COE solutions??

[Docomospur]

Another clown suggestion......sighhhhhh

 

 

Limit small-car COE category to Asean-made models

IT IS timely for the certificate of entitlement (COE) categories to be reviewed as engine capacity is no longer the sole determinant of a car's size and status, with prestigious European brands appearing in the Category A segment ("Govt closely studying ideas to improve COE system"; last Friday).

 

Category A should continue to be for cars under 1,600cc, but be limited to models manufactured within the Asean region.

 

There are four reasons for this:

 

First, car manufacturers that have set up factories in Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia have developed models specifically for Asean, for instance, the Toyota Vios and Honda City. These models are smaller and more affordable than the mainstream models.

 

Second, Indonesia has become a hub for small sub-1,600cc seven-seater multi-purpose vehicle (MPV) production. Models such as the Suzuki APV and Daihatsu Terios 7 are manufactured only in Indonesia. Honda, Nissan and Toyota also make small MPVs in Indonesia, but the present COE prices make them unattractive for sale here.

 

Third, Asean models are more eco-friendly. Nissan, Honda and Mitsubishi have introduced eco-friendly models in response to Thai government regulations for cars manufactured there. But we do not get these eco-friendly models here.

 

Fourth, Singapore should support fellow Asean members and send a signal to the world's carmakers that they should invest in the region. After all, jobs created in a neighbouring Asean country benefit Singapore as well.

 

Lee Chen Chung

 

Sigh, ST publishing all sorts of poorly thought-through suggestions.

[Thedream]

Not true. Car population problem is an issue even in the non- CBD area.

 

It probably depends on what hour of the day more than location.

 

I stay in cck and work at ntu. Journey will take at least 30mins if I leave home at 8am. It is just jam from cck all the way to NTU. It is just queueing to get out of home carpark, queueing at traffic lights, queueing to get onto expressway KJE, queueing to move along KJE, queueing to exit KJE, queueing to enter NTU, queueing to move along the single lane roads in NTU, queueing to enter my carpark...typical overall average speed without traffic accident is about 15-20km/hr. If somebody has an accident on kje, then jialat liao, can't even get out of 1st gear.

 

Same journey will only take 12-15mins if I leave home at 11am.

 

Even if I used lim chu kang road instead of kje, traffic is equally bad.

 

Traffic used to be much lighter just 5-6years ago.

 

When you quoted my previous post, you left out the portion which would answer your argument.

 

I don't think it is just about decentralisation. People must be incentivised to stay near their workplace. Just knowing that they can save time by staying near their workplace is not enough. Instead of putting so much money in building new expressways, new train tracks, more buses, etc. Incentivise people and even their employers for housing near their workplace.

[Warthog]

In short, CAT A should be for low value cars for the budget consumer.

 

Problem : You need a simple yardstick to define "low value cars" which doesn't need to be revised regularly and easy to administer from regulation point of view.

 

Suggestion:

1) cc

2) omv

3) hp

4) sale price

5) physical dimension

 

The majority of the rich would not buy low value cars even if it is cheap e.g. Chery, Geely, Hafei which is designed for the lower end market.

[Taipan49]

Absolutely correct.

 

Cut down the demand. As I mentioned earlier, use motorbikes, bicycles wherever possible. As they have managed with some success in Netherlands.

 

All for increase of bicycle usage, but again the planners have gotten it wrong with the PCN network. They have designed PCNs to connect parks and lost the opportunity to link residential estates with business areas alongside this. I even wrote to NParks and they said that this wasn't the purpose of PCNs. So they are building more PCNs, but they will be limited in helping those who are interested in converting to bike commuting as they don't actually link places where people actually want to go.

[Maseratigood]

Someone suggested in ST forum today that instead of asking bidders to bid for COE price, why not make bidders bid for a percentage? ie if he bids 80% he pays for his COE cert at a value of 80% of the OMV of the car he buys. If he is getting a $1m supercar, so be it. If he is getting a low cost B&B car, same 80% applies also.

