What drives the increase in traffic summons?

With the recent outsourcing of the traffic warden, the scheme seemed largely successful in bringing in errant drivers, not to mention the huge fine accumulated in the process. What is interesting is not how a part of law enforcement can be outsourced but why the huge difference in the outcome compared to before outsourcing?

For years, the traffic wardens came under the preview of the Traffic Police, a governmental organisation. The Traffic Police had been largely successful with regards to maintain some discipline with drivers in Singapore. This is evident from the low accident and other small traffic violations eg indiscriminate parking figures. Just when traffic enforcement seemed almost perfect, the need to cut cost, like all governmental departments here, has presented a new problem. How to cut cost and still have at least similar level of traffic enforcement? Outsourcing seemed to be the answer, at least when it comes to issuing summons.

Why is then outsourcing is so effective when it comes to issuing summons? Singapore has been known for its efficiency government departments, and so it comes as a surprise that the Traffic Police has fallen short. Is it an isolated problem or is this part of a more inherent problem found in most governmental departments? Maybe there is something to be learned here from the private sector.

As outsourcing is about the bottomline, it is very difficult not to equate the sudden increase in summons issued with some form of monetary returns. Since the motorists are essentially the same, the only factor that has changed is the way summons are given. What are some of these factors?

I am not sure if a tender is called for the outsourcing exercise, but the idea is the same whatever methods used. A sum of money is given by the Traffic Police to the outsourcee to check on traffic offences. This means that the outsourcee will have to hire people to run the service. As no company will provide a service if there is no potential financial gain, one wonders where the source of monetary gain is for the outsourcee. Does the source of profit comes from the number of summons issued? Or do they get a cut from the amount of fine accumulated?

If there are no profits involved for the outsourcee, what is the other possible impetus for them to issue summons to motorists? Maybe it is performance. Anybody with MBA will tell you that if you want to improve something, it must be measured. Hence, if the outsourcee is hoping to renew their contract with the Traffic Police, then they have to prove their worth. How so other than to reflect this through summons issued. If this is the case, then there is no reason to outdo the Traffic Police by a very large margin, since as long as there is an increase from the Traffic Police summons, they have already proven their worth. As a result there is no need to hire many traffic wardens, as less traffic warden means less expenditure and higher profits. The fact that there are now more traffic warden on the streets make this reasoning less likely. More likely the outsourcee is profit-driven and hence the increase in summons issued.

Is this outsourcing necessarily bad? I don't think so. Although the outsourcee maybe profit driven, society has indirectly benefitted from it. Where traffic infringement were largely left undetected previously, now the culprits are taken to task. This has reduced the hassles and inconvenience to the other more law-abiding motorists. Errant motorists may cry foul but at the end of the day, all road users will benefit from such outsourcing.