Reference
Title of Article: Higher ERP rates and new gantries from July 7
Author: Maria Almenoar
Title of Newspaper: The Straits Times
Date: 18 June 2008
Personal Response
These few weeks have seen many Singaporeans complaining about the increasing Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) charges and rising number of gantries being installed. We see this unhappiness present itself all around us, whether it is on the road, in the news or even in movies, surely this is something which the government would have to consider seriously, and from many angles.
From the people’s perspective, many find the government unreasonable for increasing ERP charges when the cost of living is rising at such a fast rate. The price of fuel has already skyrocketed in the past few months, together with the prices for daily necessities such as rice and oil, putting further strain on Singaporeans’ pockets. This is especially so for a group of people- taxi drivers. Cabbies have expressed their concern that higher ERP rates would lower demand for taxis since ERP charges are added into the taxi fares for passengers, and reduce their earnings.
However, the government argues that ERP aids businesses, particularly those in the Central Business District (CBD). This is because the ERP discourages those who use the city area only as a thoroughfare from doing so, while retaining the ‘genuine shoppers’. Average car speeds recorded have also returned to the optimum speed, between 20 and 30 km/h, making traffic flow smoother and enhancing the shopping experience, resulting in more ‘genuine shoppers’ to flock there, hence increasing sales.
Nevertheless, not all shops are enjoying such fortune. There are also some who experience drop in numbers of shoppers. Shoppers simply do not want to pay for the extra charges. Furthermore, ERP gantries are activated just at the time when shops have the most customers, that is, during the peak hours, resulting in larger implications for shop owners. Riverwalk Tandoor restaurant, for one, saw a 20 per cent drop in customers between 6pm and 8pm, after the ERP gantry became operational.
Then again, looking at it environmentally, I think that ERP seems to be justifiable since it reduces both the ownership and usage of vehicles, thereby cutting on carbon
emissions, energy consumption and noise and air pollution. Furthermore, with traffic congestion, the ‘stop-and-go’ situation is likely to occur frequently, revving up the engine without moving far and stopping again, causing more fuel to be wasted. Wouldn’t you want Singapore to remain clean and green as it is now?
On the other hand, we will also have to consider this from the social aspect, looking at the implications ERP can have on families. Firstly, the goal of ERP is to encourage commuters to travel on public transport instead, but during the evening rush hours when people are making their way home, they face congestion problems on buses and trains as well. While secondly, there are also some who decide to work till later in order to avoid the ERP charges or the congestion on public transport. In any case, most people will not be able to reach home in good time and composure to enjoy quality time with their family.
This issue of ERP is a controversial one, with a variety of consequences in many aspects, in different ways. It is highly unlikely that an all-encompassing solution can be found, but ultimately, the aim of ERP is still to help Singapore and Singaporeans.
(540 words)
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Term 2 Social Studies- Political Systems- "Democracy Creates Stability in a Society"
As Mrs Ong introduced the idea of democracy to us during the Social Studies lesson, it really made me wonder why I havent considered the idea of democracy before, despite living in a democratic society myself! I was simply intrigued, by how the country is run when people are given the power to make decisions for the country, especially for pure democracy, and whether this political system can actually create stability in the society.
Firstly, I feel that democracy ensures that elites, those in power, seriously takes the needs and demands of the people into consideration, since it is ultimately us, who determine their fate. This makes elites more accountable to the people, and also creates an effective division of power, allowing different groups of people to set the political agenda of the society, to create stability. An interesting observation I have made is that local parties usually announce perks just before the elections, to please the people and let them know that their concerns are considered seriously.
On the other hand, there is a problem I foresee. Weren't there times where policies and laws, especially new ones, are so complex they seem like a different language altogether? Hence a problem arises, as there are certain policies which have to be more complex than the rest, for example, laws cannot be simplified as they might become less encompassing than they should be. The average person might then not be able to fully understand policies, and are thus not in a position to make the best decision.