[Kar_lover]

Someone suggested in ST forum today that instead of asking bidders to bid for COE price, why not make bidders bid for a percentage? ie if he bids 80% he pays for his COE cert at a value of 80% of the OMV of the car he buys. If he is getting a $1m supercar, so be it. If he is getting a low cost B&B car, same 80% applies also.

 

Will still need to create different categories for the B&B cars and supercars. Otherwise the system will heavily favour the B&B car. Why should the system favour a Kia Optima which has lower OMV vs a 5 series which is about the same size but has much higher OMV? They will both cause the same congestive effect on the roads.

 

Govt is not (and should not be) biased towards any particular types of car for reasons of value/brand, etc. They should only favour cars which are better for the community, eg. eco-friendly cars.

 

The current situation of Cat A being dominated by luxury (and semi luxury) brands is not the govt's fault. It was the importers/distributors that changed their strategy to suit the changing environment.

 

 

 

 

[Vextan]

Guys, is it true that COE price is going to go up this year, due to the shrinkage of the COE supply ? Just heard about it but didnt read the analysis. Thanks.

[Hosaybo]

actually people who complain are just not happy that the current coe price are making cars out of reach for them. Don't see anyone complaining when it is cheap. COE does limit car population, not the price becos eventually it is the number that counts.

 

I personally have no issue on COE, but is of the opinion that gov/LTA screw up i the way it was manage resulting in this see-saw of supply and demand. If this has been better managed , taking into consideration infrastructure/population consideration, the price will be far more consistent with not so drastic fluctuation.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Hosaybo

[Monxtre]

Guys, is it true that COE price is going to go up this year, due to the shrinkage of the COE supply ? Just heard about it but didnt read the analysis. Thanks.

 

Yes. The way i see it, should pass $100k for both Cats.

[Silver_blade]

Another clown suggestion......sighhhhhh

 

 

Limit small-car COE category to Asean-made models

IT IS timely for the certificate of entitlement (COE) categories to be reviewed as engine capacity is no longer the sole determinant of a car's size and status, with prestigious European brands appearing in the Category A segment ("Govt closely studying ideas to improve COE system"; last Friday).

 

Category A should continue to be for cars under 1,600cc, but be limited to models manufactured within the Asean region.

 

There are four reasons for this:

 

First, car manufacturers that have set up factories in Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia have developed models specifically for Asean, for instance, the Toyota Vios and Honda City. These models are smaller and more affordable than the mainstream models.

 

Second, Indonesia has become a hub for small sub-1,600cc seven-seater multi-purpose vehicle (MPV) production. Models such as the Suzuki APV and Daihatsu Terios 7 are manufactured only in Indonesia. Honda, Nissan and Toyota also make small MPVs in Indonesia, but the present COE prices make them unattractive for sale here.

 

Third, Asean models are more eco-friendly. Nissan, Honda and Mitsubishi have introduced eco-friendly models in response to Thai government regulations for cars manufactured there. But we do not get these eco-friendly models here.

 

Fourth, Singapore should support fellow Asean members and send a signal to the world's carmakers that they should invest in the region. After all, jobs created in a neighbouring Asean country benefit Singapore as well.

 

Lee Chen Chung

Silly. There are other more effective ways to attract car makers to this region....and how does Singapore benefit from this? Might as well suggest COE cat for a specific group base on income Cat A for those earning $40k or less, etc...?

 

COE need to be tweaked to keep it relevant...but not as what the writer suggests.

 

I feel categorise car base on BHP, CO2 emmision, supercars, etc...may be more feasible but need to be looked into these in greater details.

 

[Silver_blade]

Didn't see so much noise and creative solutions like now when there was abundance of COE in 2008-2011...

Have...a lot was complaining cars were too cheap and suggest $100K COE, full cash payment, $50 ERP per pass , etc...to price the peasants out car ownership.

[7007]

Have...a lot was complaining cars were too cheap and suggest $100K COE, full cash payment, $50 ERP per pass , etc...to price the peasants out car ownership.

