Search the Community

Since no one started it. Let me show the latest bidding which closing at 4.00pm today...... A CAR UP TO 1600CC & 97KW 59,012 513 676 B CAR ABOVE 1600CC OR 97KW 70,001 483 775 C GOODS VEHICLE & BUS 35,999 389 703 D MOTORCYCLE 1 343 280 E OPEN 65,001 295 479

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) recently announced a 42 percent increase in Certificate of Entitlement (COE) quotas for the May - July period. How do you think COE prices will move in this quarter? http://www.sgcarmart.com/news/article.php?AID=10142

That a $60,000 COE is cheap and starts buying cars now that the B & B cars are around the $100,000 mark Seems like the ADs are expecting crowds to return to the showrooms this weekend. Insane?

Most people may not know that between 2003 and 2013, the car population jumped from 405,328 vehicles to 621,345 vehicles, a staggering 53% increase, according to official Land Transport Authority data. In the same period, the motorcycle population only increased from 134,767 vehicles to 144,307 vehicles, a 7% increase. Private cars now form 64% of the total vehicle population, while motorcycles make up 15%. Despite the minimal impact of motorcycles on road congestion and pollution, in the past four months, the Certificate of Entitlement premium for two-wheelers has increased 240% to $4,289 as the LTA has applied its one-size-fits-all formula to capping vehicle population growth in Singapore. While the LTA is doing the right thing in correcting the over-supply of COE in the past decade, it may not realize how its myopic approach in severely restricting the release of motorcycle COEs is hurting the motorcycling population and intensifying a growing social equity problem. In a country where the wage gap issue looms over many heartland discussions, the high cost of the motorcycle COE today hits even harder on the lower income folks. The majority of motorcycles (73%) in Singapore are small capacity bikes under 200cc (Class 2B) and many of these riders tend to be low-income earners who cannot afford a car. For those who work as dispatch riders or have to travel to industrial areas poorly served by public transport, their two wheels are an essential part of their daily workflow. The current quota premium for motorcycles is almost the cost of a new Class 2B motorcycle, and now many low-income earners are now being priced out of the market. It is a preposterous but increasingly real situation that very soon, only the rich can own either cars and motorcycles in Singapore. In the case of cars, the debate has been hot and furious over the price of car COEs. Yet you don’t hear the same outcry over motorcycles in the public sphere because the riding community does not have a strong voice. Singapore’s small size is a perennial problem and motorcycles have been the highly efficient transport solution for years. And they are much greener when compared to cars – motorcycles often enjoy low fuel consumption, cleaner emissions and take up less parking space. The LTA needs to re-examine how its current policies are hurting citizens who have not contributed to the country’s road congestion problem, but are now being made to pay a high price, literally and figuratively. Source: http://iantan.org/ Read from here.

I would like to share an interesting observation with everyone, this is probably old news to many MCFers, but I really don't wish to start a new discussion about the necessity of the COE or ERP, enough threads have been opened for them. According to the Budget 2013 website, vehicle quota premiums (ie COE) and motor vehicle related taxes (road tax, ERP etc) contribute to 4% of the government's revenue each. That means altogether, vehicle-related taxes make up 8% of the government's income every year! Now I'm no tax expert and I don't how much vehicle taxes contribute to government revenues in other countries (maybe there'a tax accountant here who can contribute?), but personally, I find 8% quite high for anywhere. The government probably didn't start out with the intention to get so much tax from vehicles, but as they tried to curb vehicle population and ease congestion, they end up collecting more and more and found it to be a convenient source of income. And when you can count on that source for next year's budget, it's natural that you might not want to disturb this fat goose. My real question is this: has collecting so much money been an effective way to manage vehicular growth? Personally, I think we've been put on a path where we cannot afford to cease the COE and ERP, or all hell will break loose when everyone gets easy access to a car, when there are not enough car parks and not enough lanes. We'll become a Bangkok or a KL. And if an alternate government does take power, they may not want to let go of this fat goose even if they know it's not been effective. What do you think?

am i right that it was later changed to 3 months average due to the extremely low successful bidding price during the mid to late 2000s? so is 3 months average an advantage for car owner or 12 months average better with lower premium to pay for extending COE? Why is it that the LTA is not reverting the changes after the COE price went back up to the peak like now?

