Are Singaporeans Just Being Rebellious?

Tags

FT, Resentment, TNC

This came up over a twitter conversation with @bimbo_observes when she (I assume with that nick, a ‘she’) responded to my previous post that people have to make a first time in proposing changes for change to happen. That’s a logical point indeed, and perhaps also the fundamental idea behind the call for a National Conversation. The government needs to hear our concerns, our ideas so that they can make relevant changes. What I really do not like however, is how some Singaporeans are abusing such platforms and mistaking them as an avenue for their ranting. Telling the government or PAP to ‘fuck off’ is in no way constructive. If you made the effort to get to their Facebook page and leave a comment, you can make an effort to be constructive. You can be cynical, critical or downright negative but ‘fuck you PAP’ is totally unacceptable. What is your point exactly?

Of course there are many other comments that have left me feeling indignant for the organizers. For instance, there are people saying that the National Conversation FB page is redundant because there are plenty of other websites that the government should just go to to ‘LISTEN’ to citizens. It’s a blatant show of lack of appreciation isn’t it? I’ve always believed that if someone is making an effort, then reciprocate before he stops trying. One more platform to air our views is not a bad thing at all is it? The attitude of ‘I’ve already said everything I want to say and it’s not my problem you weren’t listening,’ is uncannily like a lover’s spat, or a teenager-parent argument. Hey, we are talking about issues on a national level here. I think pettiness like that has no place in a conversation. Why can’t we appreciate the gesture? The truth is, our government has a solid hold on power for now and at least a few more elections to come. They don’t have to talk to the common people you know? If they so prefer, we could go into military government tomorrow and lock up people who talk under the ISA. That’s a far stretch I know, but what I’m saying is, our government does not HAVE TO do this. That they are doing so at the risk of opening the floodgates to dissent and criticism is something we have to appreciate.

Running a government and taking care of a nation is not easy. I wish people had more patience and empathy for a government trying their best. Our nation is made up of so many groups however you want to categorize us. We are Singaporeans, PRs, FTs as much as we are the super-rich, the rich, the middle-class and the poor. We are also multi-racial, and multi-religion. We are CEOs, common employees, SME owners, MNC investors.. So many groups we are, all fighting for our slice of cake when the cake is only so big. There is no way the government can hope to please everyone. We only have that much money at the end of a fiscal year. Which scheme gets what is perhaps the biggest headache a cabinet has to figure out every year. There are many things Singaporeans want, like ‘Ang Pows’, like more housing grants or free flats even, higher wages, more welfare.. It’s an endless list of wants that the government has to cater to so as to stay in favor. Some of these items are not beyond what they can do for us citizens, but others are logically not plausible. In us demanding our rights and expressing our wants, I hope we are logical and reasonable people. I hope also we are understanding people who are able to see others needs come before our wants. When we throw tantrums and hurl profanities when we don’t get GST rebates or excessive housing grants, I hope we see that the money that wasn’t spent on us was poured into the much more needed Workfare schemes and healthcare upgrades. I hope that we haven’t been pampered into selfish individuals.

At this stage, I do see Singaporeans as rebellious teenagers with raging hormones. Maybe we are not rebelling for the sake of rebelling, but more often than not, we are not being mature in our relationship with the government. Criticism is not of the thoughtful kind, accusations are flying, anger is the default tone of voice.. And it all boils down to resentment. The spiteful, hurtful remarks are saddening to see. Why do we hate the government so? What exactly have they done to deserve that? I feel like Singaporeans are fueling this resentment with the negativity it produces like a vicious cycle. Recently with the #Dinerenblanc fiasco, I was surprised to see how some people could draw parallels with the event’s all-white dress code to the PAP’s attire. The thread of comments soon deviated from the anger we felt at #Dinerenblac ‘s disrespect to anger at PAP for a wide-range of issues! Are we so blinded by anger that we would heap blame on PAP for everything? These days, it would seem like Singaporeans do make it sound like EVERYTHING is PAP’s fault, EVERYTHING is the FT’s fault. Seriously? Are we so juvenile? It seems we are. When I asked people why they had voted for the opposition during the last election, they told me it was to make a statement to PAP. That’s like a teenager staying out after curfew to spite his parents isn’t it? I hope when you voted, you did so thoughtfully and not spitefully.