 

hahaha... just different group of people only...the earth is round...

 

End of the day...life goes on!

[Maseratigood]

Will still need to create different categories for the B&B cars and supercars. Otherwise the system will heavily favour the B&B car. Why should the system favour a Kia Optima which has lower OMV vs a 5 series which is about the same size but has much higher OMV? They will both cause the same congestive effect on the roads.

 

Govt is not (and should not be) biased towards any particular types of car for reasons of value/brand, etc. They should only favour cars which are better for the community, eg. eco-friendly cars.

 

The current situation of Cat A being dominated by luxury (and semi luxury) brands is not the govt's fault. It was the importers/distributors that changed their strategy to suit the changing environment.

Agreed that it's good to factor environmental impacts into pricing/categories for COE distribution.

 

Btw, a car is, first and foremost, to bring us from point A to point B and the more it is available to the masses who use it within the COE quota the better for the community as a whole without skewing the ownership towards the user group who want luxury and add-ons etc. Such a group is free to have the luxuries as long as they pay for it under the % system as suggested by that writer.

 

It's not so much as favoring some brands as trying to make car ownership basically for the purpose of moving from A to B.

 

Also, I don't think that the writer is putting the blame on anyone or the govt, it's just an attempt to figure out some tweaks to the current system and the govt doesn't have to be so defensive.

[Tarmac]

Long Version

I have no answer but thought that the title in this topic was a bit odd. For me, the COE system is LTA's implemented solution to manage road traffic through control of car population. How successful and effective it is would depend on the view point one is assuming. Now we are looking for a solution to the solution? Are we looking at something more akin to a tweak? I have my doubts that tweaking alone can resolve the current predicament.

 

We ought to look at traffic and population management together. Today, there is not enough to go around. Given the amount of road space and densely packed residents, demand easily outstripped supply and the situation is unlikely to change in the coming years. Providing dependable, comfortable and accessible public transport is one positive step. However, along with the Park & Ride, Car-Free Day, forming regional hubs to reduce commuting distances, etc should be sustained with greater implementations that impact daily drivers. The ERP is another animal altogether.

 

Short Version

The current COE is a blunt device and not an equitable solution as it is based on a highest-bidder-takes-all principle.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Tarmac

[Kar_lover]

Please stop suggesting to dismantle the existing bidding system and replace it with balloting or 2-tier direct allocation. Won't happen without a political revolution. Even then, whichever opposition party in power would be stupid to reject a proven tax revenue spinner.

 

The clearest way forward to fix the existing system is:

 

- buyer pay-as-u-bid with deposit of full bid into LTA pocket.

LTA can take up to 90-days to refund unsuccessful bids so as to choke liquidity further. Can also collect driving licence details at time of bid too so that can dangle income tax rebates/offsets for lower-income family men who buy new entry-level / low OMV cars before elections.

Let's also remember the aim of this action: Be a man and face your financial resources. By being lazy and ignorant, prefering dealers to bid, we actually play into their hands and pay the price of having to take loan for COE tax with interest.

 

-recategorise private car cats into 'low OMV' and 'high OMV', with $19,000 as dividing line.

Despite what some forumers believe, OMV is the clearest positioning of a car model as basic or premium/luxury because it directly reflects the vehicle's open market price. Price is what the brands use to differentiate model segments. Besides, COE is a tax/levy and if it is to fulfill the spirit of being 'progressive', it should hurt more for buyers of premium goods. I say let the richer folks hurt each other trying to outbid in the "high OMV" category for those lux/premium brands and models they covet.

 

-Maybe as new measure to stop existing car owners from hogging new COEs: additional levy of 50% of OMV if sell car before end of 5th year of COE lifespan.

I admit this is populist to give first-time car buyers more chance. Existing car owners now are vain and use the higher COE to switch cars after using for a couple of years, using the existing car scrap rebate as downpayment for new car. It will even moderate used car prices so more choices for all car buyers. Some may grouse that more 'old' cars on the road but I believe the aim of the COE and the rebates is to encourage each car owner to use the one car for the full 10-year lifespan.

