Looks like we can’t rely on the States Times to give correct information for even a simple MRT route. In their print edition today, they published an example[pdf] of an onerous route from someone’s home in Ang Mo Kio to her former workplace Pasir Panjang. Part of the route has her taking the MRT westwards from Ang Mo Kio towards Jurong East, then changing trains there to go eastwards to Buona Vista station! Now anyone who has ever taken a train from the eastern half of the North-South line towards the western half of the East-West line knows that the trip across the northern half of the island is very long. It is unfathomable that anyone who lives in Ang Mo Kio would choose to take the train towards Jurong East rather than towards City Hall/Raffles Place. A quick check on streetdirectory.com shows that by this shorter route, it takes only 34 minutes to get from Ang Mo Kio station to Buona Vista station. Compare with the ST’s highlighted route, which takes 52 minutes in total.

Now someone is going to point out that the ST did indeed suggest taking the shorter route if the southbound train arrives first at Ang Mo Kio. But why would anyone take the longer route even if the northbound train arrives first? We often have to wait pretty long for trains to arrive, but the difference can’t be as large as 18 minutes, which is the difference in travel time between the short route and the long route. During peak hours the time between trains is negligible and waiting for the next train is almost painless.

OK, it may well be true that the person profiled in this case, Ms Conceicao, did indeed take the long route on occasion, but her choice to do so despite the obvious disadvantages should not lead the newspaper to convey the longer route as a typical route. If someone chooses to ride his daily train to its endpoint and then disembark, get on the train going back the way he came, and alight at his non-endpoint stop, would I report his little habit in an article on the vagaries of public transport? When we want to demonstrate how inefficient and troublesome taking public transport is, shouldn’t we portray the most efficient (cost- and time-wise) route for our chosen starting point and destination, instead of deliberately adding to the inefficiency?

This is not the only ridiculous spin the ST is putting on Ms Conceicao’s commute. Apparently Ms Conceicao is also in the habit of taking a taxi from Buona Vista MRT to Heng Mui Keng Terrace. This taxi fare of course accounts for most of the $7.86 cost of the featured commute. While a taxi is the fastest way to get from Buona Vista MRT to Heng Mui Keng terrace, there is in fact a straight bus (200) that goes from Buona Vista MRT to the junction of Heng Mui Keng Terrace and Pasir Panjang Rd. Ms Conceicao’s workplace, the Institute of Policy Studies, is a short walk from the bus stop at that junction. Another option is to take bus 95 from Buona Vista MRT to the NUS campus, where there is a complimentary internal shuttle that stops very near Heng Mui Keng Terrace. In short, it is completely unnecessary for Ms Conceicao to cab from Buona Vista MRT to her workplace. Of course, a cab is going to be faster than a bus, but the bus is going to be a darn sight cheaper. Ms Conceicao did not have to take a ridiculously circuitous route, pay $7.86, and 1 hour and 20 minutes to get from home to work each way. She could have taken the shorter MRT route, and/or she could have forgone the taxi ride. The ST’s inflation of the cost and time required for her commute smacks of sensationalism.

Perhaps one of the most telling indicators of elitism and stereotyping in Singapore is the question “What school were you from?” Even primary schools are taken as indicators of character and intelligence. Employers routinely insist on knowing which secondary school and JC you were from, even if you have tertiary qualifications. In casual social interactions, the question is used as a springboard to a slew of generalizations. “Oh you were from X? Then you must be such-and-such!” Not always spoken aloud of course.

Apparently, even our Dear Leader falls prey to this irrational tendency to evaluate a person in the light of her educational qualifications. He asked a journalist at a press conference what school she went to, even though she’d asked him a question completely irrelevant to education (and, indeed, irrelevant to her education in particular). One hopes that he was simply being mean and doesn’t really think that information was at all relevant to the issue at hand. Yes, this is what one is reduced to hoping for from our leaders.