COMMENT: Time to get tough?

Vignesh Louis Naidu is the Managing Editor of Inconvenient Questions. The views expressed here are his own.

The results of GE2015 came as a shock to many. Those of us who had been closely following the discussions online were certainly the most taken aback by the significant increase in the popular vote for the PAP.

In this article I will not aim to further analyse the results, as I believe that many have done so extensively and insightfully. Instead I would like to explore what it should mean for policy-makers in the coming term of government, concentrating particularly in two areas where a government with a strong mandate can make tough choices for the long-term future of Singapore.

Re-thinking rail transport

In recent years, the number and frequency of train disruptions and breakdowns have increased. In the last quarter of 2011, after the last general election, two massive breakdowns led the government to convene a Committee of Inquiry (COI).

In the intervening years, former transport minister Lui Tuck Yew has worked hard to reduce the frequency and scale of these disruptions. Despite his best efforts, the breakdowns continue. In 2014 alone, the North-South and East-West lines experienced six major breakdowns (those lasting more than 30 minutes). As recently as July 2015, a power fault led to a three-hour suspension of two major lines.

The main cause of these problems, particularly along the North-South and East-West lines, is because of a lack of routine and necessary maintenance. The train operators have attempted to address these issues while ensuring minimum disruption to regular operations. It is my opinion that something more drastic is needed. Sections of the North-South and East-West lines are nearly three decades old, and irregular maintenance, particularly in the last decade, has lead to their considerable deterioration.

What is being done today is akin to sticking a plaster on an infected wound; it may stop the bleeding temporarily, but will not cure the infection. What we need is a major rethink of the problem.

In my opinion, the government may have to make the necessary and unpopular decision to temporarily suspend parts of these two major lines so that comprehensive upgrades and replacement works can be carried out.

Such a decision would no doubt inconvenience many, but if carefully managed, the disruption can be minimised. With the construction of the Downtown and Circle Lines, commuters are also presented with viable alternatives, although possibly longer routes.

Singaporeans are a rational bunch on the whole; if a decision is made, communicated early on and prepared for, I believe they will accept it.

If the government chooses to go down this route, it must also rethink the viability of having our rail network operated by private, for-profit organisations. If the decision is made to allow rail services to be provided by private operators, the government, through the LTA, has to set clear and achievable guidelines for the completion of all necessary works. From a business perspective, rail operators are right in postponing maintenance works for as long as possible to reduce expenditure, and increase profits and value for shareholders.

Rethinking the property market

When the HDB, and its predecessor, the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT), were conceived, the intention was to provide affordable housing for low-income Singaporeans.

Today more than 80% of our population live in HDB apartments. The Singapore government is very proud, and justly so, of its ability to provide high-quality affordable public housing to the vast majority of the population.

Notwithstanding that, I wonder if having such a large majority of the population own government-subsidised homes is something to which we should aspire going forward.

During a talk he gave as part of the IPS-Nathan Lecture Series, 2014/2015 S. R. Nathan Fellow Ho Kwon Ping proposed an alternative vision for affordable housing in Singapore. Building on his proposal, I would suggest the following.

The government, through the HDB, should focus solely on the provision of low-cost housing, both for purchase and for rent, for low-income Singaporeans (those in the bottom 20 per cent).

Private developers should take over for the remaining 80 per cent of Singaporeans. However, this suggestion will not be tenable without significant changes to the property market landscape in Singapore.

As Ho suggested in his lecture, the government through the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) could sell land parcels for private residential developments with predetermined sale price ceilings. Simply put, a plot of land up for sale will have a Gross Floor Area: this is the total built-up space that can be developed on the land parcel, and the plot will also have a per square foot (psf) price ceiling. This would allow a developer to clearly calculate their potential revenue stream before submitting a bid for the land parcel.

Some would argue that under such a scheme, the land parcels would be sold at below fair market value. This can be addressed by having a minimum price for each parcel of land. This would in turn force developers to re-evaluate the profit margin.

Such a proposal would certainly be counter intuitive to the country’s capitalistic leanings but it would be for good reason. Land is scarce in Singapore, and liberal policies regarding the sale and purchase of private properties has resulted in sky rocketing prices in the last decade, forcing many middle-class Singaporeans out of the private property market.

Such a scheme would also lead to more choices in the types of home available for purchase. Private developers would be forced to be creative in differentiating their projects, as there would be little room to do so through price changes.

Finally, a scheme like this would also address the aspirational desires of many young Singaporeans who want to purchase private property; it would also address some of the concerns of the sandwiched class.

Conclusion

The new government may not implement the two schemes I have suggested; in fact, no government may ever implement them. I have argued the merits of these proposals, and have alluded to their weaknesses. It is an exercise that I really would like to see this government engage more in: have more robust debates about ‘radical’ proposals such as these.

However, in order to make well-informed discussions, the government has to first and foremost allow greater access to information. Which leads to my final wish - a Freedom of Information Act.

That will, however, be an article for another day.