Jump to content



Big Idea No. 1: A 'less-car' Singapore

By ST_Opinion on 18 Feb 2014

Attached Image In my January 2014 column, I said that Singaporeans should use 2014 to think of new Big Ideas to guide us for the next 50 years. Here is Big Idea No.1 for debate and discussion.
Singapore will never be car-less, but it can and should have fewer cars. On reading this, the reader could be forgiven for thinking: ''Here goes Kishore again on his campaign to improve public transport in Singapore.'' However, this big idea is not about improving transportation. It is about improving the happiness of the Singapore population.
Unhappy Singaporeans
IT IS a well-known fact that the Singaporean population is not the happiest in the world. Singaporeans gripe, naturally and effortlessly. One good example of this was provided by a Straits Times article written after the Prime Minister had spoken to a group of students at the Nanyang Technological University on Jan 30. The article began with the following line: ''Nine out of 15 interviewed were concerned they won't be able to buy a flat and a car.''
The aspiration of the young for a flat is perfectly reasonable. But the aspiration of nine out of 15 for a car is not reasonable. Why not? The simple, direct and blunt answer is that if Singapore tries to squeeze the American dream - designed for a huge, almost boundless continent - into one of the tiniest countries in the world, it will effectively condemn its population to perpetual unhappiness.
High car ownership
ONE little known fact about Singapore is that it has one of the highest car ownership populations in the world for a city. (Repeat: For a city, and not for a country.)
Mr Charles Chow, who blogs on transportation issues, says the following: ''There are roughly 550,000 to 600,000 private vehicles in Singapore. Forty-five per cent of households in Singapore own at least one car. This implies that out of the approximate 1.25 million households in Singapore, about 560,000 households have at least one car. There are 200,000 private dwellings in Singapore and slightly more than one million Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. My simple back-of-the-envelope calculation therefore shows that more than 300,000 HDB or public housing dwellings own at least one car. Since HDB dwellings are heavily subsidised, the fact that they are also given abundant and cheap residential HDB carparks represent a further subsidy.''
Mr Chow also notes the contrast between Singapore and other cities: ''From London to Hong Kong, only the top 10 to 20 per cent of household dwellings come with carparks. Without a carpark, residents just simply cannot buy a car. In Singapore, the Government has so generously provided abundant and cheap residential carparking in the HDB estates over the years. From New York to Tokyo, office buildings are deliberately built with few or no carparks.
''In Singapore, that is not the case. Even middle managers can drive their cars to work and park their cars in office building carparks for the whole day.''
Having lived in New York for 10 years, I can only agree with Mr Chow when he says: ''Anyone who has lived in New York or Tokyo would know that even managing directors of companies, senior bankers and lawyers take public transportation to work. In Singapore, even middle-level executives working in Raffles Place drive to work. Is the Singaporean middle-level executive better paid than a senior banker in New York?''
Car ownership encouraged
IN SHORT, in a country that has designed public policies to restrict car ownership (from the compulsory certificate of entitlement to high import taxes), Singapore has paradoxically ended up creating an environment that actually encourages rather than discourages car ownership. There are three ways in which Singapore encourages car ownership.
Firstly, as the world's only city state, the Singapore Government wisely decided in its early years that the country would strangle itself to death as an economy if it allowed Bangkok-style traffic jams to clog our streets. But while Singapore has succeeded in creating free-flowing traffic, this has paradoxically made it rational to own a car.
This is also why I own a car. I can get from my home in Siglap to my school in Bukit Timah in less than 20 minutes by driving. Any combination of public transport would take at least an hour each way. I save 80 minutes a day by driving. This provides a huge incentive to own a car. (My ultimate dream, however, is to forego owning a car. Instead, I would like to have a driverless electric vehicle - similar to the one the National University of Singapore is testing - appear at my home within 30 minutes of calling. As I learnt in Davos last month, I will be able to achieve this dream in my lifetime.)
Secondly, by ensuring that car prices are among the highest in the world, Singapore has made the car one of the most important status symbols in Singapore. This explains the attraction of European car brands in Singapore.
In most cases, a Japanese or Korean car can do the job of transportation equally well. But it will not enhance one's status. A European brand does. This is how we try to keep up with ''the Joneses'' in Singapore.
Thirdly, as Mr Chow says, our subsidy of carparks in HDB estates makes it much easier and cheaper to own and park a car than it would be in New York, London, Tokyo or Paris. Since this subsidy has become entrenched in our society, it cannot be taken away. Any government that tries to take back perks that a population has become accustomed to is a government that wants to commit political suicide. It would be unfair to ask any government to do this.
Bottom-up approach
ALL this brings me to the most important point that I want to make in this article. Singapore has succeeded in its first 50 years because it had a government that thought carefully over the long term and crafted policies that would enhance the long-term interests of Singapore. This is why Singapore has free-flowing traffic. However, over the next 50 years, a new paradigm will be needed: What is needed now is a society where the people think carefully and advocate policies that are good for Singapore's long-term interests. In short, a bottom-up instead of a top-down approach is needed to solve the car problem of Singapore.
In the first 50 years, Singapore had a government designing various policies to temper the desire for Singaporeans to own cars. Now, society needs to decide that since Singapore is one of the tiniest countries in the world, people should gradually give up the desire to own cars. Most Singaporeans reading this article would scoff at this notion. Let me share some good news here. In most developed countries, people are already using cars less, not more.
Trend towards fewer cars
AN ARTICLE from The Economist on Sept 22, 2012, provides some encouraging statistics. In the leading economies in the world (Japan, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States) ''total vehicle kilometres travelled began to plateau in 2004 and fall from 2007; measured per person, growth flatlined sooner, after 2000, and dropped after 2004 before recovering somewhat''.
According to World Bank data, passenger cars per 1,000 people in the US have been gradually declining since at least 2003, a trend which accelerated somewhat after the onset of the recession in 2008. Equally encouragingly, young people in the developed world are getting driver's licences later in life (or not at all).
This is good news for congestion because, according to a study conducted in the UK, people who learn to drive in their late 20s drive less than if they had learnt in their late teens.
Singaporeans are proud of the fact that the country has gone from ''Third World to First World'' faster than any other nation in human history. Now, for the next 50 years, Singapore has to catch up with the First World in terms of moving away from car ownership as a dream.
In my next article - Big Idea No.2 - I hope to demonstrate it is possible to make Singapore No.1 in the world when it comes to public transportation.
-- ST ILLUSTRATION : Manny Francisco
by Kishore Mahbubani
The writer is dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. He is the author of The Great Convergence: Asia, The West, And The Logic Of One World, which has been long-listed for the 2014 Lionel Gelber Prize, described by The Economist as ''the world's most important award for non-fiction''.

