Are we all stupid to agree to the COE system?

[Joseph22]

They will tell you.

 

We are refering to singapore only why bring in other country.

Then the next thing is they mention other country no COE and Car cheaper.

 

No, if my salary has increased by 10 times.

 

We have to blame ourselves for causing all these. If we earn and spend wisely, the price of goods will not move north so fast. It is "we" who want to have nice food, nice ride, nice home, nice holiday, nice toys, nice this and nice that. With this trend keeps going on, our salary will always not enough, thanks to the bank who offer credit card to help you keep spending.

 

In Singapore, although the price of COE, HDB and etc is considered sky high to some who complaints, try go to Bangkok, Jakarta or KL and stay there using their standard and average earning, you will see how fortunate Singapore is. That is why so many FT flocking into Singapore despite the high price they have to pay for transportation and home.

[Bystander50]

if delivery company have to increase its product cost because of a 50 to 100K increase in transportation. i dont think it is doing well in the first place.

 

Recently we've heard of coffee stalls planning to increase the price of their drinks because of the rise in the coffee beans, it doesn't mean that these drinks stalls are not doing well right? The question is how much are these companies willing to absorb, don't forget, COE is only part of the operating costs, there are others affecting the company as well, causing a cascading effect.

 

 

[Tigerr1001]

They will tell you.

 

We are refering to singapore only why bring in other country.

Then the next thing is they mention other country no COE and Car cheaper.

 

 

If like that, ask "them" to study hard and join the government and become one of the minister and change the rules on the COE. May be, after that, they might change their tone and views of how COE works, because they may start to quote other countries.

[Vinlis77]

Fully agreed. Well said.

[Tigerr1001]

Recently we've heard of coffee stalls planning to increase the price of their drinks because of the rise in the coffee beans, it doesn't mean that these drinks stalls are not doing well right? The question is how much are these companies willing to absorb, don't forget, COE is only part of the operating costs, there are others affecting the company as well, causing a cascading effect.

 

 

If they want to increase the price of the coffee, it is ok. nothing wrong. Free market, willing buyer, willing seller. Nothing to complaint about. You can do your part in countering them who want to reap higher profits. If you drink coffee everyday at the stall, try to cut down by alternating day. The coffee stall will get higher profits per glass of coffee but less business, sooner, they will close shop or realize customers turning away and business affected.

 

However, many of the people if not everybody, is expecting others to do that and not themselves. So, nothing will change and complaints will keep coming up.

[Aaron_soh80]

Is impossible to have win win suitation..

[Joseph22]

If you are thinking that Coffee Bean and delivery company are the same, you are every wrong.

 

I am saying this from a position of a experts that deals with those so called company you are talking about.

 

Recently we've heard of coffee stalls planning to increase the price of their drinks because of the rise in the coffee beans, it doesn't mean that these drinks stalls are not doing well right? The question is how much are these companies willing to absorb, don't forget, COE is only part of the operating costs, there are others affecting the company as well, causing a cascading effect.

[Radiomir]

agreed to the system = stupid

against to the system = lagi stupid

 

make your choose.......

 

SO true.... sad but true...

 

[Voxy28]

Zero sum game for COEs

 

By Christopher Tan

 

Zero growth rate.

 

The spectre of a further cut in the allowable annual growth in vehicle population was raised again several weeks ago. But this time, the suggestion took on a palpable weightiness because it was uttered by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, and backed by Dr Lim Wee Kiak who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport.

 

 

The logic behind the call seems sound.

 

The local vehicle population continued to bust the growth cap despite the stipulated growth rate being halved to 1.5 per cent last year (2009).

 

As at end-September this year, the vehicle population stood at 941,642, up 2.6 per cent from the same time last year.

 

The passenger car population was up 3.7 per cent to 580,812. As such, traffic congestion remains bad. Or so the argument goes. But bringing the allowable growth rate down to zero will not solve the problem.

