Driving the Taxi Industry

I don't often hire taxis in Singapore. Still, I have had my fair share of experience with taxis and not just as a passenger either. Sometime in the early noughties - that's the early 2000s - I worked on a project involving mobile payments in taxis. We worked closely with CityCabs which was at that time still distinct an entity from Comfort. It was a great project which allowed me to interact with taxi drivers and gain an insight into who they are and what makes them tick.

Backtrack some 15 years before that into the decade of big hair, big shoulders and the best music since the 60s and you will find me working shift hours in a credit card company in Sydney, Australia. Our shifts meant the company provided transport to us in the form of taxi vouchers so two weeks out of three when I travelled around midnight I would have a taxi ride home or to work. These rides again gave me a glimpse into the lives of these hardworking Australians and some of my rides and the conversations during them were memorable ones.

I think we tend to look at taxi drivers in Singapore as a homogenous group of semi-crazed lowly-educated foul-mouthed cretins who whine too much and drive too fast. They're often the subject of abuse, ridicule and vitriol.

I have a different view.

The Cabbie throws some shrimps on the barbie
Sometime ago there was a series on Discovery Channel called City Cabs and there was an episode where the host, Michael Krass, visited Sydney. The episode took me back in time to when I was a frequent taxi passenger.

At one point in the episode, the taxi driver invited Michael to his home for a BBQ. How much more Australian could you get right? The amazing thing was 'home' turned out to a be a sprawling suburban house with a large well kept garden where they had the barbie.

Expressing surprise, Michael asked then learnt that the taxi driver started with a single cab he bought and owned outright. He paid one of the taxi companies a fee for the radio service and livery which his taxi sported. When he'd earned enough, he bought a second cab and leased that to a couple of other blokes. Over time, he'd grown that business to a third (or more) taxis and earned a little from those too.

Thats when it hit me - this could never happen in Singapore. Taxis now are almost all owned by large companies. There are few private taxis - identified by their black & yellow livery - around now. It wasn't always like this of course. In the old days taxis were privately owned and operated. Under the guise of improving service standards and reducing cheating and so on, the large taxi companies began to cover the market. And the small-business owner, the taxi driver, got relegated to a bit part in the play.

Now the norm is that taxi drivers hire their taxis from a company, pay for the fuel and other daily costs such as ERP but nothing more. In return the companies service and maintain the taxis to ensure they work well.

What hit me was the realisation that a taxi driver's profession is the single most dead-end job in all of Singapore.

Taxi driver drives down a dead-end
Consider this: in any other job, if you did well, maybe took some course or other, and generally was liked by your boss, you would have a chance at being promoted and thus getting a higher salary. Doesn't matter what job it is - even a rubbish collector could be the driver of the truck one day. Or the supervisor.

A retail sales assistant could be a supervisor then a manager. A petrol pump attendant could work his way up to be a shift senior or more. A mechanic starts as an apprentice and could end up owning his own workshop. Heck, even a barber at the Sri Dewa chain could one day set up his own shop.

But not a taxi driver. His income is dependent 100% on the fares he picks up which are in turn dictated wholly by the amount of time he spends on the road.  It doesn't take a rocket psychologist to work out that this can lead to driver fatigue which in turn can lead to mistakes which cause irritation at the best of times and accidents at the worst.

In no other job are you faced with the same boundaries. Professionals whose fees are determined by their billable hourly rates don't face the me limits - lawyers charge for more than just their fees including photocopies and affixing their stamps on template documents, doctors dispense medication, heck even photographers can do bigger jobs and thus charge more.

Taxi drivers can't take 'bigger fares' as no such thing exists.

Or do they? What about that extra fee you pay when you call for a taxi? Or when you hail one at a certain time or place such as the airport? These 'surcharges' were supposed to make less-desirable routes or destinations more palatable to taxi drivers. Changi Airport was once deemed so far that taxi drivers needed to be enticed there hence this surcharge. With all the new towns now bordering the airport, I would wager this is no longer necessary. My 12-year old apartment is now only 10-15 minutes away from the airport, for example.