I tweeted yesterday that ‘Belief is not enough to keep a government running.’ As much as the government would like to do the best for everyone, they have got to be pragmatic. There are many issues on which it is not appropriate for the government to explain more than they have and it is up to us as citizens to understand the ‘between-the-lines’. I don’t expect PM Lee to out-rightly explain to us how if he gives us “Ang Pows’, that’s another 20M off the budget and not going into HDB upgrading. It’s crude, but that’s economics and it’s also how a government is kept running. Something’s got to give to keep a balance. When we get something, someone else doesn’t get it. When a group of us gets privileges, then another group just got pushed further down the line. We cannot always win, even if we are the true-blue Singaporeans. FTs and PRs have made tremendous contributions to our country and our prosperity. How fair is it to not give them a cut of something they too contributed towards? Already, more and more safeguards are being erected to protect the Singaporean’s interests. How much more can be done before it gets too much and entirely alienates the FTs? Singaporeans have to understand that we actually do need FTs. Just look into hospitals and nursing homes, F&B outlets, sanitation services, construction sites.. Aren’t these sectors operational only because of FTs? If we push the FTs out, are you going to help pick up rubbish off the streets? Or in fact, do we even have enough of us to keep even one of these sectors running? I don’t need the government to point out the harsh reality to me. Truth is, they aren’t too keen to sit Singaporeans down and tell us point-blank either. If they are sparing us from this cruelty, can we be more appreciative?

Are Singaporeans being rebellious? Look online for a bit and decide for yourself. While not everyone is like that, resentment and negativity spreads like a virus. When numbers do reach a critical point, a certain mob mentality happens and rationality will break down together with civilized society. I hope we as Singaporeans are educated enough to be above that. Think before you speak, consider before you criticize. While proposing change is a good thing, we should also be our own critic and think about the feasibility of our ideas. Many problems SG is facing now are multifaceted and affect many levels of our population. While we seek a better future and prospects for ourselves, can we consider others too? Imagine yourself as PM and think if you could benefit one group over another if it meant more votes for you in the next election. I don’t envy the PM’s job because these moral, difficult decisions have to be made daily when you run a government. Nothing is ever so black and white.

So the next time you say a solution is ‘as simple’ as that, think again. Because if you make a mistake, maybe you’ll lose a job or go bankrupt, but if the government gets it wrong, they’ll put thousands out of jobs and ruin many lives. But worse still, a wrong decision will see a government lose the faith of its people for a long long time. And I’m not sure if it can ever be healed as is the case in SG now. Yes, the government made a mistake in underestimating the effects of FTs and also in the property sector. How long are we going to be angry about it? The damage is done, it is irreversible and we can either make do or sink. I liken it to a broken marriage in which someone has been caught cheating. Apologies naturally cannot heal that hurt, but if it is to be saved, shouldn’t we forgive and start picking up the pieces together? It is the only way to reconciliation isn’t it? Unfortunately in the case of SG, your only way to divorce is to give up citizenship. So, maybe not the best analogy on my part. I’m just saying, can we as Singaporeans stop being hormonal and angry for a while and start thinking again? Can we start moving forward again instead of sitting in this puddle of lava and seethe? To those who are instigating the resentment, what exactly are you trying to achieve?

I leave you with this quote from Aristotle, ‘It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.’ Think first, not react with emotions. I don’t need a government torn between trying to cajole its irritated citizens and doing the difficult necessary things to save us. Follow the American Presidential election and you’ll realize how lucky we are in Singapore to have a decent government. Stop taking it for granted and start appreciating. That’s good advice for everything else in your life too.

On Recreational Biking Lanes on our Roads.

Tags

bicycle lane, transportation

I am a driver of now, almost 8 years. Like most drivers in SG, that is enough time to have experienced the basic set of accidents that our increasingly hazardous roads are bound to cause. Other than the bumper kisses, the speeding and red-light fines, the close calls with jay-walkers, I have also been fortunate enough to have lived through a bigger scale accident which involved me crashing head-first into a concrete road barrier at 3am. I consider myself ‘educated’ enough on life on SG roads to form an opinion about the recent plea by cyclists for a bicycle lane on the roads.

I’ll say it as it is; I frowned when I heard about the plea and letter to PM Lee and instinctively, violently said NO to the idea. When I calmed down, read the letter and thought more about how plausible this is, I came to a conclusion that our minister is right.. One critical problem in implementing bicycle lanes is that it would create the dangerous illusion of safety for cyclists out on the open road. Perhaps the minister in question could have addressed and elaborated, explained the issues with regard to the plea. More importantly though, he is right. They teach us first day in driving school that a red-light is not a concrete wall that stops other cars from trying to run it. How will a line on the floor keep cyclists safe? Surely it cannot repel vehicles that touch it or go across it.

