I just read this book called “The Wisdom Of Crowds” and it got me thinking about stuff in Singapore.
I remember when I was in National Service, we were made to go for a talk and asked to donate to NKF via Giro. Most of us signed up for the programme. When the scandal about NKF occurred and the truth about what was going on at NKF was revealed, I was disappointed but not surprised.
The reason for my lack of surprise was because I have always harboured the notion that something wasn’t quite right with NKF. Did I have any proof? No. Did I actually have any first hand experience. Nope. Then where did the notion come from?
It came from my interaction with other Singaporeans. In taxis, I would hear taxi drivers complaining about NKF. At coffeeshops, I would hear the elders discuss about the issue. I cannot remember when it started, but from the noise around me, there was a signal that NKF wasn’t all it was made out to be.
Did any of the other Singaporeans knew exactly the scope, magnitude and specifics of what was wrong? I don’t think so.
The reason why I talk about this is because I think if the knowledge of the people in Singapore with an opinion about NKF had been aggregated, we might have seen some clear flags to indicate maybe an investigation would be warranted. Personally, I do not believe forming a committee in Singapore will help with the issue of accountability because of the way things are in Singapore. Such a group will probably suffer from the problems of groupthink and in my opinion already start with a clear idea of the answers they want to the questions that need to be asked and answered.
I feel that what is needed in Singapore is a way to aggregate the opinions of all Singaporeans and for our government to actually listen to us and not just hear us. The problem is sometimes I feel our government does not do that because they carry the idea that people need to be governed and only a select group of people have the ability, knowledge and experience to govern (and govern correctly) and only they know what is best because they are the experts. There is no recourse for us except elections but because of the nature of politics in Singapore, this is a mechanism that is ineffective. So while elections are important, it is a tool that can only be effective by the people who use them. And sadly, I agree with the writer of the article that maybe as a nation we have not valued its importance as much as we maybe should.
Finally, one reason why I believe this issue is important can be taken from engineering. As a system, I believe Singapore is a stable one. It will not break so easily. But the way Singapore’s system is setup, if one component fails, there will most probably be a cascade which will make recovery difficult. And the ability to recover is what makes a system robust and fault tolerant no matter how large or unpredicted the perturbations to the system are.
Singapore is not setup like that.
Robert HO | 13-Jan-07 at 11:19 am | Permalink
RH: You are right to be disappointed with the fake elections LKY holds. He and his PAP RIG ELECTIONS!
My blog, entitled “I came, I saw, I solved it” proves that LKY and PAP rig elections.
That about says it all for the system that enslaves us.
Robert HO
S0197974D
40+ Singaporean | 14-Jan-07 at 4:18 am | Permalink
“I feel that what is needed …. actually listen to us and not just hear us. The problem is sometimes I feel our government does not do that because they carry the idea that people need to be governed and only a select group of people have the ability, knowledge and experience to govern (and govern correctly) and only they know what is best because they are the experts.”
I agree with your views pretty much, particularly the above quote, with a little modification. Our government believes that a small group of people are smart enough to be ANYTHING they ask them to be. They needn’t have subject matter knowledge or relevant experience. If they have ‘proven’ themselves in some government related entities (never mind if that’s only because they were on some scholars career paths), they can lead and govern.
The rest of the population is at best, mediocre. That is their mentality and it is not correct. The government does not trust feedback from the ground. What do the peasants know about governing? If you have tried to provide feedback to government departments, you’ll know what I mean.
I have tried to provide feedback to LTA about traffic conditions and situations in the estate I lived in because I used the same roads everyday only to have LTA officials tell me why they know better and wasted all my time exchanging emails and phone calls with some traffic engineers. Do these decision makers at all levels use the service or the roads they made decisions on? Have them use the CTE during peak evening hours and see for themselves why the ERP in the evening make no sense.
I can think of many more concrete examples of why the government do not value feedback. The civil service and the government thinks only they know best. Sigh!
iantimothy | 14-Jan-07 at 7:10 am | Permalink
Hello. Thanks for sharing about your experiences with feedback. I for one have never tried to give any feedback because honestly I do not know where to start. Do I have stuff to feedback on? Actually sometimes I’m not sure if what I have to feedback is valid or just cause I don’t know how to suck it up and stop be a whiner.
In any case, I just graduated and started work around mid last year. That was the first time I experienced a proper 9-5 job and I must say that there are times traffic conditions are infuriating although I do not think it is intolerable.
However I agree with you that sometimes even I wonder if the people planning our transport system knows what is actually going on at the ground level.