With Singapore being so built-up why do we even need to pay to call for a taxi now? By calling we are assuring the taxi company and driver of a fare. He doesn't need to circle, looking for a fare to pick up. He goes where the call was made from and there is a ready fare waiting for him. The companies say the fee defrays the cost of the system. I say with the system they remain competitive and they should view it as a necessary business investment and stop passing these costs onto consumers.

CBD ERP fees are the most unnecessary fees of all. By not making taxis exempt from this charge, the government in one fell swoop went against the grain of all the other incentives. After all, if I were a taxi driver, I too would not spend $3 (or whatever) to go in to the CBD hoping to pick up a passenger who might just make a $4 trip. The fee they have to pay to go in disincentivises drives who are outside the CBD area from entering to pick up passengers who are, really, in abundant numbers.

More and more taxis - except when you need them
Some years ago, in response to complaints there were never enough taxis in the CBD at peak hours, the government through its relevant authority, ministry or commission decided the answer was to issue more taxi company licences. There were two ideas at play here - the idea that increased competition would lead to better quantity and quality of supply and more amazingly, the simplistic conclusion that not being able to hail a taxi at that time = not enough taxis on the road.

There is an idea in management theory which essentially explains that the solution is not always related to the problem. In this one instance, the problem itself is not related to the problem, as it were.
I’ve already said above what would really help match taxis to passengers at key times so I won’t belabour the point. I will however remind you that the very same people who subscribed to the simplistic equation above also came up with the ill-conceived  idea of restricting taxis in the CBD to picking up and dropping off passengers only at driveways and taxi stands. Apparently taxis stopping along the road were a hindrance to the smooth flow of other vehicles such as buses. They back-tracked soon enough to include minor roads. And now that policy seems to have taken a back seat. Thankfully. For it was the single most short-sighted and blinkered idea to come out of the LTA’s brain in a long time.

While I’m going on about the LTA, I remain confused as to why, when it suits them, they and the Ministry of Transport regard taxis as part of the public transport network. And when it doesn’t such as when declining to exempt taxis from the CBD ERP fees, taxis are suddenly termed 'private hire vehicles'. At least this is the answer I got when I wrote in to the papers some years ago to suggest taxis be exempt from ERP charges. Yet when detailing public transport infrastructure, taxis are clearly deemed part of the public transport network.

Is it fair? Or is it just about fares?
I just read that 4 taxi operators have announced they will raise their fares as well - in line with Comfort Delgro’s and SMRT’s move. We all saw it coming and the initial response was for some to boycott Comfort Delgro and SMRT taxis. I feel this merely hurts the guys who have no choice or say in the matter, and doesn't do a thing to resolve the issues.

So what’s the road ahead? Firstly, let's be consistent and recognise taxis as a form of public transport - and let's do away with ERP for taxis. No, we don't have to do so for buses too as they ply fixed routes.

We can continue by cutting out all the other crap - stop all this business of surcharges. It serves no purpose, confuses passengers, and ultimately does nothing for the bottom line of cabbies.

In a country which often defers to ‘market forces’ I’m surprised we have to meddle so much and so I would also do away with the extra fees for taxi rides after midnight. The demand for taxis tapers off late at night as well so the expected reduction in taxi numbers will probably have no impact. Ready customers = ready supply. If need be, encourage the supply by offering rebates on rental or other fees (maybe through a credits scheme) for taxis running a minimum number of past-midnight-hours.

Next, find some way to cap or reduce taxi rentals, perhaps through reducing road tax for taxis - in fact for all Euro IV-compliant diesel vehicles. The taxi companies then simply pass the savings on to the cabbies.

I'm also for bringing back privately-owned taxis. Let individuals own more than one taxi, and manage their service delivery through the methods we already have in place including vehicle inspections.

Lastly, I’m all for doing away with service taxes and bringing back tipping. I believe this is the thing that will finally make our courtesy campaigns work. It will start with some service providers coming across McDonald’s and fake but over time, people will respond firstly by tipping good service then by reciprocating in kind too and notoriously grouchy and rude Singaporeans may just be motivated to change.

How will this impact taxis? Well, if you tipped a cabbie for helping you with your baggage or your child’s stroller rather than staying seated in his cab, it will only encourage cabbies to behave better and this can only be a good thing.

How many more will be killed, LTA?

I had promised in an earlier post that I would lay into Raymond Lim on the matter of cycling. That was a year ago and I failed to make good on it. Then a few months ago we had a new minister and I thought I’d give the guy a chance to prove himself.

