I wrote this for todays Sunday Times (and published) in response to Gerard Ees out-of-touch remarks about public transport last week. Top public transport system a necessity, not a luxury I disagree with former Public Transport Council chairman Gerard Ee on several points he made in last Sundays article (Want better transport? Pay for it). His contention, that the solution to Singapores transport woes lies in getting commuters to lower their expectations and change their attitudes, is fundamentally flawed in the local context. Singapore has the highest car ownership costs in the world. The rationale for this - to keep roads uncongested - is a good one. However, the trade-off is that many people will not be able to own cars. In contrast, cars are an achievable aspiration for most people in many other countries. The sacrifice of the majority in Singapore, so that a minority can enjoy uncongested roads to drive on, must not be trivialised. It also means that public transport here cannot be just a next-best, utilitarian form of transport. On the contrary, it must not only be comfortable but also be superlative. It is absurd to contend that comfort is a choice that one pays for, when more comfortable options such as cars have been priced beyond the reach of most people; it is also coldly out of touch to think that ordinary people have the choice to pay for better transport. Thus, the example of London, where many alternative forms of affordable transport are available, is irrelevant. In Singapores context, a comfortable, first-class public transport system is not a luxury - it is a necessity. Whatever money has to be spent to achieve this is something the Government must afford in order to appease the dissatisfaction on the ground. It is the attitude of policymakers that has to change, and not that of commuters. Calvin Cheng
Posted on: Sat, 31 May 2014 23:03:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015