 

(1) any system that favours the rich will not be well received.

 

(2) i think most agree OMV is good (although i think $25k~$30k might be a better dividing line and might need more than 1 dividing line, eg. another at $80k~$100k) but the problem of OMV based system is that of currency fluctuations (and maybe even freight costs, etc.). There will always be cars at the borderline where one month they are "luxury" and then another month they are "basic" car. But of course since OMV is largely up to the importer i suppose it is up to them to "ensure" a particular car stay below the luxury level. So any up and down in currency fluctuation is borne by them. By the way, the current ARF being 100% and GSTof 7% will also be taxing the high OMV cars a lot more than the low OMV cars, eg. $500K OMV Lambo/Ferrari/Bentley will all be paying half million in ARF compared to $15k OMV korean BB car. You should also suggest road tax have a multiplier on the OMV of the car. So a 1.6L car with $30k OMV will pay more road tax than a BB 1.6L car.

 

(3) if he is selling his car, he is not hogging COE right? Cos he is still holding on to only one car. might be better to impose surcharge for second car (something like property). And yes, maybe *some* car owners are "vain" and always want the latest model (much as those who keep buying the latest iphone) but why should they be punished for their interest/passion? How will preventing/discouraging them from changing alleviate congestion problem? If he doesn't buy, someone else will. If there is anything we have seen, any discount given to one will be made up by another. Meaning, with the introduction of CEVS revate, the COE prices shot up. Why? Cos ppl are already prepared to pay a certain price for a car. So the savings fromt he rebate are diverted to the COE bids. This might be the strongest reason yet that dealer are causing COE to reach higher than neccessary levels. Dealers should do what porsche does. List price of cars is without COE then the customer will tell them how much he willing to bid and dealer follows that instruction. In that way the dealer is not "gambling" with COE.

 

I don't think COE is meant to encourage ppl to use the car for full 10 yrs. Whether i drive the same car for 10 years or 5 cars for 2 years each, the congestion on the road contributed by me is the same.

[Tonyhawk]

theres very little wrong with the COE system per se. perhaps the tiers can switch around abit, but nothing drastic.

 

people are unhappy because the alternatives suck.

 

imo, tax the cars even more. stop building new roads and flyovers and what have you.

 

use the money to make public transport desirable again. make it less crowded, make it faster. every commuter gets a seat. free travel. get rid of the protection the privatised transport companies get. make it a real competitive market.

 

also, transport is not just buses and mrt, it involves the full suite of infrastructure, PROPERLY sheltered walkways, cooling fans , bicycle paths, and whatever. When it rains, suddenly half of the commuters want to drive/take a taxi.

 

other than orchard road, how far can you walk in singapore, fully sheltered? how many estates are served properly by shelters?

Edited January 17, 2013 by Tonyhawk

[Warthog]

Pay as u bid will lead to wide fluctuation of car prices (bad economics).

 

Bad for banks, financing companies, resale values, chaotic prices for the whole car industry (maybe good for used car dealers who will quote the lower bid prices).

 

It benefits the individual but not goood for the system. It seems fair for you, but it creates a host of other problems

[Tonyhawk]

the progressive taxation is already in the OMV tax.

 

COE is about controlling car population, lets face it, each car uses roughly the same space. the current cat A and B actually, a cop-out. should've been one category from the start.

 

pay-as-u bid is not a bad idea, but it has its cons. in anycase, it already is open-bidding, so there's very little difference, at least to me.

 

personally, if they can make the public transport so desirable, while getting the rich to subsidize the costs of public transport, car ownership is not even an issue. nobody would even care about owning a car. except for the mega rich. and those who really really really need and want to pay for it.

 

However, if we accept COE as a tax, then it has to be progressive and hit the lower-income less. Hence my lobbying for the recategorisation by OMV, and pay-as-u-bid.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Tonyhawk