Then two things happened: the anticipated rise in public transport fares and this morning I read this.

I’ve never heard such crock in my entire life. Well, OK I have but this one certainly sits near the top of the shit pile.

From the short report I gather the chaps who transport their foreign workers on the backs of their trucks as if they were worth no more than sacks of rice, spoke with LTA and said ‘Eh, you ask us make more space ah, means we can take less people you know. Like that very hard do business lah. Already everything so expensive, profit very low lah - you know we not like SMRT can make millions every year’ and LTA capitulated and said ‘OK lah, we’ll review the law’ or something…

There is absolutely no reason to continue to risk people’s lives when options are available. And it doesn’t take a year to act on it.

I see enough dangerous practices on the roads nowadays by drivers who have poor spatial awareness and too much aggression. We don’t need to compound matters by allowing unrestrained passengers on the load bays of inherently unstable vehicles. How many more will be killed before the LTA understands this basic fact?

Singapore's New Cabinet - my thoughts

I was asked my opinion on the recent Singapore Elections and Cabinet appointments on the La Salle informal alumni mailing list  and decided my answer might be a good post.

The questions I was answering essentially were whether Lee Kuan Yew engineered the recent upheavals, whether Singapore is now truly on the path to being a true democracy in the internationally accepted definition of that or whether all this is just a face-saving move by the Lees.

My response follows (language censored for this post):

Allow me to paint a backdrop first by waffling for a few paragraphs on some history:


The new cabinet lineup was announced yesterday and threw up a few surprises which indicates the possibility the PAP is finally listening to the public.

Out goes Mah Bow Tan, Minister for National Development (inc housing) who has defended stoutly his policies which have culminated in housing prices rising meteorically (try 30% in 2 years!) and thereby making a 25-30 year loan inevitable for first-time home buyers. Mind you this means their entire CPF savings go into servicing the loan i.e. when they hit 55-60 and are getting ready for retirement, they have virtually no savings in their CPF accounts.

Housing is a complex thing here, a fact not helped by the lack of transparency in setting HDB home prices. Government claims HDB loses S$2 billion annually due to subsidies etc, but when one component of the price must be the land price which the government sets, the calculation becomes a little murky. HDB is supposed to be subsidised housing but flats are starting at S$280,000+ now so we all understand, painfully, that subsidised ≠ affordable housing.

Out goes Raymond Lim whom I dislike. An arrogant man, his Ministry of Transport completely failed to respond to immigration policy and Singapore's 1 million increase in population in the last 2 years (or roughly 20-25% if I am not mistaken). Public transport is inadequate (ha! never thought Singapore would have inadequate public transport, right?) and Raymond's solution has been to set up more and more Electronic Road Pricing gantries, the most expensive of which deducts about S$4. A trip down the Central Expressway from Ang Mo Kio to the the CBD at the wrong time (namely between 8:30 and 9:00 on a workday morning) can cost you S$8.50.

A couple of years ago, when oil prices had gone up slightly, Raymond Lim announced a rise in public transport fares claiming it impacted public transport operators negatively. When oil prices subsequently fell and he was asked why the fares did not come down in tandem, he claimed that oil prices were but a small component of operational costs. Then a year or so later, when oil prices and fares rose in tandem again, he was asked for clarification and he arrogantly challenged the attendees at the press conference 'You want free public transport? Can! I can give you free public transport! But then I have to raise GST to 10%. You want to pay 10% GST?!' If I was there I would have asked him how he, as Minister of Transport, could single-handedly influence the setting of the GST rate and also might have said 'That's a great idea, Minister! I would pay 10% GST anytime for that!'

He is also my MP and when the residents' committee organised a Raymond Lim Challenge soccer competition, I opined privately that if they painted his face on the footballs, they'd be overwhelmed by the response.

Out goes Wong Kan Seng who refused to accept responsibility for the almost comical escape of possibly the most dangerous terrorist in the region. Instead the supervisor and some guards got the sack while he just simply urged people to move on from this mistake. Not a peep of an apology.



And that is what marked out LKY's and GCT's time - no apology for screw-ups while they paid themselves top-dollar.

