. Even LTA’s millions of fine on SMRT for poor service can be recouped through charging higher fare in the subsequent years.

AHPETC has everything to lose. It has a political team that went into politics with no guarantee of cushy jobs in GLCs or PA or being appointed as advisors of any constituent if they were to lose in the elections. For them, the only way to secure future votes is to perform. SMRT may break down 365 days of a year and it would still be be granted a fare increase. Peasants will still have to board the train out of no other alternatives.

2) SMRT is an epitome of how our country is run?

Isn't such possibility ten times worse than AHPETC's allegedly dishonesty? Our reserves are freely accessible to private companies, as well as private individuals? Worryingly, there is no debate or an independent system to oversee the expenditure of our public funds. One person determines the use of public funds.

3) Who is actually screwing the peasants

If the worst could be said about AHPETC, it will be their incompetency to manage the TC. But should there be a relation between a MP and his/her admin abilities in the first place? Are we looking at the abilities of our MPs to better the welfare for the citizens through municipal and national policies?

That Khaw Boon Wan scored a gleaming record on his Sembawang TC but failed miserably to provide sufficient hospital beds for a booming population during his term as a HEALTH minister. His residents in Sembawang GRC rejoice; but patients across the entirely island, save for those aristocrats of course, are paying for his incompetence as a Health Minister. A* in managing a TC but F grade as a health minister.

Which is worse? Who is screwing the peasants harder? And why are we even worried about AHPETC when there is already a bigger monster baring its teeth right before our eyes?

The truth is, we still prefer to close our eyes when it is already right before our eyes, praying fervently that it will miraculously go away on its own accord.

………

Rocking the Singapore Boat.

Some people prefer not to rock the current Boat.

For any form of changes to the current situation, despite no signs of improving growing inequality, living cost, heathcare cost, unfair job competition, failing of infrastructures etc, whatever change will only invite the worst to descend.

Their preference of status quo mentality is largely based on the assumption that they have been guaranteed seats to stay onboard our Singapore Boat.

These people may have forgotten to ask, given the limited seats on our Singapore Boat which in fact, is only a sampan 2.0 when even a huge ship like the Titanic had limited space and limited number of safety boats, are there sufficient seats for the same people who refuse to rock it? Could these seats been taken already? Who will be flung off the Boat to make way for the better deserved?

There are constantly new passengers and pets drawn from ALL corners of this universe to our wonderful but limited size Sampan 2.0. Who should be given the priority to board or to stay onboard?   

The Australian BBQ-public-event-turned-PA-member-private-event, an event which concerned mere chunks of meat, has drawn out the sheer vicousness of the Selected Group. They won’t hesitate to turn into ugly savages over matters of survival such as procuring a seat onboard our Boat. How then can those people outside the Selected Group who support the current Boat be assured that there will be a fair share of the tickets to board?

Don’t ever forget Hsien Loong said that Singapore Boat belongs to everyone. The savage-like nature of the Selected Group is not unique to this world.

To add on to the space-constraints, we are also now witnessing an emerging class of aristocrats breeding among us, self-proclaiming their absolute rights to all the space, lives and resources onboard because of their self-proclaimed superiority from the peasants.

Think again.

The greatest irony though not shocking, is that the same people who have advocated for status quo might be among the first to be hauled out of the Boat into the abysmal sea to make way for the more deserving people. And the aristocrats will decide who are the more deserving ones.

Have no doubt on this. Aristocrats are void of gratitude. They believe they are rightly superior and therefore do not owe their power to anyone. But the actions and beliefs of those who prefer status quo empower the aristocrats to the absolute ownership of the Boat and it will be the same power that will be used to push these poeple out of the Boat.

Don't rock the Boat only when you have been promised a space on the Boat. But then again, a promise can be made to be broken. It won't be the first time and neither will it be the last.

Singapore ≠ Singaporeans

It used to be a simple equation where nation is a representation of its citizens, where Singapore=Singaporeans.

It is therefore imprinted in us, that the welfare of our country must precede the interest of individuals. Therefore, in the early days of nation building, public servants were coerced into switching pension scheme to CPF scheme to avoid burdening the country; no freedom of speech for our people; no public protests against the establishment, all in the name of the country's interest. 

In our political context, our people are negligible, only our country matters. Mandatory for our people to sacrifice for our country while keeping away the fruit of hardwork from our people. 

It took PAP decades to acknowledge, albeit reluctantly, the contribution of our pioneer generation, in the presence of pressure from the ballot box.

We were brought up to assume that whatever is good for our country will naturally translate into goodness for us/future generations in the near or far future. That is the carrot to persuade us to swallow the bitter pill in the short/long term. 

We believe CPF contribution rate cut during recession is painful but necessary. However, after all the pain and after our GDP figures rose by 300% from when the cut was introduced, our people were never compensated. The rate that was slashed is not restored to the original rate, after 15 years. And will never be restored. The intention is just not there.

We faithfully believe in the myth that a good economy will do everyone in the country good that we are willing to sacrifice any short term benefits.

But for who is the sacrifice for? In this era when our country no longer belongs solely to our citizens, what is good for the country may be detrimental to its citizens.

Higher GDP figures is good for our country

So much so that our GDP grew 3 times between the period of 1998 to 2013, from US$85.71 billion to US$297.94 billion (Source: World Bank). In a period of 16 years. Now, that would “put Singapore on the world map” as it swiftly rises in the global GDP per capita ranking. By 2013, Sgp has already reached top 9 position, one notch above the US (Source:World Bank).

