Free Public Transport? 🚇

On 17 October I made a forum article submission to the Straits Times, a Singapore-based English newspaper. They replied to me the next afternoon with a version that “the Forum editor has edited and is considering for publication.” Their within-24-hour reply was a good sign and I was optimistic my letter was going to be published. Turns out my confidence was misguided.

Since it has been more than a while since the reply, I am of the belief that my article will never see the light of day in the newspaper. What a pity, I thought. So I’ve shared it here. 

(National Service (NS) is a compulsory obligation for all able-bodied males in Singapore, who are conscripted for 2 years. It is commonly reflected on the ground that the remuneration for NS is a pittance, among many other complaints. Though a painful sacrifice for those who have to serve, most people still believe NS is indispensable.)

The Unpublished Letter

*Words in strikethrough were removed and words in square brackets were added by the people at the Straits Times. 

From putting personal endeavours on hold to discharging routine orders dutifully for two years, NSFs [full-time national servicemen (NSFs)] make life-altering sacrifices and do indispensable work for the country. While there are creditable efforts to recognise their service, some NSFs still feel underappreciated and that their time and labour are being taken for granted. 

A sure-fire way to make people feel valued is to accord [give them] privileges. Make public transport for NSFs free. What better way to appease a serviceman making a two-hour journey on public transport from camp than to remind him whenever he taps his card that his trip is free in at least monetary terms^$? This serves [would serve] as a regular recognition of NSFs’ efforts, complementing perks such as the $100 NS55 credits which come only occasionally. 

Moreover, this privilege promotes equity. Conscripts[NSFs] do not choose where they serve, unlike the case for [with] work or school, where one can take into account the costs of travel before committing to an institution. If it takes three hours to commute to camp [the camp they are posted to] – bad luck. Similarly, NSFs cannot control how much public transport charges they incur in their journeys. Some trips are more expensive than others. ^$

In addition, some NSFs, not of their own volition, do not stay in camp and thus commute every work day. This makes a significant dent in the wallet of someone who’s paid an allowance, not a market-rate salary. If public transport fees were waived, we [this] could ameliorate and equalise conditions in this respect. 

Another advantage of this concession is that the size of the benefit conferred [given] corresponds to the magnitude of individual need. NS entails substantial opportunity cost and financial pressure for servicemen from low-income families who worked jobs prior to enlisting. Two-years of below-market-rate remuneration for NSFs acts like a regressive tax—can we not mitigate this by providing a progessive subsidy?*

Are the young males of our country not important enough for this perk?* Many of my fellow NSFs have voiced out their desire for a transport concession. It will [would] be more uplifting for our servicemen than fiscally consequential to the government [Government]. And the benefits of higher morale flow back to the state’s organisations. 

Comments

The letter “may be cut further to accommodate space constraints”, so I presume the version of my letter that was modified by them was edited not for its length, but only for its content. 

$: By deleting these parts, my point that there are 2 aspects to the inequality of travel is missed. There is the cost component and time-distance element. My proposal to make public transport for NSFs free only reduces inequality only to the extent of the former aspect. The government attempts to improve fairness in the latter aspect though. For conscripts who were non-combat-fit from the start of their service, they are almost always posted to camps in the region of their residence. It is understandable that this cannot be done for those combat-deployed due to manpower allocation by vocation.

*: I liked the spirit of these 2 rhetorical questions. But maybe their style does not suit the general flavour of Straits Times forum articles. Also, do you think it is okay (in whatever sense of the word) to call compulsory military service a regressive tax? By the way, I’m not trying to insinuate (by calling National Service a regressive tax) that compulsory military service is bad for Singapore. Though a painful cost to many, it’s necessary.

Appendix

Here is a link to a recent Reddit post that relates to the issue in my letter. My blog does not in any way endorse, represent, concur with, support or corroborate the views espoused in that post. The furnishing of the link is merely a provision of some context to the matter.

In addition, the government does offer a monthly concession pass, but its cost does not justify its purchase and amount to a subsidy for most. A less extreme version of my proposal would be to lower the price of the concession pass for NSFs, which I think is not at all infeasible.

Diagnosis

Update on 30.11.22: This is my diagnosis on why this article did not get published.

Firstly, the topic of my letter lacked currency at the time of submission. Straits Times Forum seems to highly favour articles that build upon earlier ones. This is an understandable practice—it spurs viewership.

Next, my article, being about NS, errs on the side of political sensitivity. Fringe, non-sensitive and localised issues have a substantial voice on the forum of Singapore’s largest newspaper.

Finally, the issue I wrote about could be touchy. The ministries of Singapore tend to reply to ST Forum articles directed at their ministry. Replying to my letter may not be straightforward. If they reject my proposal, they risk incurring the ire of NSFs—many of whom already feel under-compensated—as my proposal has a populist nature. If they concur with my suggestion, questions will be raised as to why it could not have been done before, and these may be tricky to answer. Peace over provocation is sometimes the guide, and so publication is not preferred.