Besides the salaries they pay themselves, they also get a bonus tied to the GDP. Last year's GDP rose 14% or some astonishing figure like that which meant they all got about 8 months' bonus...

See this article for a good summary of the problems of incompetence and salaries.



So, in general terms, the public has been suffering and probably would have gone right on suffering quietly if not for a few things:

1.    Decreased accountability.
    The ministers mentioned above fucked up, and some did so big-time. None paid the price. This country got where it was because of the idea of accountability and transparency. Sadly, the former has not been in evidence recently. And people have just gotten fed up. Don't forget the Sovereign Wealth Funds Temasek Holdings and Government Investment Corporation lost a combined total of anything from S$90 billion to S$130 billion. We don't know, but we do know no one's head rolled - least of all Mdm Ho Ching's, the PM's wife who heads Temasek.

2.    Decreased Transparency.
    When former President Ong Teng Cheong, acting in his capacity of President and in charge of the national reserves, asked for a list of the reserves, he was given the runaround. For daring to speak up he was shunned and eventually when this much loved figure died (albeit after his presidency), he was denied a state funeral. Even LKY's wife got a bigger funeral...

3.    Increased arrogance
    LKY's statement that if the opposition won the Aljunied GRC tthey would have '5 years to repent' hit a nerve.
    Raymond's Lim's GST statement.
    and more...
    They all point to an arrogant ruling elite who think they know best and everyone else should just 'sit down and shut up' - if you want to know the origin of that quote, ask me - it's another long story...

Fact is the PAP had lost touch with the public and although they were extremely good to and with corporate citizens, at the end of the day it is Siti Bakar who votes, not Citibank.

I think there was no real tipping point here, just a confluence of a few things including the rise of alternative media, how close the average Singaporean is to the edge, clearly flawed government policies, and the very real pain felt by many in Singapore. Think of this: households in the lowest 10% of economy earn S$1400 per month. Households in the upper 10% average $23,700. If that's not an income gap problem I don't know what is.


There were many instances in the recent GE where it was clear the PAP's strategy and philosophy was flawed.

Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister for Community Youth and Sports attacked an opposition member, suggesting he was a homosexual. This lost him the pink vote and amazingly, a lot of other voters as well who thought it was none of his business. He also trained his sights on an opposition politician's S$60 billion dollar Singapore Makeover plan, saying it was no small change, would take years to accumulate that amount etc. This coming from the guy who blew the S$104 million Youth Olympics budget by almost S$300 million. Yes, you read that right - it finally cost almost S$400 million. And he kept his job...

The PAP, in an attempt to appear young, put forward a 27-year old candidate, Tin Pei Ling who made waves for having a cutesy picture of herself with a Kate Spade shopping bag - instantly injecting Kate Spade into everyone's consciousness. And Pei Ling into everyone's vitriol-loaded sights. Her cutesy looks, foot-stamping antics and substanceless motherhood and apple-pie statements made her few friends and many dislikers. Did I just coin a new word there? Hey, this woman, in an interview, declared her greatest regret in life is not taking her parents to Universal Studios on Sentosa Island. Errr her parents are still alive... and did someone mention the poor and starving in Singapore? Or that Marital Rape is still not outlawed?

The opposition National Solidarity Party put forward an even younger candidate who blew everyone away. Nicole Seah belied her 24 years by speaking confidently, sensibly, visionarily and with great empathy and became second most popular politician in cyberspace after LKY.

See a comparison between the two.

Unfortunately, Pei Ling, contesting in a Group Representative Constituency, rode into Parliament on Goh Chok Tong's coattails and now earns S$15000 a month as an MP, while holding on to the Ernst & Young job. The team with Nicole Seah fought against the incumbent, GCT, and cut his margin to 50-something%. Remarkable.


This GE, the opposition fielded very capable candidates which seriously dented the PAP's claim to having an exhaustive, comprehensive, detailed recruitment and assessment process. The PAP also shot itself in the foot when one of their candidates withdrew at the last minute and was replaced by a virtual unknown who waltzed into parliament a day later as he stood in the only GRC that was uncontested. So much for careful, considered choosing.


On the other hand, some candidates from the opposition were high calibre (and in some instances, with proven track records) individuals - one even served as GCT's perm secretary for some years!



OK enough waffling....