Think about drawing a line on the road for a bicycle lane. It will likely be on the left isn’t it? How much is 1.5m across? That’s about the height of petite local girl. How many cyclists can fit side by side safely? 2 I would think. Where will these lanes be? The cyclist who penned the letter suggested ‘scenic’ roads like Loyang Avenue, Upper Thomson Road etc.

These are important questions that will show you how difficult it really is to give these cyclists what they are asking for. It will perhaps also enlighten those who voted for bicycle lanes that they have voted without having thought through the issue as much as they think they did.

What’s on the left lane? Buses, trucks, heavy vehicles, lorries and pickups are assigned to left lane because they are slower-moving, bulkier and basically more of a road hazard than other vehicles to drivers. We drivers sit on the right side in SG. Now imagine you’re sitting in the cab of a container truck driving and a cyclist pulls up next to your massive front left wheel at a red-light. Will you be able to see him if you do not make a conscious effort to look? Moving off after a stop and making left turns together with a motorcycle are some of the scariest moments of driving to me. One second I’m checking for oncoming traffic and the next, a motorcycle appears in the small space of my curb allowance and it’s almost too late, I almost have him squashed right then and there. Big vehicles have more inertia and cannot stop like a car can. If you notice, they constantly roll over the road shoulder line as it is to make space for motorcycles on their right. A container truck driver slamming his brakes in surprise in this sort of scenario can either skid right into the bicycle lane or have his tail end swing out from the abrupt halt. This does not bode well for a motorcyclist, much less a cyclist at all. Imagine now it is a public bus. How many passengers will be injured because of a negligent cyclist?

Is 1.5m across a lot? Not by itself, but remember we have bus lanes and road shoulders in some cases? Roads like Upper Thomson even have public parking and illegal parking going on on the left side of the road. When you consider all that, a 1.5m lane for bicycles will end up requiring road widening by up to the width of yet another lane isn’t it? As it is right now, how many roads in your area are slated for road widening already to deal with increasing traffic flow? Case in point, Yio Chu Kang Road where this is being done to cater to the new estates of Fernvale and Sengkang-Punggol. I drive this road at least 4 times a week. It is a scenic road with a canopy of trees not unlike Upper Thomson, passing along a nice quiet stretch of private estate. But YCK is also an extremely busy road on which large vehicles are a constant thing with new flats being built in the area and an army camp nearby. The road there is being widened as much as it possibly can be without compromising the drain that runs down its middle. Still, going from 2 to 3 lanes means being less generous with the width of each individual lane. It is not unusual for cars on the right lane to not risk drawing up to a truck on the left which is treading its lane marking. It is that tight. So tell me again, is 1.5m too much to ask here? Elsewhere on other roads, road widening is going on as a necessity for vehicles. Space for bicycle lanes is a luxury in some places and downright impossible in others.

I live in Woodlands, in an area sharing the border with the light industry factories. If you live in Boon Keng or AMK or other estates with this similar set-up, you would have seen the phenomenon I’m about to describe. 7am and rush hour traffic is just beginning. The roads are filling up with carloads of kids heading for school. Suddenly, a swarm of cyclists descend upon us waiting on a red-light. It is almost like a mini version of the scenes we see on TV in front of Tienanmen Square or downtown Vietnam, or even a little like the Tour De France, except these are factory workers on the way to clock in. I remember being amazed by the number of cyclists there were the first time I experienced this. They were on the pavement, on the entire first lane, jam packed onto the little square with pedestrians waiting for the green man.. I couldn’t tell if they were behaving as road-users or pedestrians or a hybrid. It was, and still is an absolute mess. We have since had a a bicycle lane on the pavement built just for them that is about 1.5m across. Except, why is it still a mess in the mornings with cars honking, buses unable to turn out of stops, pedestrians fearful of being knocked over? Because 1.5m across will surely not be enough if people take to biking to work en masse.

I know we are supposed to be talking about ‘recreational’ cyclists here. But in all honesty, how are we supposed to segregate the hobbyists from the people who use bicycles as their transportation? If we say yes to bicycle lanes, we will be saying everyone who has a bicycle is welcome to use them isn’t it? From the daredevil punk kids, to the factory worker, to the recreational cyclist.. It will have to be an open invitation no matter the cyclist’s skill or level of responsibility because it is impossible to police. Will the responsible recreational cyclist vouch for every other fellow cyclist in their plea for a bicycle lane? I think not.

