Why Are Singaporeans So Hard to Please?

I had some thoughts after reading an article in the Channel NewsAsia webpage on the installation of half-height barriers in the above-ground MRT stations, which will be completed across the nation by 2012.

There are a few issues that revolved around this policy, firstly, why these barriers are built, and second, how people reacted to this change, which is the focus of my post here.

The barriers were built as a response to cases of suicide in MRT stations, where people simply jumped off the platform onto the track at the oncoming train. So the barriers were erected in order to prevent the chances of people falling onto the tracks, by intention or by accident. It also prevents personal objects from falling onto the tracks.

The benefits? First accidents and deaths are avoided. Second, time is saved and convenience ensured, as train services are always disrupted after each accident, which causes a certain amount of distress and frustration (just imagine stuck in the station, or the train, for more than an hour because the trains couldn’t move).

BUT, some Singaporeans are just so hard to please.

“It’s unsightly.” Said one. “There is no ventilation.” Said another.

I was thinking, given Singapore’s insane weather, there’s no difference whether there’s a barrier or not in the first place. Besides, the existence of barriers is not the real cause of temperature conditions in MRT stations anyway.

And unsightly? Well, the Metro in Taipei had the same barriers too, they didn’t complain.

Besides (and to be really cynical), given the already unsightly appearance of above-ground MRT stations in Singapore, it really doesn’t make a difference.
What is more important, to think of the larger picture, is to consider what these barriers are for. They are, to use the RSAF’s advertisement motto, “for a higher purpose”. They are there to prevent accidents and disruptions to train services.

So, why are Singaporeans so hard to please?

It’s because, to me, we are just such a demanding lot of people. We want the best of everything, even if they might contradict one another. We want safer stations and less disruption, and yet want “visual pleasure” and ventilation, we want good salaries and career prospects, yet are cynical of our education system, which is responsible for the creation of career opportunities for individuals.

It’s really like the people in the US, who want to slim down by eating.

Of course, not everyone in Singapore is like that. The difference in opinion to the erection of barriers is also not necessarily the self-contradicting statements of specific individuals. But it does show one thing about human society in general: that conflicting interests create the difficulty of policy implementation and social improvement.


I was also reading about Mr Obama’s recent healthcare reforms, which led to intense debate in the US. It’s a pretty complex issue, so just for a quick background, here’s some of the issues.

First, Mr Obama wants to extend insurance coverage to more Americans. A large number of Americans are still uninsured, so you can imagine what will happen to them if they incur medical costs, which are ridiculous in the US.

Second, Mr Obama wants to reform the insurance system. Currently, insurance companies (in the US, of course, you can’t imagine insurance companies in Singapore doing that) can reject claims based on “pre-existing conditions”, meaning you’ve had some previous health condition you may or may not know about. So, if you are hospitalised, for say, heart disease, and you have high blood pressure, the insurance company can reject your insurance claim because of the pre-existing condition of high blood pressure (ridiculous, isn’t it).

For a cynical take on the shambles of the US healthcare system, you can watch Michael Moore’s Sicko. Of course, I’ll have to warn you, it’s very cynical, and biased in some ways, so take note.

In the US, the debate is really intense. Obama’s supporters feel he’s not doing enough, and his opponents and critics are saying he’s bringing more problems and creating “socialised medicine”, exemplified by the communist states and the British National Health Service (NHS), which are portrayed as inefficient and expensive (well, not quite. The NHS is expensive, for the state, but it’s quite efficient, thanks to Mrs Thatcher’s reforms).

What am I trying to put forth here? First, in Singapore, there’s this really famous saying, “In Singapore, one can die, but can never fall ill”, reflecting the high costs of healthcare in Singapore.

But if you know just a little more about the other healthcare systems of other countries, you’ll realise we’re not all that bad. At least we have some form of funding for healthcare (not that the US doesn’t have things like medisave, medishield and medifund, they do. But they are much less substantial in funds), and at least insurance companies don’t cheat us like they do in the US.

What bridges both the US and Singapore is the contradicting interests that are involved. To put it bluntly, both want a healthcare system that is good, but both also don’t want to pay for it.

In the presence of conflicting interests, we need to think critically, rather than naively and childishly say, “I want it my way.”