Did LKY engineer this? Honestly, I can't see that. I think the old man is so full of himself he really can't accept that things have moved on. His speeches were a liability right through the hustings. Honestly, GCT's speeches were not much better either...

I suspect this is PM asserting himself finally. He has seen the mood on the ground and has been shocked by it. True the next elections is 5 years away and Singaporeans being Singaporeans, if times are OK by then, they will feel very little inclination to rock the boat.

Having said that, 60% is a very low approval rating. If not for pork-barrel politics (much of which didn't work this time around) and gerrymandering, the PAP would have lost more seats. Two constituencies were lost by a handful of votes and there were even rumblings of discontent with the apparent different standards of elections officers at different polling stations and so on.

For all his visionless steering, Lee Hsien Loong is not stupid. I think he senses this is the time to make his mark. And he has a good case - the old methods are clearly not working. If ever there was a chance for him to state his case, this was it.

Yesterday's cabinet appointments indicate that PM is willing to make sweeping and daring changes. Although they've spun it in a predictable way (3 of them wanted to resign before elections, my foot!) let's not take anything away from PM's appointments. There are a couple of questionable appointments, but on the whole we all hope this is an indication that the PAP is finally listening to the people.

Whether the new ministers will implement new policies which drive at solving some of the problems that have cropped up is something else.

Is this a face-saving move? I don't think so - I think it is indeed a calculated drive forward.

And is this a sign of a real democracy? Well, besides pork-barrels and gerrymandering, the media has been much more liberal, and the opposition has been able to get to the people in a way they couldn't previously, so yes, broadly speaking it bodes well. There's some way to go yet, but it seems there has been progress and we should be grateful for that.

At least for the immediate future.

If they were Singaporean, no more would die.

I don’t care for the Singapore Minister of Transport. I find him arrogant and ineffectual.

And in the next couple of posts I’m going to lay into the good Mr Raymond Lim and provide some suggestions he and his team may wish to consider. Well, perhaps they will then actually do some work.

Let’s start with one area where I think the Ministry of Transport has failed abysmally -  protecting the safety of migrant/foreign workers on their way to and from work.

Currently Singapore is one of the few, if not the only developed country, which allows the transport of general workers in the back of trucks normally meant for carrying cargo. Besides the obvious safety issues, these poor guys are often exposed to the elements and I’ve frequently seen them huddling together under a tarpaulin or canvas sheet when being ferried somewhere in the rain.

A couple of years ago, Mei and I witnessed a truly horrific accident on the Pan-Island Expressway. Early that morning, we were going to our car which was parked at the multi-storey carpark adjacent to to our apartment block. This carpark is just a few metres from the PIE and as we walked to the car I heard a short screech of locked wheels then a series of bumps. Having followed motor rallies in Malaysia, I immediately recognised this as the sound of a vehicle turning over and we rushed to the side to look onto the highway. I shall never forget what we saw: a car was stopped on the slow lane, facing the wrong way while a few metres up the road, a 14-foot truck lay upside-down across two lanes. In its wake was scattered a trail of debris. And bodies.

Then I noticed some of these bodies were still moving and one was crawling on his hands and knees. I heard a keening cry ‘boss! boss!’ and then another person wailing in pain. I urged Mei not to look and called for an ambulance, screaming at the call centre operator in frustration when he insisted on taking down my name and phone number ‘There are bodies on the highway. Stop wasting time and send ambulances NOW!!!’ I think he realised something was up because I spied some of my neighbours on the phone too - the switchboard must have suddenly lit up. Not too long after, the emergency vehicles did indeed arrive en masse.

We later found out one of the workers had died. Considering the carnage we saw, this was a miracle. Not, I’m sure, to his grieving relative who was interviewed at the hospital where he lamented ‘I brought him here to get a better life. What am I to tell his family now?’

This accident was discussed quite a lot over the next few days and a friend summed it up best for all of us when he said ‘This has been going on for too long, but sadly nothing much is going to change unless a Singaporean family dies’. We all agreed cynically, but correctly as it turned out.

Two years later and check out these stories:
4 die after lorry hits trailer
Lorry was overcrowded
and so on.