 

Not only that, it will give rise to another set of problems: an ageing car population, and with it, possible consequences in pollution and safety.

 

Let us look at the age profile of cars here over the years. In 2007, before COE supplies began to slide sharply, cars that were six years or older made up 9.1 per cent of the population. As at end-September this year, this cohort made up 11.7 per cent of cars here.

 

To prove that this is not the effect of 2007's population coming of age, let us look at the age make-up five years prior to 2007.

 

In 2002, cars that were six years old or more made up 34.7 per cent of the population. (Comparisons with earlier years would be irrelevant because the scrap rebate scheme was changed in 2002.)

 

Car COE supplies (including the Open category) for the three respective quota years were 104,882 (2007), 63,415 (2010), and 66,387 (2002). Hence, there seems to be a faint correlation between COE supply and vehicle population age profile.

 

The smaller the supply, the older the cars tend to be.

 

The phenomenon will have implications on roadworthiness - despite Singapore's mandatory vehicle inspection regime.

 

New automotive technologies, including those that will enhance driving safety and reduce exhaust emissions, will also take a longer time to permeate into the population here as motorists hang on to their old carriages.

 

And as people hang on to their cars for a longer period, the number of deregistrations will fall. This in turn reduces the number of COEs in the forthcoming year.

 

Going for zero growth rate is likely to reinforce this vicious circle. And once that happens, the circle will be a hard one to break.

 

Policy-makers need to approach the problem of congestion more holistically, such as applying more measures to curb vehicle usage, and ramping up the service level and reach of public transport.

 

Reviewing land use policies to reduce the need for commuting should also be the longer-term goal. Curbing usage is easier said than done, though.

 

High electronic road pricing rates may have a political price, especially when the motoring public is made to bear painfully high car prices.

 

The higher the sunk cost, the more inelastic demand for road space will be - or so the economists say.

 

Policy-makers will have to achieve a fine balance between controlling the vehicle population growth and tempering vehicle usage.

 

Relying inordinately more on one or the other can have dire consequences, including those impacting road safety and the environment.

The writer is the consulting editor of Torque magazine, a publication of SPH Magazines. The December issue is out at newsstands now.

 

[Gt2929]

For those who support higher COEs, you are the people who indirectly cause the rate of inflation to shoot up.

 

Delivery companies will have to pay more to secure a vehicle and translate to higher cost for delivery, utimately much costly products.

The hawker will increase his prices next so that he can buy and maintain his current lifestyle of owning a vehicle either for status or delivery purposes.

And the chain of reaction just goes down the line. It's no ending, ultimately everyone suffers.

 

Hmmmm hawker why hawker? You got problem with hawker?

[Galantspeedz]

Fully agreed. Well said.

 

he never say anything leh.. how to agree?

[Sgnick]

Relying inordinately more on one or the other can have dire consequences, including those impacting road safety and the environment.

 

Asking the govt to choose between safety/environment VS collecting hundreds of millions dollars every month, anyone want to make a guess which one govt will choose?

 

They need to justify their world highest and still increasing salary you know?

[Unltd]

Zero sum game for COEs

 

By Christopher Tan

 

Zero growth rate.

 

The spectre of a further cut in the allowable annual growth in vehicle population was raised again several weeks ago. But this time, the suggestion took on a palpable weightiness because it was uttered by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, and backed by Dr Lim Wee Kiak who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport.

 

 

The logic behind the call seems sound.

 

The local vehicle population continued to bust the growth cap despite the stipulated growth rate being halved to 1.5 per cent last year (2009).

 

As at end-September this year, the vehicle population stood at 941,642, up 2.6 per cent from the same time last year.

 

The passenger car population was up 3.7 per cent to 580,812. As such, traffic congestion remains bad. Or so the argument goes. But bringing the allowable growth rate down to zero will not solve the problem.

 

Not only that, it will give rise to another set of problems: an ageing car population, and with it, possible consequences in pollution and safety.

