The mystery of the Singaporean numbers game

Numbers are strange things. Especially in Singapore. You look away for a second and they change. Yes: here, numbers have a life of their own.

What numbers am I referring to? Well, these particular changing numbers are the costs of taxis, as declared in newspapers. Now, you would have thought that it would be a simple matter to be straightforward as to the true state of affairs when it comes to the real cost of taxis. However, apparently not.

My thoughts have turned to this on seeing a mysterious change in headlines in Singapore's leading national daily. Today The Straits Times has an article in which the headlines refer to the "5% to 35%" increase in taxi fares. Now, that is strange, I thought to myself on seeing that, for I remembered some very different headlines of only a few weeks ago. Those were also in The Straits Times and spoke of a "10% to 49%" price increase. Have the taxi fares been changed again? No, they have not. What has changed is what the headlines are saying about the fares, the fares themselves remain the same, overpriced charges.

Now, what is the truth, here? Is it "5% to 35%" or "10% to 49%". Well, I would suggest that the truth is that both sets of figures are not true. Both are misleading.

Why do I say this? Well, let us look at one simple fact in isolation. Let us forget the forest of new and wonderful whizzbang surcharges that delight the world with their awful magnitude and mystifying complexity. Let us just look at one small change among the many changes. The flag down rate has gone up from $250 - oops, I mean, $2.50 - to $2.80. Is that a change of 5%? Nope. Is that a change of 10%? Nope. It is a change of 12%. So, if you take a cab at a time and place that has no extra surcharges and you get out of the cab immediately (after all it is too expensive to actually travel anywhere in one of them), you would pay an increase of 12% over the former fares. So, that makes it a real mystery how the 5% (or the 10%) was calculated because the smallest possible change - one that ignored all other charges and surcharges is, in itself, 12% for a journey of no distance.

What happens when one actually, foolishly (or naively) actually takes a cab these days? Well, horrible things, usually, things like extra mortgages and lifelong debts to loan sharks.

What happens is that you end up virtually paying for the taxi, itself. A recent case in point. Someone I know of, recently returned from a well-timed holiday in Indonesia (where taxis are very cheap indeed), which meant that he left when taxis were affordable and returned when they had become insanely overpriced. Rather innocently, therefore, he took a cab from the airport to his home. Can you guess how much this journey cost, in an island a little bigger than the average American shopping mall (well, approximately)? It cost him well over 60 (yes, over SIXTY) dollars to get home. Consider that figure for a moment. Is that a reasonable amount for a single journey in what is a really, really small island? Now, how much was he used to paying for this journey? Have a guess. Well, he expected a figure in the 20s. Yes. That is right, he expected to pay somewhere over 20 and under 30 dollars. He didn't. He paid over 60 dollars. Now, I ask you is more than a doubling in fare, equal to "35%" or "49%". No it isn't. The true figure for these changes can be over a 100% increase in fare.

I have my own experience. My wife and I took a cab to town one evening. Just once, mind. We learnt our lesson pretty quickly. The journey would normally have cost around $9.50 to $10. The metered fare came out to $20.50. That, again, is more than a 100% increase.

Apparently, the journalists who wrote those articles have never actually taken a cab, for any distance, in the new fare regime. Perhaps they just write what the PR for the taxi firms tells them to write. Because one thing is for sure: the headline price rises in the newspapers do NOT reflect the reality of the price changes on the ground, in the cabs of Singapore today.

So, it is a mystery to me why the numbers change in these articles. It is also a mystery to me why those numbers do not accurately reflect the actual experience of people who take the cabs. Perhaps they are using best case only estimates, based on taxi rides that would avoid most of the surcharges. These are not real world estimates therefore. They are a PR person's statements.

All across Singapore, there are now empty cabs waiting for passengers, at all times of day. The only circumstance under which the fares would ever fall, is if those cabs stay empty. It is said, by Comfort PRs, that taxi drivers now earn 10% more. Perhaps they do. Perhaps they don't. Perhaps it is just PR. It doesn't matter. For even if it is true, it tells us one thing: a lot fewer people are taking cabs. You see, they should be earning a lot more than 10% more, since the true rise in prices is actually rather high. But they are not. Therefore, people are avoiding taxis. Fewer people take them. Most people are having to go to the inconvenience of finding less, well, convenient ways to travel.

It seems to me that if even fewer people took cabs, that eventually prices would fall back down again. We will see what people do.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and no months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and five months, and Tiarnan, twenty-two months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Is Singapore's population too low?

Singapore's population is a matter often in the news, in Singapore. It is a question that is raised again and again.

Presently, Singapore's population is about 4.5 million. However this includes about 1 million foreigners who are working here. The Singaporean government has long voiced the intention, in many news articles, of raising the population in the coming decades to 6.5 million people. I do not know the exact time scale over which this is to happen, but it always appears that they mean this to happen in the near future. That is in the lifetimes of most people now living in Singapore.