In the intervening time, the Land Transport Authority hasn’t exactly done nothing. They did introduce some new laws. Essentially, trucks can still carry passengers in the back/cargo deck, but the seats in the cab must first be filled. Then, the occupants at the back must sit with the tops of their heads no more than 1.1 metres from the base of the cargo deck.

OK, firstly, why make things so complicated? I’ve seen a traffic cop walk up to inspect a passenger-laden lorry armed with a tape measure. A tape measure for heaven’s sake!

If I had drafted this law, I would have made it at-a-glance simple: Passengers at the back to sit on the floor of the truck and to have their elbow line below the level of the side rails/body panel. Simple. Easy to spot when an offence is committed. No need for tape measures and so on.

That is to say IF I agreed with the idea of trucks being used to ferry workers which I utterly and completely DO NOT.

And take a look at the regulations to come:
More Stringent Measures To Enhance Safety Of Workers Transported On Lorries

By 2012, all that need be done is to install higher railings. Also, workers will have additional space around them, effectively reducing the number of workers allowed on the cargo deck of each truck.

THAT’S ALL??? And it’s going to take two whole years to do this?

Look, here’s a picture of a truck. 

 It is meant for carrying goods and cargo.

These are a couple of pictures of buses.

They are meant for carrying people.

Can you not grasp the difference between the two?

Cannot? OK, then sit down, yes sit right down Mr multi-million-dollar minister, and let me help you understand it a little better…

Why trucks are not safe for carrying passengers:
1.    Trucks when carrying little in the back are very nose-heavy leading to higher chance of rear-wheel skidding. People weigh little. So, when a truck is only carrying people, it has a higher chance of skidding than if it carried cargo.

2.    Trucks have more primitive suspension systems. These are meant to withstand the weight of heavy loads and as a consequence are not as pliant as say, the suspension of a bus. As a direct consequence of this, trucks, when unladen, are not as stable as buses.

3.    Trucks have no seats. Therefore no seat belts. Even if the truck doesn’t turn turtle in an accident, there’s no way a person seated at the back is going to be able to hold on in the event of an accident. Ever been on a roller-coaster? You know why those things have harnesses or seat belts? Because you’d fall right out otherwise, right? Well, would it surprise you to know that the force a passenger feels in an accident is greater than that on the average rollercoaster? So, without a seat and a belt, how on earth do you expect a human body not to be flung right out onto the road when the truck he is traveling in slams on its brakes, or worse, slams into something else, decelerating from 50 km/h to 0 in a split-second?

4.    Truck cargo areas have no bodywork. Even after those new regulations kick in in 2012, they will still have no bodywork. In case it has also escaped you, railings have gaps in them. Bodywork does not. In an accident, even if the railings kept his body within the truck, his arms, legs and (shudder) head may stick out. I once saw a video of former world champ Carlos Sainz rolling his Toyota Celica rally car in the Rally of Australia in 1991. As it tumbled at speed, I saw Carlos’ head stick out through the open window. It was a miracle he didn’t lose it. A foreign worker in a truck may not be so lucky in the event of an accident - even if the truck didn’t turn over.

Do I need to go on?

OK, here’s the rub. Trucks are not safe for transporting workers. Buses are. Simple as that.
Outlaw the use of trucks for the purpose of ferrying people. And guess what? You can be credited with creating a whole new industry - that of general worker transport. I can just see Comfort, Prime, SMRT and a string of other taxi companies jumping onto the bandwagon of bidding for bus COEs, and setting up bus chartering services for the thousands of factories and construction companies around.

Oh! A thought suddenly occurred to me. Perhaps the reason you've been reluctant to implement this is the fact that a certain neighbour to the north has indeed been doing this rather successfully. For oh, maybe 30 years or so? Yes, Malaysia has indeed had a thriving ‘Bas Kilang’ (factory bus) industry for many many years. Heck, if you take a look at the queue of traffic coming into and going out of Singapore every day, you’d see maybe hundreds of blue Bas Kilang.

But I guess that would be real hard to swallow wouldn’t it? Admitting that maybe you had something to learn from Malaysia.

Note: All pics downloaded from the web. Some cannot be credited. Thanks to all for helping make the point that workers must not be ferried on the cargo decks of trucks.

Next:

The complete and utterly despicable ignoring of Bicycles as a form of public transport, and the safety and wellbeing of cyclists.