Hundreds of billions were generated from our economy. Good for those who own a giant bulk of our country’s wealth. But is the wealth generated swiftly and evenly distributed to our people? As decisively as our CPF contribution rate cuts?

High GDP figures benefit the country by creating business opportunities that will in turn bring about more jobs, better jobs and higher purchasing power…. That was part of the equation we assumed. Apart from property-related professions, business owners, private practice, civil servants on scholarly track, politicians of the right party, how does the stellar GDP figures benefit the citizens in general? Did the stellar GDP translate into even a 100% increase in wages for the common people in these 16 years?

In reality, where did the bulk of the GDP go to? For who is the economy for?

¤ Higher inflation?

Shopping malls of all sizes mushroomed everywhere is the evident of a booming economy. But the service jobs created from these malls mainly go to foreigners from our region while prices of goods in these malls, such as the food at food courts, boomed as well, and at a higher extent than our wage growth. As consumers, do we benefit from high GDP figures when our wages could not keep up with the inflation?

¤ Fewer Good Jobs?

Booming economy generated jobs but for who are the jobs created for?

Looking at the lower-, middle- and higher-end job creation for the past 10 years, what we can see from our own eyes are the positions in F&B, constructions, public transport, public healthcare largely staffed by foreigners. Foreign PMETs are on the increase too. The highest positions of MNCs, local companies, national banks, GLCs mostly went to foreigners of the West. If Singaporeans are “shunning” away from jobs across all income levels, then how would jobs creation which is a result from a booming economy even benefit this country’s very own citizens? 

For every job that goes to a citizen (PRs are not citizens), how many went to the foreigners? And what is the average income level of these so called good jobs created for Singaporeans? 

The whole point of generating economic growth is to provide for the people of the nation, which should be rightly the citizens.

¤ Growing Size of the Poor?

The irony of the stellar GDP figures is the growing size of poor amidst our own citizens. As our nation accumulates riches, more proportion of our citizens are growing poorer. The size of our poor embarrass CCC to the extent of refusing a poverty line to identify those poor. If stellar GDP figures bring about a better quality life and even though there will always be a relative group of poor in any economy, why should there be growing poor when our GDP is soaring? GDP enriches some or a few but berefting more?

¤ Lower Quality Life

Good economy should bring about a better quality life for the citizens, otherwise, it is pointless to drive an economy to an extent of killing ourselves. Our GDP figures climbed whilst our quality life slumped. During this 16 year period, our 3 basic needs in the form of transport, healthcare and accommodation have deteriorated.

Transport: lower reliability at a higher cost; healthcare: even longer wait time, glaring shortage of hospital beds and higher medical costs; housing: smaller living space at a price that has surpassed our GDP percentage growth. And education: even more competition with foreigners parachuted into our schools, all for a higher cost.

By contrast, pre-2000s era has seen better quality life when GDP figures were much lower. After the mid-2000s, the standards of our 3 basic needs have fallen into the dark hole.

GDP success does warrant better quality life, unfortunately to be restricted to a small group of people. In reality, when the GDP under-perform, all of us have to bear the brunt; when GDP outperform, only a small group of our people stand to benefit.

All sacrifices that are imposed upon our people are meant to serve that small group of people. What is good for the country, that is, good for this group of people, are not necessarily good for the average peasants.

Greater population is good for our ageing country

What was not mentioned in the PWP is the unlimited pool of adult foreigners to staff the increasing growing businesses, retails, property units created for the targeted population increase. 

Good for the country's GDP but bad news for our citizens.

¤ Housing & retail

More foreigners will help to enrich landlords; consumption increases for business owners, feeding the demand for properties and retails and the price that comes with it.

Again the same group of people who will benefit from booming economy will benefit from this population growth. Business owners and the property players will smile their way to the bank. Besides benefiting business owners and landlords, influx of immigrants are to benefit the immigrants themselves where jobs are created in abundance specifically for them in mind.

¤ Transport

Higher ridership swelled by a growing population on our public transport did not help to tame the rising fares but did the contrary and further added fuel to the frequent breakdowns and the crowdedness.

¤ Healthcare

Did the growing size of foreigners help to mitigate our hospital bed crunch or shorten our waiting period and appointment time? My next dental appointment at our polyclinic is a 10-month wait. Is an 8-hour-wait to get a bed at SGH, even with a GP's referral an improvement? The "benefits" that a growing population will bring to average citizens are INVISIBLE. But what the average citizens have to endure with the population explosion, is real.

Growing Singapore but marginalizing majority of Singaporeans

Think again, when our economy is driven not with the priorities of the citizens in mind, it is a delusion to believe that what is good for a country will be good for its people. Notwithstanding the fact that our country no longer belongs to her people.

Thus, a noble but a deceptive notion conveniently used to justify some policies that are intended for exclusive groups of people.

We keep harping on the need of a strong economy for the country. A good economy is only good when it can provide quality living and retirement for its citizens. Not when soaring GDP figures bring an actual lower quality life for the majority of its citizen. Having a good GDP is thus meaningless when the majority of our citizens are made to bear the tradeoffs.

In the late 90s and the early 2000s Singapore when breakdowns of trains were rare, hospital crunch was unheard of, housing prices have not soared through the roof, that was the period before the unrestrained influx of immigrants and when GDP was very much lower.

As Singapore continues to climb high in wealth accumulation and international profile, remember, CITIZENS ARE EXCLUDED.