 

Let us look at the age profile of cars here over the years. In 2007, before COE supplies began to slide sharply, cars that were six years or older made up 9.1 per cent of the population. As at end-September this year, this cohort made up 11.7 per cent of cars here.

 

To prove that this is not the effect of 2007's population coming of age, let us look at the age make-up five years prior to 2007.

 

In 2002, cars that were six years old or more made up 34.7 per cent of the population. (Comparisons with earlier years would be irrelevant because the scrap rebate scheme was changed in 2002.)

 

Car COE supplies (including the Open category) for the three respective quota years were 104,882 (2007), 63,415 (2010), and 66,387 (2002). Hence, there seems to be a faint correlation between COE supply and vehicle population age profile.

 

The smaller the supply, the older the cars tend to be.

 

The phenomenon will have implications on roadworthiness - despite Singapore's mandatory vehicle inspection regime.

 

New automotive technologies, including those that will enhance driving safety and reduce exhaust emissions, will also take a longer time to permeate into the population here as motorists hang on to their old carriages.

 

And as people hang on to their cars for a longer period, the number of deregistrations will fall. This in turn reduces the number of COEs in the forthcoming year.

 

Going for zero growth rate is likely to reinforce this vicious circle. And once that happens, the circle will be a hard one to break.

 

Policy-makers need to approach the problem of congestion more holistically, such as applying more measures to curb vehicle usage, and ramping up the service level and reach of public transport.

 

Reviewing land use policies to reduce the need for commuting should also be the longer-term goal. Curbing usage is easier said than done, though.

 

High electronic road pricing rates may have a political price, especially when the motoring public is made to bear painfully high car prices.

 

The higher the sunk cost, the more inelastic demand for road space will be - or so the economists say.

 

Policy-makers will have to achieve a fine balance between controlling the vehicle population growth and tempering vehicle usage.

 

Relying inordinately more on one or the other can have dire consequences, including those impacting road safety and the environment.

The writer is the consulting editor of Torque magazine, a publication of SPH Magazines. The December issue is out at newsstands now.

 

This way also can, either damned high car prices to make it unaffordable to own a car, or damned high usage charges to deter usage. Not what we expriencing now, some halfway policy making our roads super conjested.

 

There was a period when the hourly carpark prices around raffles city area was substantially increased (think during YOG), parking was a breeze, driving around was a breeze cause less ppl willing to drive and park there. Felt like the old days of driving again...

[Jaf78]

i just work out how much they generate from the COE base on today bidding exercis

 

S$95,598,341

 

For all the papers. We get this twice per month

 

i dont even hv the paper.. i only see the printed figure on my log card...

[1fast1]

Bro, by transferring the barrier from initial cost to running cost has the same impact isn't it? With the latter, we induce people to buy and keep the car at home? Isn't this tantamount to wastage? Why should our policies benefit car companies?

 

I mean there is absolutely no way that anyone can reduce congestion and increase car ownership. With COE system, the tool can be used to increase the barrier of car ownership thereby achieving immediate impact. The latter creates confusion as every time one uses the car, no one knows how much you will be charged and it could be abused if left uncheck.

 

I rather we have COE system which clearly define the cost of ownership.....

 

Hi Bro - sorry I did not reply to this earlier.

 

It's not quite the same impact overall. To a frequent road user, it may be the same impact (or preferably, even worse with the new system - to act as a real disincentive), but the impact to other players is very different.

 

In the first place, people are going to buy cars no matter what. And judging by the nice, expensive cars that are so prevalent on the roads, a lot of people are not buying cars simply for point A to point B convenience, they're buying them as a lifestyle statement. To maintain "face" if you want to call it that. The SG gahmen knows how important car ownership is to the average citizen's psyche, and this is why they actually made car ownership much easier a few years back. The fools rushed in, enriched the gahmen coffers, and then they pulled the rug out from everyone's feet. And now we've come back full circle, nudging historical COE highs.

