Bringing consumerism to a new level

I remember a couple of years ago when I was volunteering at an ad-hoc call center of the local chapter of a certain international organization involved in the disaster relief efforts in Myanmar. People were calling in then to enquire about ways they could donate money and if it’s possible to bring it down to our headquarters. Surprisingly, few knew how to get there – but that’s not important. So over and over again I repeated directions to the building, and some still couldn’t get it. So, I took out the laptop, wrote an email to LTA and requested for a signboard to point to the building, which I was surprised isn’t in place yet, given the history of the building. How hard can it be, given that there are signboards to seemingly everything. Well I found out, pretty hard, this is the reply that was given:

Dear Mr Leong
Thank you for your request.
We note the purpose of the signs.  However, we are concerned about the safety of road users.  Advertisements such as signs displayed along public streets  distract road users and pose safety hazards to them.  In addition, they clutter the streetscape.  In this respect, we are unable to display the signs along Penang Lane.
Please feel free to contact me for clarifications.  Thank you.
Lame-O-Guy
Road Infrastructure Management
Road Operations & Community Partnership
Land Transport Authority

I’m kidding about the name – but the rest of the message, has been copied in its entirety. I replied to the message, but never received any reply. So it surprised me that sometime ago, MediaCorp launched a moving billboard – literally. Touted as a new Out-of-Home (OOH) platform, the “On-The-Move Billboard”, features three large display panels: 7.3m x 3m on two sides and 2.1m x 3m on the rear.

Mediacorp OOH

So a signboard that points people in the right direction is a distraction and a moving billboard isn’t? Why do we even need a moving billboard in the first place? We have public buses screaming advertisements all over them like those at the bus stops, train stations, buildings, screens all over weren’t enough already. Yet, MediaCorp thought that, oh well, we should put a truck to add some colors to Singapore’s congested road, and add more pollutants in the air with a Mitsubishi Fuso Pre-Euro 4 (correct me if I’m wrong) truck.

If you do not want to be strangled by the chains of consumerism, or be suffocated by the likes of unnecessary pollution, I urge you to appeal to the transport minister to stop this eyesore from polluting our streets lui_tuck_yew@mot.gov.sg.


Environment versus Economy

How much of the economy should we sacrifice for the sake of our environment has been a much debated issue for decades now. Governments from all over the world, gather year after year during climate change conferences to discuss the issue of how much of their economy should be sacrificed for a sustainable environment. Yet, not once have they realistically thought about how much of the environment have we been sacrificing for the economy?

You may laugh at the thought, but do you know, that the climate change you experience today is a result of the doings of the past generation? Climate studies focus on a classical period of 30 years, which could mean that what we are experiencing today, is likely a result of a build-up of “sins” of the past 30 years. Yes, go ahead and blame your parents or the you 30 years ago, but bear this in mind, your children and yourself of the future will be casting the same blame on you if you do not take any action now.

In the movie 2012, we saw a world, indifferent towards everything else but preserving the future of mankind – must we wait for such a day before we reconsider our actions? In the movie, our chaotic world calmed after 2 months of violent weather, and all refugees were returned to land where they find a new world awaiting them. Will we be able to do the same if we turn our world upside down?

Our government is constantly going  on about how much it did for our environment, but quizzed further about the exact positive impact it has created, how much it has spent to positively combat climate change, it remains mum, and points to the economic sustainability we have to maintain. What is the use of having so much money in reserves, if we are never going to spend it? Are the figures in the bank better to look at or a better environment we can live comfortably in, more important?

Our obsession with instantaneous wealth has led us to ignore the fact that failing to be green, eventually erodes our wealth. The extra load brought about by the myopic decisions to keep policies less stringent and leave environmental initiatives to the private sector will only amass greater costs in the future. Our hunger to maintain easy economic growth through fancy buildings, cars, and even people i.e. population surge, will only hamper the healthy growth of our people. What makes us economically comfortable does not necessarily make us environmentally so and we eventually have to spend more to maintain that lifestyle.

Recently at an environmental awards ceremony, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Vivian Balakrishnan mentioned that young people are more aware about the environment, and are more active proclaiming their causes for the Earth. Yet, in a study done before the General Election, statistics show that the environment ranks among the least important concern of young voting Singaporeans. The same opinion echoes through the audience at a recent forum I attended where grassroots leaders vote for the top concern they want the mayor to address.