We drivers honestly hate to see cyclists on the road because we see them as road hazards. To keep cyclists safe, we would rather give them a wider berth, run into the 2nd lane a little than risk catching a cyclist with our side-mirrors.. We would brake down drastically and risk being hit by the car behind or skidding ourselves when we suddenly spot the cyclist riding in the dark with no warning lights whatsoever on himself or his bike. There is not enough social responsibility to trust ALL cyclists will follow the rules of the road if they were to share it with drivers. I particularly don’t understand how is it we should allow cyclists to be on the roads when at a red-light, they can suddenly decide to become a pedestrian. This just causes sheer confusion doesn’t it? Be one or the other. Yet cyclists can be both because it is impossible to police.

Given an accident between a vehicle and a bicycle, drivers are very much aware that they will most likely have to take the blame unless they have video proof. Will a negligent cyclist, or driver for that matter step up to admit if it was his fault? Perhaps the question is if a cyclist can even stand up at all after an accident with a car or truck. Somehow just because a cyclist is hurt and the driver unscathed, the cyclist tends to be assumed blameless. Will bicycle lanes prompt drivers to install video cameras in their vehicles? I definitely would. While cyclists call themselves ‘recreational’, many of us drive for a living and cannot afford to lose our licenses unjustly. Cyclists can just take to the road again when their scrapes and cuts heal while we get suspended for years. And then again, who will pay for this expense of video cameras? The government? The cyclists in the form of tax? Us drivers? Did you consider this when you voted yes?

The roads of our garden city were never designed for bicycles no matter how scenic a route they take. That is why the government built us parks and park connectors, and bicycle lanes on the pavement where necessary. I don’t understand how it is appealing or healthy to ride side-by-side with the big trucks and thousands of cars spewing exhaust fumes on our roads. Isn’t it a better and safer experience to cycle along East Coast Park? These cyclists call themselves ‘recreational’, so why put your lives on the line for a sport and some fun? The plea implores PM Lee to think about the 70 cyclists who died on the roads. But how many more motorcyclists and drivers and pedestrians have spilled blood on our asphalt? The roads are no place for ‘recreation’ and the moment these cyclists put their wheels down in this territory, they agreed to play by the rules of the roads and are at the mercy of its odds. Drivers understand that, and more chillingly so do motorcyclists who understand that the chances of getting grievously hurt in an accident for them is staggering. So why is it any different for cyclists who insist on using the roads? Motorcyclists do not have a choice, but these cyclists do and yet gamble with their lives for ‘recreation’. I really don’t understand and cannot empathize. They made their choice and suffered for it and there is nobody else to blame is there?

In the plea letter, a ‘parallel’ was raised in the new law that forbade maids from cleaning windows after several fell to their deaths this year. After reading everything I have written above, I hope readers can see how this comparison is like comparing apples to oranges. In the case of the maids, the solution to the problem is to simply forbid the action that is the direct cause of the deaths. Here in the issue of ‘recreational’ cycling lanes, the only way I see to keep cyclists from their deaths is to keep them entirely off the roads. Yes, some people will conclude that drawing lines on the floor and road widening and policing costs money and that’s why the government is saying no. But think about it, is this cost a necessary one? Is this money really going to solve the problem or create even more externalities? Is this really about money at all? Running a government and doing the best for a nation is not easy. If you have empathy to spare, may I suggest you spare the government some.

The case of ‘recreational’ cycling in SG on roads, or for SG to follow in the path of European nations to promote cycling as a mode of transport will require a total overhaul of everything from facilitating for it to happen on the roads, to educating people and changing a nation’s mindset. This can happen, but it is not now and not soon. SG is a pragmatic people first, and the effort involved for such a thing to happen is unlikely.. Unless we are making preparations in advance for the day oil runs out. We are not eco people, nor are we big on a sporty lifestyle. It seems unjustifiable if the government spends this sort of time and money to ‘promote a lifestyle’. This is not just drawing a line on the road after all. Fundamentally, think of how ‘scenic’ our country is, and then take into account our weather, and our shortage of land. Do you think we can ever be like the Europeans pedaling through acres of parkland, charming little streets and quaint bridges over picturesque canals? For the minority of you ‘recreational cyclists’ among us, I am totally in agreement that you have the right to enjoy such a lifestyle.. Just not on the roads please.