st opinion, opinion, column and 4 more...

Viewed: 3,418 times

Related Blog Posts
Written by ST_Opinion
The one that provides insightful opinions as well as stories from the daily newspapers. You best believe it.

  • 1
tanbk Feb 18 2014 09:15 AM

This has already been discussed in a forum thread. http://www.mycarforu...-car-singapore/


I will quote Alheych :


Let's hold on before throwing stones, and be objective.


Kishore raises a valid issue: people want cars, and this should not be a normal state of affairs in any metropolis.


The goal is therefore to reduce this desire. The way to do it is to make public transport a better option (not just viable, must be better).


Realistically, this cannot be achieved within the short term. Hopefully, thing will be better with DTL and TSL? at the very least, residents in the north west will have a direct link to the city.


In the longer term, LTA said it expects that by 2030, 8 in 10 households in Singapore will be within a 10-minute walk of a rail station. This should make trains a much better option, provided they stop breaking down.


What can be done in the short term, then? I suggest 2 things:


1. Incentivise micro cars, like VX XL1, Gordon Murray's T25 (if they ever goes into mass production), and BMW i3. These are automotive innovations that will fundamentally change the way we travel: a smaller footprint means more efficient use of the road.


The incentive can come in the form of a COE rebate for people who downsize. Details can be worked out.


2. The government must let go of its stake in the transport companies. They are losing a lot of goodwill by giving the impression that they have interests in public transport earning more money at the expense of commuters. If the public doesn't trust the government, it's very hard to get any policy across.


I don't have good ideas. But we must at least respect others when we engage in a discussion. If someone's idea is rejected just because he comes from the establishment, it's not meaningful to talk.


And to those who say that we should send home all the foreigners, we don't need to be a metropolis, we can go back to the good old days, I think a geopolitics lesson is in order. We don't have a choice. Our trade is 4 times of our produce. If we're not relevant to the world, we just cease to exist.

dragonballdidi Feb 18 2014 09:51 AM

This is an chicken and egg kind of question for the govt.


This is a very good article for public like us to open for discussion. Govt gotta really change the approach on car issue. The current new implementation doesn't really help on the situation.


Like Tanbk have said, govt should really give rebates on consumer who should micro car, they are the bread and butter for the future instead of an Audi A5. And give more incentive if the motorist can travel less with the car, or always ferry people with their car. This fully utilized they car and the road.


I hope i can really "own" a car one day. ):

  • 1
Car Makes

Please select a car make

Facebook Likes
   Featured Blog Post
Volkswagen might be on the cusp of the electric car revolution, but it’s painfully aware it needs...
Dubbed “not another Christmas video,” Mercedes-AMG has given us a lovely Christmas present in the...
Grand Tour host James May has given us a short Q & A video while he visited the salon. Watch...
The 2019 Mazda 3 introduces a new font to the Mazda Brand called Mazda Type, this new typeface wi...
The M5 has the beef and the M8 has the drama, but it’s the smaller BMW M3 that has always got to...
The head of AMG clarified that the new AMG GT R Pro is not part of the Black Series and a true Bl...
   Lifestyle Articles