Perhaps, there really is an increase of awareness for the environment, but the focus has always been too small to begin with, there just isn’t any impact. Obviously, the pace of our move towards  a greener lifestyle has not been able to match that of nature. Because combating climate change requires more than just plain gimmicky marketing and awards, we are doomed for good if we choose to be obstinate about dollars and cents over common sense.

Photo by Andrew*’s on Flickr


How essential is facade lighting?

Japan’s energy crisis gave us a number of lessons. It showed us how dependent we can be on energy, and especially so on the much hated nuclear energy. Environmentalists all over the world scream in chorus of the anti-nuke chants as Fukushima Daiichi laid in ruins. But more importantly, the destruction upon the city showed us how much energy we waste on beautifying our cityscapes. The colorful lights that run all over the signboards and buildings, the huge LED panels with music blaring in the background, the spotlights cast upon the magnificent towers  to make them seem even more impressive.

Some time ago, I had the opportunity to meet the permanent secretary of the National Climate Change Secretariat, an agency under the Prime Ministers’ Office. While most participants of the dialog session were interested in how NCCS could help them to help the community, I was more interested in the policies  that would shape the future of our Green economy in the country. I wanted to know the stance that Singapore has on fighting climate change.

I fully agree that we should not let fighting change affect our competitiveness, in fact, I believe we should make it our competitive advantage. What bothers me more about the Kyoto Protocol and COP15 are the complicated formulas that nations have come up with to mitigate their unwillingness to adopt green policies. The figures circling around the “business-as-usual” operations only put the common folk into more confusion.

Big time international policies aside, I also wanted to find out what other motion has the government put forth to clear the puff around us. So at the end of the dialog session when the permanent secretary, Mr. Tan came over to my group and asked if we had any more questions, I jumped to the gun and asked, “Sir, I used to live in Buffalo where the responsibility of being sustainable didn’t just lie in the hands of the people, but also that of the city council. Besides the policies and campaigns to be environmentally friendly, the city breathes sustainability. You don’t get the light pollution we have here, and even street lights turn off in an alternate fashion, traffic lights go into the flashing amber mode, on roads where traffic is not as heavy. Will Singapore consider doing something similar?”. He thought for a moment and replied that it is not possible for Singapore as a city to take similar measures, our buildings have to be lit, our streets have to be lit, and our traffic lights have to be lit. These lightings provide the night scene that we have, as well as safety and security of our streets. To that, I couldn’t fully agree.

Yes it is important that we create a landscape that we can be proud of, but at what cost? Is it so important that as we brighten our streets for the Formula 1 race downtown, we have to further brighten the buildings in the vicinity for them to look good? Are the street and traffic lights being sufficiently utilized? The park behind my house used to operate on a schedule that shuts it off at 12 midnight and comes back on at 5.30am for about an hour or so. Few years after the park was built, the lights were changed to dimmer ones and started operating through the night. I believe the rationale for this move is to allow the park to be used through the night, but seriously, no one does. The dimmer lights were not bright enough to provide the security one will need while walking through the park past 12 midnight, and they are better off taking on the streets in front of my house (the row of houses separates the park and the street). So is this really essential? Aren’t we saving to waste?

Similarly, Mr. Tan mentioned that it is impossible to turn off any traffic light in Singapore. I am sure most Singaporean drivers, especially those who have accustomed to 4-way stops can attest that this is not true. The only exit from my estate on to the main road is a perfect example. The main road outside the estate is one of the most used roads linking 2 towns, and during peak hours, traffic congestion on the main road is a norm. However, off peak traffic couldn’t be more different. Even during the day, stretches of the road can be empty for 10-15 seconds, yet cars are kept waiting for 2 minutes for the lights to change, and I’ve seen on numerous occasions when drivers simply ignore the lights and move out.  Keep in mind that this is the only exit in a fairly large and growing estate with an average of 2-3 cars per household, yet the presence of traffic signals is of no importance at certain times of the day, what about the many under utilized junctions around the island?

Our government is known to introduce campaigns and policies to get the people working on an initiative, but it is high time that the government itself walk the talk. Have our senior civil servants and ministers really walked the grounds to understand the problems? Plainly dismissing suggestions based on numbers from their statistical sheets will do no better good than claiming that a meal at the hawker center costs S$1. “Listen” has become the new buzzword in parliament, and let’s hope it brings about the necessary changes to make Singapore a better place.

Singapore landscape

Are we far too bright?


You may be fined for failing to turn off your engine

I came across this in the Straits Times forum just the other day, “An offence to leave engines running”:

We refer to the letter by Ms Chua Mei Ling, “Running engines add to pollution” (April 3).