Then again, democracy acts as a way for us to check those in the governmental body, to make sure that they are doing their job well. This keeps them on their feet and work well, as those performing poorly or inappropriately could be rejected by the people. We wouldn't want the taxes we pay to go into incapable hands, would we? The constant check ensures that the society continues to perform well and thus remain stable.
Dont be so quick to agree, because then there is the issue of self interest, where people will tend to consider their interests before that of a larger community or society. Hence it will be difficult to implement a policy which will hurt a larger group, even if the benefit it brings to a smaller group or the society as a whole outweighs the damage. This might lead to the minorities’ rights being compromised, and lead to unhappiness, conflict and instability in the society.
However, just the fact that democracy allows for all us citizens to have a direct say in matters of the country, can already promote a sense of ownership for our country and a sense of satisfaction in the government, reducing unhappiness the people might have. To me, this is the key factor in creating stability, as people would then be more willing to sacrifice themselves for the better of the country, whether it is compromising a little of their rights or simply time, to vote or to learn about the policies, allowing the smooth running of the country and promoting stability. This being said, let us hope for the best for Singapore, no matter what critics define our form of government as.
(538 words)
Firstly, I feel that democracy ensures that elites, those in power, seriously takes the needs and demands of the people into consideration, since it is ultimately us, who determine their fate. This makes elites more accountable to the people, and also creates an effective division of power, allowing different groups of people to set the political agenda of the society, to create stability. An interesting observation I have made is that local parties usually announce perks just before the elections, to please the people and let them know that their concerns are considered seriously.
On the other hand, there is a problem I foresee. Weren't there times where policies and laws, especially new ones, are so complex they seem like a different language altogether? Hence a problem arises, as there are certain policies which have to be more complex than the rest, for example, laws cannot be simplified as they might become less encompassing than they should be. The average person might then not be able to fully understand policies, and are thus not in a position to make the best decision.
Then again, democracy acts as a way for us to check those in the governmental body, to make sure that they are doing their job well. This keeps them on their feet and work well, as those performing poorly or inappropriately could be rejected by the people. We wouldn't want the taxes we pay to go into incapable hands, would we? The constant check ensures that the society continues to perform well and thus remain stable.
Dont be so quick to agree, because then there is the issue of self interest, where people will tend to consider their interests before that of a larger community or society. Hence it will be difficult to implement a policy which will hurt a larger group, even if the benefit it brings to a smaller group or the society as a whole outweighs the damage. This might lead to the minorities’ rights being compromised, and lead to unhappiness, conflict and instability in the society.
However, just the fact that democracy allows for all us citizens to have a direct say in matters of the country, can already promote a sense of ownership for our country and a sense of satisfaction in the government, reducing unhappiness the people might have. To me, this is the key factor in creating stability, as people would then be more willing to sacrifice themselves for the better of the country, whether it is compromising a little of their rights or simply time, to vote or to learn about the policies, allowing the smooth running of the country and promoting stability. This being said, let us hope for the best for Singapore, no matter what critics define our form of government as.
(538 words)
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Term 1 Society Issues- Should demonstrations be allowed at Speakers' Corner?
Reference
Title of Article: Protests may be allowed at Speakers' Corner
Author: Li XueYing
Title of Newspaper: The Straits Times
Date: 29 February 2008
Personal Response
As a child, I seldom got the chance to speak up about any concerns I have, and was taught to follow instructions without questioning them. That was the case until I grew older and was deemed to be ‘matured’.
Similarly, the Government of Singapore is considering easing the rules of use of the Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park to allow for more political activities like demonstrations. This was said by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng in response to Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Eunice Olsen’s urge for more space in public expression. I am particularly interested, because of the common thought that Singapore has very limited space for public expression. So is this really for the better good of Singapore?
In the past, outdoor demonstrations have been banned because of the violent riots in the 1960s, which lead to many deaths, injuries and damage to property. However, I believe that the society now is different, with people having a generally more accommodative way of speaking with higher mutual tolerance and respect for the different groups of people. Thus they should be given a chance to publicly express their views.