Without knowing what Singapore is now like to live in, it is difficult to judge the wisdom, or otherwise of such a number. Firstly, you should know that Singapore is a small island. It is, perhaps, a forty-five minute drive from its East Coast to its West Coast - and rather less from North to South. It is small. Secondly, you should realize that about 80 % of people live in high-rise government flats called HDB (for Housing Development Board). Most of the rest live in high rise private condominiums. Very, very few live in houses. Thus people are tightly packed together. The newer the apartment block, the taller it is. Old ones tend to be around a dozen stories, but the latest ones can have scores of floors.

Recently, I have been confronted with just how many people there are in Singapore. It is easy enough to do: just go shopping. My wife and I went to Orchard Road last night to see a film. Even though it was the evening, and one would have thought that many people would be at home having dinner with their families, Orchard Road was packed. At some places, it was a standing room only, jostling crowd. There was barely enough space to breathe. Yet, despite this evident inability to cope with its own population numbers, the official intention is to raise the population of Singapore by a further 50 % to 6.5 million. I find that incredible.

If you live in Singapore, you never get the feeling that it lacks people. So, why is the official view that it is 2 million short of its target? Well, one reason I read is that a study, many years ago, showed that the most successful small countries have a mean population of...you guessed it...6.5 million. Singapore has understood this to mean that you must have this magic number of people to be really successful. I think this is pure numerology. (Which, for me, means nonsense.) A country may be successful at almost any size. It is just what that country does that counts. It doesn't take a magic number of people to do this. I very much doubt that there is anything that Singapore could do at 6.5 million people, that it can't do at 4.5 million - apart from raise more taxes (and taxi fares - which here is the same thing), from its people. So, the only actual benefit of a larger population would be a larger tax base: nothing more.

There would, however, be considerable down-sides to a higher population. Already the main shopping centres can get uncomfortably crowded at peak periods (despite the fact that Singapore is just one big shopping centre anyway). The buses and trains (MRT) are often too overcrowded to be pleasant. The taxis are now unaffordable for many. Rental rates have doubled in a year (residentially and commercially). Indeed, my employer has complained of an office rent that has risen three fold, recently. Singapore is becoming a crowded, busy, expensive city. Yet, the official aim is to make it more crowded, more busy and more expensive. (The official policy is, for instance, to keep on raising taxi fares until most people are forced to use buses).

I think Singapore would be just lovely if it had a population of 2 million, not a population of 6.5 million.

People like a little room to live in. No-one likes to be sandwiched against the next person. Yet, if the population really does rise by 2 million, people will be sandwiched together. They will live in even higher rise estates, travel in overcrowded buses and trains and shop in standing room only shopping centres. It won't be pleasant. It won't, actually, be a city that people want to live in.

I think that last observation is what will defeat this population plan. You see, as Singapore becomes more crowded, more unpleasant, and more unlivable, people will just leave. Emigration will soar and, as quickly as new Chinese mainlanders can be persuaded to come here (for they constitute the majority of the immigrants), native Singaporeans and Permanent Residents will be leaving, for less crowded, more hospitable countries.

The effect of this population drive will be to drive away the people who have made Singapore their home these past few decades. For they will have seen Singapore go from poor, to relatively rich and comfortable, to rich but poor in living space and living conditions. These people will leave, finally, for somewhere else - for virtually anywhere else, would be less crowded.

Singapore has a high standard of public infrastructure. It looks clean. Most things work well enough. What it does not have, however, is space. There is very little room, here, per person. I don't think it is wise, therefore, to squeeze a couple of million more people onto this small, but well-formed island. For, as anyone knows, even the best looking small frame, shouldn't really carry too many extra pounds. Singapore needs to slim down a bit, not fatten up, as a nation.

It is possible that many people think Singapore is already too crowded. Why do I say this? Well, because the emigration rate is already rather high. That wouldn't be so, if people felt comfortable here. The matter of crowdedness is, no doubt, only one factor the emigrants would have considered before leaving - but I am sure it is a contributing factor. Let us hope that Singapore does not become more crowded still - for otherwise I can foresee that many more people will seek living space, elsewhere.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and no months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and five months, and Tiarnan, twenty-two months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The little Singaporean and the Maid

Domestic workers are everywhere in Singapore. Any well-to-do home has at least one and I know homes that have two or more. Without maids, nothing domestic would get done in many a Singaporean home.

It is not just the well-off who have maids. Virtually every middle class person has one too. This is a strong contrast to Western society where only the richest have maids or any other domestic staff.

Many a Singaporean has, in fact, been brought up, by their maids, the mother being absent at work, in many households. Singapore is a nation of working couples, after all.