Leaving a vehicle engine running unnecessarily is an offence under the Environmental Protection and Management (Vehicular Emissions) Regulations.

The National Environment Agency conducts regular enforcement checks in areas where drivers of vehicles are observed to have left their engines running without good reason. Motorists caught could be issued with a warning or fine.

The writer can provide us with the necessary details to do a follow-up by contacting our call centre on  1800 CALL NEA (1800-2255632).

Tan Quee Hong, Director, Pollution Control Department, National Environment Agency

I certainly haven’t had the chance to see anyone being caught for the act, but enforcement is definitely in place. How regularly are the checks conducted? Well, that is difficult to answer but I would think that Taxi drivers form the bulk of the culprits, followed by couples engaging in some heated action in the carparks of the Lower Pierce Reservoir. If they aren’t, I suggest the enforcement officers change their target locations.

P.S. I wonder if hybrid vehicle owners who reason that they are charging their batteries substantiate the argument?


Fuel Economy Database by NEA

While searching for details of a van that my mom was intending to purchase, I found out about this awesome database by the National Environment Agency. If anyone of you ever had trouble making a direct comparison between cars for fuel economy, this will help a lot. It’s a database with every single model of vehicle (I suppose) that is registered in Singapore.

This probably came as part with the mandatory Fuel Economy Labelling Scheme following the inclusion of motor vehicles as registrable goods under Environmental Protection and Management Act (Cap. 94A). The only problem I see with this database is the likelihood that it goes into the bin of white elephants. You see, NEA had a revamp of their website some time back, and this database is not linked from any of the new pages as far as I can search. I have this habit of trying to back-track any interesting website that I find, and the furthest I got from the main page is the Fuel Economy Labelling Scheme page. The only way to get to this database is by searching on Google.

The good news however, is that I did try to find the latest cars in the market, and I found cars registered in 2011. Check it out if you are aiming for a new car, and wants a comparison for the most fuel economical car out there!


Heal the world

Save the Earth by Emma

Friends of mine will know my love for automobiles. I shall not declare which of the two I love more (autos or environment), because I don’t have an answer for it. What I can tell you is, I cannot agree with theorists from either side who has outrageous demands over the other.

Fans of the automotive world should agree with me that Top Gear is the #1 rated show of the industry. And fans of the show will agree that the show is what it is today because of Jeremy Clarkson. His TV persona of disregarding anything on this planet other than he himself made him the love me or hate me star of Top Gear.

Even as a fan of the series and Clarkson himself, I don’t agree with him all the time. According to Dr. Clarkson on the day he received his first honorary degree, “The world can look after itself, we should enjoy it as best as we can”. I beg to differ.

No doubt the world can heal itself, just like how the Ozone layer has repaired the damages caused by the world population in recent years. But the matter of fact that no amount of will to heal can overcome constant damage remains. A boy’s wound can be healed in a matter of days, but as he grows older, the process to heal takes a tad longer. Add on the repeated damage,  the chances of recovery slowly diminishes.

I think of the world as a middle-age man. The problems it faces now, its “mid-life crisis”. It faces the dilemma of advancing for a better, or should I say an easier future for its population, and also the need to save itself from accelerated destruction.

As a subscriber to the mentality of convenience, I want convenient transportation options to remain. As  a friend of the environment, I propose all those gas-guzzling, slow-moving, smoke bellowing autos to be turned into sheet metal for a brighter and clearer future.

Thus, Clarkson’s quote should read, “Make the world self-sustainable, and enjoy it for as long as we can”.


Hybrid cars are for the fairer sex

Hybrids - a car meant for females?

Oh yes! You can call me a male chauvinist or sexist, but it is a fact that females themselves do not dispute! Forget about statistics and touch your heart for the truth within.

Over the weekend, I had to slam on my brakes in the middle of the highway just because some females did just the same to change lanes. What kind of a driver brakes hard to change lanes on a highway flyover? This is regenerative braking at its peak.

Then there was this other woman who drove on the right side of the mini road along Bukit Timah road at 30kmph trying to cut into the left lane to make a left turn 700m away. Noob! For those who do check out their tachometers and mileage gauge, driving slowly actually uses more fuel than driving at a high constant speed – more energy is wasted because the engine is not running at the optimum RPM. This is then, hybrid charging at its best!

I can’t figure how this woman will benefit from a hybrid car, but just to mention that she came out from the slip road along ECP, IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION!

So insurance companies, you should be reviewing the way you calculate premium costs and the Traffic Police should review your system of judging the right from the wrong, rid the world of worthless drivers and more unnecessary pollution.