However, we must agree that not everyone is the same and especially in a multi-religious society like ours, the rule of secular law must be well-balanced with social expression, and bundled with an increased amount of individual accountability for actions, in order for more public expression to be given.
Nevertheless, some civil society activists have considered the possible change as an improvement for Singapore, “which has been criticized as being extremely limited in space for public expression” as said by Think Centre President Sinapan Samydorai. It has also been claimed to be one of the causes why about 1,000 Singaporeans every year give up their citizenship- the inability to “meaningfully identify – beyond monetary terms – with the notion of belonging to a First World nation” as said by NMP Eunice Olsen.
Then again, you might say that more freedom of expression is worrying due to the potential of a ‘peaceful’ demonstration turning aggressive and violent, more so with extremists being able to take advantage of this, possibly hurting the stability in Singapore. Furthermore, this move might also seem to be unnecessary since current avenues for feedback, like through email and the MPs’ Meet-the-People sessions, are considered sufficient to some.
I, however, must point out that demonstrations are different from simply allowing the government to know by informing them. Demonstrations exhibit a higher level of resolve and capture more attention. We must also keep in mind that demonstrations do not only consist of political statements; it is also a platform to cry out for help for those who are genuinely in need. Moreover, with proper management by the government, ‘peaceful’ demonstrations need not turn chaotic.
So, let us hope for the best and that Singaporeans are ‘matured’ enough for greater freedom of speech (if it is granted), and not allow the riots from the 1960s to repeat itself ever again.
(499 words)
Title of Article: Protests may be allowed at Speakers' Corner
Author: Li XueYing
Title of Newspaper: The Straits Times
Date: 29 February 2008
Personal Response
As a child, I seldom got the chance to speak up about any concerns I have, and was taught to follow instructions without questioning them. That was the case until I grew older and was deemed to be ‘matured’.
Similarly, the Government of Singapore is considering easing the rules of use of the Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park to allow for more political activities like demonstrations. This was said by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng in response to Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Eunice Olsen’s urge for more space in public expression. I am particularly interested, because of the common thought that Singapore has very limited space for public expression. So is this really for the better good of Singapore?
In the past, outdoor demonstrations have been banned because of the violent riots in the 1960s, which lead to many deaths, injuries and damage to property. However, I believe that the society now is different, with people having a generally more accommodative way of speaking with higher mutual tolerance and respect for the different groups of people. Thus they should be given a chance to publicly express their views.
However, we must agree that not everyone is the same and especially in a multi-religious society like ours, the rule of secular law must be well-balanced with social expression, and bundled with an increased amount of individual accountability for actions, in order for more public expression to be given.
Nevertheless, some civil society activists have considered the possible change as an improvement for Singapore, “which has been criticized as being extremely limited in space for public expression” as said by Think Centre President Sinapan Samydorai. It has also been claimed to be one of the causes why about 1,000 Singaporeans every year give up their citizenship- the inability to “meaningfully identify – beyond monetary terms – with the notion of belonging to a First World nation” as said by NMP Eunice Olsen.
Then again, you might say that more freedom of expression is worrying due to the potential of a ‘peaceful’ demonstration turning aggressive and violent, more so with extremists being able to take advantage of this, possibly hurting the stability in Singapore. Furthermore, this move might also seem to be unnecessary since current avenues for feedback, like through email and the MPs’ Meet-the-People sessions, are considered sufficient to some.
I, however, must point out that demonstrations are different from simply allowing the government to know by informing them. Demonstrations exhibit a higher level of resolve and capture more attention. We must also keep in mind that demonstrations do not only consist of political statements; it is also a platform to cry out for help for those who are genuinely in need. Moreover, with proper management by the government, ‘peaceful’ demonstrations need not turn chaotic.
So, let us hope for the best and that Singaporeans are ‘matured’ enough for greater freedom of speech (if it is granted), and not allow the riots from the 1960s to repeat itself ever again.
(499 words)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)