Atilla | 15-Jan-07 at 1:43 am | Permalink
On the CTE: I have got feedback from a friend that some of the studies by the LTA engineers were based on faulty data they collected. That give rise to typical problems such as traffic from AMK direction cutting diagonally across to get to the Serangoon exit on the left, right into the path of traffic coming in from the Braddell entry, for instance.
That point about the senselessness of the evening ERP in the direction of AMK is valid: I have on numerous occasions encountered heavy slow moving traffic in the evening hours going in the direction even at 9, 10 or 11 pm!
iantimothy | 15-Jan-07 at 1:56 am | Permalink
Good morning. From my understanding of the ERP system, I believe it is supposed to use the market mechanism to control traffic. The fact that there is heavy slow moving traffic going in that direction even with ERP does not necessarily mean the ERP system is senseless, what it means is that the price isn’t set high enough to discourage people using that route. However, I agree with you that it is senseless if there are no possible alternatives to people who want to travel in that direction in terms of routes and timing. It is also senseless if people use a route all the way up to the gantry and then exit by an earlier exit which would just lead to another choke point.
Personally, I am not a driver so I cannot fully appreciate the agony drivers face. But I do believe that it is probably a reflection of bad planning if it is always certain places which become the choke points. And that is something I experience quite regularly because the road outside my house is one such choke point.
Atilla | 15-Jan-07 at 2:31 am | Permalink
Upping the erp charge benefits only the lta. Imagine the traffic to be like floodwater, its got to flow elsewhere if the normal course is further blocked.
The result is heavier traffic and possible jam in other roads, higher petrol consumption because of a more indirect route to your destination, delays etc.
Poor planning: YES, INDEED. The CTE serves some big population centres up north - AMK, Yisun, sembawang, Woodlands, Seng Kang, Ponggol etc.
It is a story of building a major road using incomplete data and poor and inadequate coordination among the relevant ministries is very apparent -the left hand didn’t or wouldn’t want the right hand to know what’s its doing.
Wilsonbb | 15-Jan-07 at 6:15 am | Permalink
i am very unhappy about NKP going to every army camps and ask people to donate through giro(it is not a one time donation, it is a monthly donation).
my experience in 2005: NKF came to our camp. We cant leave the room till they asked everyone of us individually whether we want to donate, Initially they asked me to write 20 dollar, I refused, they said how about 10? 5? ok any amount will do? sure you dont want to help the needed? I have to say no, no no no no like 6, 7 times.. In the end out of 40+ people only 3 of us didnt donate, and it was as if we were bad guys cause we didnt donate. I chitchatted with bunkmates and although we all felt that since NKF was earning so much money each year, under that circumstances, it was really difficult to say no(we love faces).
I wonder who gave them the permission to do promotions in army camp. I find it inappropriate to allow outside companies to enter army camps to promote their services, e.g NKF, insurance.investment companies.
iantimothy | 15-Jan-07 at 6:36 am | Permalink
Hello. Yes. The situation about NKF using pressure tactics like those you mention above happened to me when I was in National Service too.
I do not think there is anything wrong with a charity organisation affiliated with the government to enter and talk to us about this. A charity organisation under the government’s governance is different from an insurance company or investment one although it is probably fair to be allowed to ask how much governance was there actually with regards to NKF.
In any case, I believe the point is that the NKF always seemed more like a sales organisation than a charity one. And the recent ’scandal’ has shown how much it was ran like one.
Charity is an individual decision and no one should be made to feel that they have to donate just so they won’t look like a bad guy. If that happens, then charity loses its meaning. Its not about wanting to not look bad or to look good but its about helping someone. And if a person does not donate to a charity on the spot, the person should be given the benefit of the doubt. I feel there is a good number of Singaporeans who do find different ways they can contribute to society and also tend to want to be discerning about how and who they help.
Wilson, I just hope the experience with NKF won’t put you off from contributing to Singapore in your own way and on your own terms.
Rowen | 15-Jan-07 at 10:10 am | Permalink
The purpose and idea of governments and the development of parties follows as such.
1) During the colonial period, locals are not in power. Therefore, there was a power struggle and a motion by the locals to strive for power. The locals and leaders won and during this period they were part of the mass. Hence they know the masses.
2) As time goes on those in power spend their efforts consolidating power and to stay in power and less time on the actual listening of the people and the mass.
3) as time goes further, those in power grow further from the masses and the need to hold onto the power grows and grows till so much effort is put in order to stay in power and so little the period is spent on listening to the people that in the end. they become disconnected from the people and lose the wisdom of the masses.
The NKF is a very good example of a organisation which started with a vision of helping. As it grew bigger and more powerful, it lost its vision and became corrupt in itself.