The Problem with Hotels offering Transit Rates

This issue was highlighted in Parliament.

Let's take a look at who and what are involved in this issue.

Home Owners:

They own a property next to a building with some shops or a plot of land zoned Commercial. Next thing you know, Hotel X, infamous for its transit rates, takes up part of the building, then its competitor, Hotel Y, also infamous for its transit rates, takes up the other part of the building. Soon, what used to be a quiet cluster of shops has become a vice node with 'walkers' strutting the streets. Home owners then demonstrate their displeasure through various channels, i.e. complaints to URA, Hotel Licensing Board etc, or write to forums hosted by mainstream media.

Hotel Owners:

Offering the transit option is a significant income stream. It's part of product differentiation. In fact, for their hotels in certain areas such as within Geylang and/or away from touristy areas, it's quite clear that those rely heavily on transit customers. But there are different types of transit customers. This will be elaborated later.

Service Providers:

These include the prostitutes and their distribution channels such as the pimps and lookouts.

Authorities:

This is the interesting one. Why don't the authorities put a stop to this situation? It's already costing quite a few points.

The authorities involved are:

• Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) (decides where hotels are located through landuse)
• Hotel Licensing Board (HLB) (controls the operations of hotels through licensing). 
• Their respective ministries are Ministry of National Development and Ministry of Trade and Industry.

How about making vice trade illegal?

You mean eliminating the vice trade? For that, you'd have to sterilise everyone.

As our population increase exponentially, the demand for prostitutes will increase accordingly too.

While it's not possible to eliminate the vice trade in Singapore, it's possible to limit/contain the extent of the vice trade, e.g. the supply of prostitutes, the place of business etc.

Why can't the authorities disallow the development of hotels near residential areas?

Ok, this is gonna sound weird... Just try to understand it...

Hotels can be developed on land parcels zoned 'Hotel' or 'Commercial'. Those hotels causing problems near residential areas are usually on parcels zoned 'Commercial'.

These commercial spaces are planned such that they will serve the adjacent residential areas by turning into a grocery shop, hairdresser, kopitiam, office etc... If you are lucky, these spaces becomes a Holland Village... If you are not... because the list of allowable commercial uses includes 'hotel', the commercial spaces may become a couple of hotels with hourly rates, attracting the vice trade.

So why not disallow 'hotel' as one of the possible uses under 'Commercial' zone, especially for those near residential areas?

Theoretically, that's possible. It'll be like refining a large blunt tool.

But non-action can always be argued for because not all hotels = transit = problem. Hence, it's 'heavy-handed' and/or 'not pro-business' to remove 'hotel' as one of the allowable uses.

Why can't the authorities make the transit option for hotels illegal altogether?

Fundamentally, the transit option is not the problem.

Not everyone who rents a hotel room for 2 hours is doing so with a prostitute. The transit option serves a somewhat important function, i.e. it allows couples who do not have a place of their own (e.g. cannot afford a place of their own, waiting for HDB flat to be built etc) to buy 2 hours of privacy.

The problem is what else the transit option attracts. And most unfortunately, the transit option fertilises the vice trade. The presence of a transit hotel encourages prostitutes to hang around it, waiting for business.

To exacerbate this situation, a couple of such hotel chains engage in 'pairing strategy', i.e. if Hotel X starts a branch in an area, its competitor (Hotel Y) will do so immediately just a few doors away. This creates a larger supply of ready rooms within that area (a vice node) encouraging more prostitutes to hang around. This is evident in Kovan (as seen in the pic above).

And in some areas, these hotel chains start more than 1 branch along the same street, in addition to the pairing strategy. This instantly creates a cluster of transit hotels, i.e. a potential 'vice hub'.

It's quite clear that the prostitutes follow wherever these transit hotels make their appearances. This means if the transit option is disallowed altogether, the vice trade will have to find alternative place of business, i.e. be shifted to elsewhere. Shifting elsewhere may not just mean shifting out of hotels, but also spreading it into... housing estates... the bushes... the parks etc.

The vice trade has to go on.

Hence, banning transit option for hotels is not helping the situation at all.

Ok, what about disallowing the transit option for hotels near residential areas, e.g. if within 200m of residential area, no transit option allowed for hotels?

Sounds good eh? But imagine the impact this rule will have on Geylang.

If such a rule was approved, few or no transit hotels would continue to operate in Geylang... because along with hotels, there are many residential apartments dotting Geylang.

Once again, the effect will be spreading the vice trade elsewhere. Major spreading of vice outside of Geylang. Ditto for any other smaller vice nodes near to residential areas.

Fine... What about keeping Geylang as it is, but applying the "no transit option near residential area" rule outside of Geylang?

Ok, this seems like a possible solution, right?

But life isn't that simple, especially if you are the government. You are always in a dilemma.

Adopting such an approach would mean that the government was acknowledging Geylang as 'significant' in terms of the vice trade. The government would have to draw a boundary, i.e. where the vice starts/stops. Ironically, this becomes messy because of what happens once a boundary is drawn: Does acknowledging Geylang mean that prostitution is now 'legal' anywhere within the boundary? What about pimping/soliciting? Or any other vice-related issues? Does this mean more of such activities can blossom in Geylang, e.g. can you building a 7-storey vice superstore?

And what about those non-vice trade people who live in Geylang? Wouldn't they be unhappy with Geylang now becoming officially a 'vice hub'? How are the MPs of Jalan Besar GRC gonna deal with this?

And why stop at Geylang? How about other areas which are traditional vice areas such as Desker Road? Are they going to be excluded/included? And if so, they will be 'acknowledged' as vice hubs too... then the residents nearby will complain...

You get the drift... Slippery slope... *slide*

So, what's the solution?

It becomes a convoluted solution of pinning the responsibility of avoiding vice activities on the hotel operator, i.e. don't let us catch you allowing vice activities to take place in your hotel. If caught, we suspend your licence. See the case of Shing Hotel.

The keywords here are 'if caught'.

Meanwhile, you can't stop females hanging around on the public walkway outside a hotel. It's not a crime to hang around... If you ask them what they are doing there, they'd say,"Waiting for a friend." This means a game of cat and mouse between the service providers and the authorities.

Just imagine how much resources have to go into this for it to effective? There are at least a hundred transit hotels in Singapore.