 

Perversely, the *more expensive* you make car ownership, the *greater* the desire and demand to own one is going to be. People hanker after exclusivity, this is why a lady will pay through the nose for an LV, Chanel or Hermes bag when a $5 Chinatown bag will serve her just as well (in a purely utilitarian sense). So making car ownership more expensive (and hence more exclusive and sought-after) is NOT the solution. It's to make car ownership highly affordable, and in keeping with the standards in the rest of the world.

 

Now car utilisation - that's a different story. That's the root cause of the traffic crunch in our country, and that's the place the measures need to hit home. Which is why I proposed the GPS-based road tax (while scrapping all the other barriers to car ownership). This, together with a greatly improved public transport system, will encourage people to buy nice cars (the dream cars they've always wanted), yet take PT on a daily basis. Many car owners, having bought a car so dearly, would be disinclined toward leaving their expensive, depcreciating liabilities moldering at home while taking PT everywhere. If the barrier to car ownership were to be brought down steeply - while the cost of actually driving the car on the road were to go up sharply - then the calculus of this decision would change and people would be happier to leave their now-cheap-but-really-nice cars parked at home and take the train to work and other places. The cars would now be used only for limited weekend and up-country (Northward) driving. Congestion eliminated.

 

You mentioned wastage. In fact, the current system is terribly wasteful of resources. We're now forced to give up to scrap cars that still have many useful years of life left. I propose we demolish this dumb, artificial 10-year limit (the abolition of the COE is the natural start) and let people keep their nice cars till they decide to change them. Having less miles on them (because of the penalties on usage) would mean they remain roadworthy for far longer. OK, maybe we can continue to impose periodic roadworthiness inspections, but at a lower frequency and with far less onerousness than now. Say every 5 years - I think that would be acceptable to most people.

 

You brought up "benefiting car companies". In point of fact, the current situation greatly favours profiteering by car dealers. The wild (and often unpredictable) swings in COE prices have made it a highly-speculative industry. The entire system has been sewn up to the advantage of the car dealers - the cost of the COE (or rather a forward-looking projection thereof) is now in a "black-box" mixed up with the unknown profit margin. There's no way to tell where the COE ends and the dealer profit begins. And when you try to outsmart them by going in with a pre-purchased COE, they slap a surcharge on you, effectively penalising your initiative in having bid for a COE yourself. Private citizens *cannot* win with this system.

 

Compare this to a system where the prices of cars are transparent, and comparable to those in other countries. The only factors coming into play are the fair market value in international markets and the relative currency strengths. Noone would be able to pull wool over the eyes of the people anymore. Isn't this a much more equitable system?

 

Anyway, just some food for thought. Merry Xmas, etc.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Turboflat4

[Vios484]

STUPID is when you are given a choice and you make the decision. In our case, there were none.

 

IMHO, COE by bidding is a lousy system. As the fluctuation swing from a few K to tens of K is too much and too fast to warrant COE as a good system.

[Kangadrool]

They should tighten CAT A, B and open CAT further. Abolish motorcycle COE. Why no COE for bicycle (2 wheels), but need COE for motorcycle (also 2 wheels)? IMO, bicycle caused more congestion by slowing down the traffic flow. Motorcycle is the reverse - it speeds up the traffic compared to if the motorcyclist were to use alternative personal transport like bicycle or car. [laugh]

[Fresh]

I felt compelled to correct your hokkien/singlish

 

please hor, kns, hokkien also cannot, english also cannot, I'm sure chinese also cannot... dunno what can.

 

I bo tak chia. So pls lon collect my en-go-lish. If i wan eng-go-lish lisson, i will goat to learn eng-go-lish folum.

I bo tak cheh (chia is probably car)

Wow lau ai, in office must speak good english, email must beware of grammar, u all not sian ar, come talk c--k forum still wan British england?

Wa/Wah Lau/Lao Eh/Ay, not Wow lau ai

nin pai bo lee lan ai nai seow on....

Nim/Lim Peh bo lee/lu lang ah nee seow/siow on