Gridlock gone as 1m cars are grounded

This is an article from The Straits times, August 18.

Not long ago, we were on the topic of urbanisation, its problems and solutions for geography, and as a geography student, I am very aware and concerned about topics that are closely related to the subject. Last friday, Beijing carried out an experiment, which aims to solve traffic problems and ease the flow of traffic. By grounding three million cars, the roads were significantly less congested. It was also said that a 48km drive around the city's busy road took half the time taken during a normal rush hour. Policemen were out to enforce these rules.

To me, this is really a great solution for a country with frequent road problems. In geography we learnt that as a city urbanises, one major problem would be the traffic and the number of vehicles on the roads. As more and more people get higher paying jobs in the city, they will be able to afford private cars and some will rather need these private cars to get around the city even faster to save them more travelling time therefore more work time. Public transport might be deemed as 'slow', 'uncomfortable' and even 'expensive', although i do not really know much about the price and efficiency of the public transport service at Beijing. In the article, it states that 'an estimated 1000 new cars get on Beijing's road each day', which proves my explanation.

With increasing traffic, pollution problems start to creep into the country. It is said that the purpose of this 'experiment' is to improve the air quality of Beijing for next year's Olympic games, and pollution monitoring stations set up around the country estimates that this car ban will reduce carbon emissions by 40 percent, which is a significant amount in such a big city. These pollution problems are something Beijing cannot just turn a blind eye on -- visiting foreign athletes and International Olympic Committee officials could shorten their stays and reschedule Olympic events if these problems persist.

Although this 'solution' really eased the traffic, I do not think that it is a long term solution for the problems they are facing, be it air pollution or traffic jams. Although Singapore is very small as compared to Beijing, many people here are choosing to travel with private transport than public ones. And how much less if it is in Beijing? Therefore, I think that although urbanisation has brought many of us advantages, we will also have to face the consequences.

However, is this ban of cutting down traffic to reduce air pollution for the good of the environment? Or is it only to groom the country in order to be able to host the other countries during the Olympics the coming year? Will these traffic problems and air pollution return soon after the Olympics? I feel that cities which have major traffic problems which cause air pollution -- not only Beijing -- should do something about it too.

(499 words)

Leg-up for older workers: More Workfare and chance to be rehired

This article is from The Straits Times, Monday August 20.

Yesterday, PM Lee made his National Day Rally speech mapping out strategies that would be used to tackle issues such as the ageing population, the widening income gap and the increase of retirees, which I will be discussing about in this entry. Due to the baby boom in Singapore after World War 2, the population of Singapore has increased constantly. With an advancement in technology, the average age of Singaporeans has been increasing recently, observing the effects of an ageing population. Like Japan, the government is trying to then increase the retiring age from 62 to 65.

The title reads, 'Leg-up for older workers' showing that the government encourages employers in Singapore to re-employ older workers (presumably aged 55). Another point to take note is, despite the increasing population in Singapore, the birth rate is not able to 'replenish' the death rate. Singaporeans, like many other urbanised countries face issues of the younger generation not willing to marry and give birth as they are more work orientated, especially the women. Soon, those in the bottom of the population pyramid will start to take on heavier responsibilities, needing to support more older people from their parents' generation. Therefore, by increasing the retirement age of these workers, the older generation would be self dependant and will not need to rely on the support of the young generation.

However, are these workers at the age of 62 still willing to continue working after such stressful working days for the past 20 to 30 years? I would not think so. Yes, there might be workaholics who will still be glad to remain in the workforce but most will not. Imagine after working under tremendous stress and pressure day in and out. Would you be willing to retire at an even older age? Many people will look forward to spending their time waking up early in the morning, not to rush off to work, but to go for a little stroll at the park and then go for their favourite activities in the afternoon at a community centre, or even a long holiday. Not many will then look forward to their postponed retirement.

This is a challenge to the government if they would really want to solve the problem of an ageing population. Employers would also not choose these old workers as they may not be able to produce the quality of work of what a young worker can. Furthermore, these people may not be equipped with skills that are needed in this country with advanced technology. However, in the news article, PM Lee answered these questions confidently. Regarding the lack of skills of the older workers to get employed, he said that it "doesn't mean you will definitely get a job but the employer has to make an offer and take into account the worker's performance, health, preferences and the company's needs, and both sides work out a win-win arrangement."

Although I am still a student preparing to enter the workforce soon enough, I am convinced that the working years of Singaporeans can be increased for the sake of the community's sustainability in the world.

(500 words)