Many odd things are a consequence of this presence of domestic workers, here. One of the oddest was something I saw today.

I know the identities of the people concerned, but shall conceal them, for the purposes of this article. It is better that way.

I saw a little boy, with a maid. It is clear that she was a maid, and not his mother - for once you know what maids look like, they are easy to pick out.

The boy was a pre-schooler, a kindergartener and the maid was leaning down to listen to him. He was saying something to her which I could not catch, but I heard her reply.

Can you guess what an adult woman of about 30 - the maid - had said to a little boy, who was not much beyond a toddler?

In all seriousness, and with no hint of irony in her voice, she had said: "Yes, Boss."

That got me thinking about her position in the world, that really did.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and three months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three and Tiarnan, thirteen months, please to go: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, baby genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults, and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The Singaporean Way Of Life: Money

Everything in Singapore has a price tag. Perhaps that is the inevitable consequence of adopting free market principles in all areas. Everything is determined to have a value - and so everything ends up with a price.

I have been here so long that I have half forgotten what used to be free in London, when I lived there: healthcare, education, Museums (when I was younger), were just the beginning of it. Many things seemed to be rights for all, and not something to be bought only if you could afford it. In Singapore, nothing is free, not even government services - and don't ever get sick (the hospital bill will make you sicker).

I have got used to it, however. I have also come to see the benefit of putting a price to everything: although everything has a price, one thing is much, much lower: central taxation. Government taxation on income starts at...wait for it...3.75 %. That is not a typo. Tax is THREE POINT SEVEN-FIVE %, at the base rate. This doesn't kick in until 20,000 dollars: below that, tax is zero. It works its way up as income rises, to reach a peak of 21%, for incomes in excess of 320,000 dollars. Then there is indirect taxation: presently a 5 % Goods and Services Tax, soon to rise to 7 %. All in all, however, it is a low tax burden - and many Singaporeans pay no income tax, at all, once thresholds and reliefs are taken into account.

The low tax regime even extends to the "afterlife". This, as a father of three, and a long-term thinker, I find attractive. I want to be able to leave my estate, whatever it might be, intact to my descendants. Anyone who is thinking clearly, and has dependants, would like to be able to do that. In Singapore, the Death Duties are rather different to that in the US (up to 55 %, there, I understand), and other developed nations like the UK (40 %). In Singapore, the first eight million dollars of property in an estate is ZERO-RATED. You pay no death duty at all. After that there is a five per cent duty to be paid. This means that Singaporeans and foreign residents can leave their estates largely intact to the following generations. This is a big draw to long-term thinkers who want to build something for their family - and might be one of the reasons that wealthy foreigners are drawn here.

Company taxes are low, too, at 20%. There are lower tax regimes - the so-called "tax havens", worldwide - but as developed countries go, Singapore's tax structure is quite friendly - with obvious benefits to the nation of inward investment.

So, in Singapore, everything has a price - but you just might have more of your money in your pocket to spend on things. It is not such a bad system, after all. Most people would prefer to have more of their money to spend, as they choose, than taxed away, and spent by others, without any power to decide how it is used. Here, at least, that choice applies, largely speaking.

This post is just an occasional glimpse at Singapore, that I will give, in addition to my usual genius/prodigy/gifted/education posts. Thanks.

Fast Food - Faster Baby Tiarnan

Babies are famous for eating anything they get a chance to put in their mouths. Some babies are more adventurous in this regard than most. Tiarnan is one of them.

Singapore is not only populated by people, but by lizards - millions of them. They seem to get everywhere - even high up in apartment blocks, where we are, lizards are to be found. They are small, fast-moving creatures, that chatter excitedly in a tongue I do not know. It seems unlikely, looking at the speed with which they move, that a baby would have much interaction with them. Yet, Tiarnan is a well-coordinated baby, who moves very fast.

Two days ago, on the 7th December 2006, Tiarnan Hasyl Cawley, aged ten months, saw a lizard on a wall in our apartment. He hurried over to it - and reached out with his left hand to grab it. The lizard was caught completely by surprise at the speed of his attack: Tiarnan had caught a lizard. Now what do you think he did with his wriggling prize? He moved it towards his mouth, and it was only the intervention of a nearby adult, that stopped Tiarnan swallowing his live lizard whole.

It is funny to note this, because it almost seems a family tradition with our babies. Fintan, three, did the same when he was a toddler - though, he succeeded in killing his find.

It surprises me that a baby of ten months can, in fact, hunt. It seems that our early instincts are not far from the surface, if a little baby, can move fast enough and coordinated enough to catch such a fast-moving animal as a lizard.

So, consider this: what is your baby trying to eat for lunch?

(If you would like to read about Tiarnan's gifted brothers, including Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and two weeks, then please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)