What is the overall vision for our decarbonisation shift: a dubious ‘green capitalism’, or one based on degrowth and climate consciousness? It will be disastrous to jump on the bandwagon of EVs without recognising the pollution and social costs embedded within the car-addicted system.
However much price-sensitive and pragmatic Singaporeans may be, national conversations shape social environments, which influence behaviours. Singapore does have a few ambitious plans for car-lite urban mobility, such as the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 which aims to make Singapore a ‘45-minute city’. Central to this Master Plan is the Avoid-Shift-Improve (ASI) framework, which advocates for a decarbonisation of transport and should continue to be promoted. The Walk-Cycle-Ride SG concept aims to make car-free travel journeys efficient and smooth.
Unfortunately, these initiatives are under-optimised. More grand plans will have no effect on the affluent who are prolonging car growth and usage in Singapore. They prefer to glorify technology as the potential cure-all to our environmental issues: no wonder conversations encircling around artificial intelligence predictive transport and autonomous vehicles pay little attention to their socio-environmental impacts. Unsurprisingly, too, for all the car-lite city planning ongoing, road networks are not seeing any signs of downsizing in the near future. While the new North-South Corridor will feature bus lanes, cycling trunk routes and pedestrian paths, it does not challenge the present road density in our city; simply decorates it with more ‘inclusive’ roads. I find it somewhat absurd: how does building roads promote a car-lite society?
Instead of shying away from challenging the status quo, we need vibrant, honest and transparent discussions questioning the long-term effectiveness of our modern developmental trajectory. Perhaps we should also explore a degrowth framework for cars in Singapore (and eventually expand to discussions on degrowth for climate action). Degrowth refers to downscaling production and consumption to sustainable levels, which is the only way forward for social equity and environmental protection. It is especially the responsibility of Global North countries, who possess the resources to lead the economic transition. At present, conversations surrounding such a concept, however, have barely begun; with ideas on redefining pragmatism and growth appearing in only environmental activist spaces. We need to ask difficult questions, like: how can urban infrastructure be redesigned? How can public spaces be better utilised? How has Singapore urban sprawl infiltrated into other countries, by expending their resources?
These conversations should feature in especially the middle- and high-income groups of Singaporeans — social comparisons of car value by the poor are unlikely to be of matter to them. Also, these discussions should occur at all levels, from parliamentary debates to dinnertable conversations. Once these conversations become normalised, we will see change in our social environments, through different levels of civil society and facets of policymaking.
Conclusion
Cars in Singapore are painfully conspicuous symbols of the many people’s unrelenting priority for satiating personal desires and disregarding pernicious social harms.
This article does not aim to demonise private vehicles. I do not deny that EVs are crucial for transiting away from the fossil economy. But so precious are all of our resources that we must use them judiciously, that is, only out of necessity.
Singaporeans’ driving habits must change. Data shows that societies can be happier and healthier without cars. Yet self-interested gains dominate mindsets, and habits are difficult to let go. Today, car populations are increasing, road networks are expanding and car perceptions are not changing. A more equitable society is not when the poor get cars, it is when the rich take public transport with the poor.
Posted 13 Sep 2023