Among the many letters The Straits Times received in recent months from folks who called for changes to the COE (certificate of entitlement) system, a few stood out – their writers suggested that the Government allocate COEs according to bidders’ needs. These readers wrote that people with jobs that require lots of commuting, or those with young children or taking care of aged parents, should be given priority access to cars. The suggestion is easy to dismiss as it appears ridiculous, impossibly cumbersome to apply and administer, and runs smack against the purity of the current capitalistic system – where the price mechanism decides who gets a COE. The COE system, which turns 23 this year, has proven largely effective in controlling Singapore’s vehicle population growth, even if the targeted rate of growth has not quite been met consistently. It is a clean, cold and calculated system that lets economics run its course. Supply, demand, competitive auction, transparency – ingredients which ensure that those who are most willing and most able to pay will get a new car. Why muddy it with needs-based components? Well, it is interesting to note that the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, one of Singapore’s greatest policy-makers, mooted such an idea back in the early 1970s. In his book The Practice of Economic Growth (1977), a collection of speeches he made, Dr Goh touched on controlling Singapore’s vehicle population through a quota system. In it, he argued that such a quota system, where bidders compete for the right to own a car, could be the way forward (he spoke about it some 20 years before the COE system was implemented). But he also suggested that the Government set aside some permits for certain deserving professions, such as teachers and policemen. He also mentioned administrative officers in the civil service. Dr Goh did not articulate the rationale for this, but it is perhaps reasonable to assume that he felt certain people whose services are valuable to society, but who may not be able to compete with the wealthy for the right to own a car, should receive some form of dispensation. Of course, the professions he cited are much better-paying today, and most people in those jobs are quite capable of buying a car themselves. But the thinking behind Dr Goh’s suggestion was one grounded in some form of social equity. When the COE system was implemented in 1990, it featured a fairly strong element of social equity. There were many more car categories than today, so that bidders in lower income brackets are shielded somewhat from those who are better off. But the four car categories were merged into two in 2000. The move resulted in the demise of (cheaper) small cars. There was an outcry, but the authorities did not relent. Still, there was some fairness in the revised format, as big-car buyers do not compete with the rest for certificates. That lasted a few years. Today, COE Category A (for cars up to 1600cc) has been “infi ltrated” by luxury makes with 1.6-litre models. This has caused premiums in the category to spiral northward. Recently, they crossed the$90,000 mark to end not far from the Category B (cars above 1600cc) price. Despite repeated calls for a review of the system, nothing has been done to return some equity into it. It’s a shame, really, because there are various ways to modify the process so that bidders who aren’t that rich can have a fair shot at acquiring a new car. One way would be to revert to the four categories. Another would be to segregate vehicles according to their open market value (OMV) instead of engine displacement. For the latter, perhaps cars with OMVs of up to $25,000 can reside in Cat A, while the rest can go into Cat B. Whatever form the modification takes, the final objective of the COE system remains unaffected: it will still control the rate of vehicle population growth. The difference would nevertheless be tremendous to consumers at large. A review will also go to show that the Government is one that rules not only with its head, but also with its heart. And if we were to apply the late Dr Goh’s principle of rewarding certain groups of people by granting them easier access to a car, perhaps we could consider married couples with more than two children. That will certainly help to solve Singapore’s dismal birth rate. This article was written by Christopher Tan, consulting editor for Torque.

I am now full of mixed feelings but one thing for sure among these mixed feelings is that of anguish in my heart. What I am about to relate is not aim particularly at an authorised car Distributor but to point out that one black sheep is all it takes to soil it's reputation. I fully understand that no one organisation is able to fully keep track of all the nitty gritty little details of how their sales staff conducts every trade and transaction. My (ex) car was nearing its ten year last December and due to family commitment, I needed a replacement. Reading many horror stories about unscrupulous second car dealer, I decided on getting a new car as I do not want to go through the ordeals those second had car buyers did. I did some research in November, narrowed down two brands/models and contacted them respectively. I expressed my concern on the limited COEs while wishing to replace my old car. The first distributor’s sale staff told me chance is fifty-fifty in securing a COE. The second one, which will be abovementioned Distributor’s sales staff hinted there are ways to secure a COE for me confidently as they are a big, reputable new car distributor. This claim (unfortunately, in words only) also ended up being refuted later by that same person who claimed I had misunderstood his statement. I had signed for a showroom car as the sale staff claim they are no more stock for the colour I wanted. The price I signed for is the exact same price as a new car price but I will be given a $1000 price rebate (again, verbally) on the total car price if I accepted the showroom car. This amount was also later denied to me after signing of contract for reason that I am not entitled to it as I took minimum loan! At that time, I had also made arrangement to trade in/scrap my old car with them. During the signing of contract, the old car money arrangements were made as such: Old car PARF value to offset new car price : $10497 Deposit to car distributor : $10000 (A second hand car dealer company’s name came into the picture as this point in time. This second had car company was supposed to handle my old car trade in and I didn’t think much about it since the PARF of my old car will be used to offset the new car price anyway. ) When paying my deposit, the sales staff said I only need to pay $9000 instead of the $10000 as the other $1000 will be borne by the Second Hand Dealer to ascertain their commitment in the deal. Sounds logical. So, I paid deposit of $9000. COE bidding started (2nd round, Nov 2013). By the 3rd time my COE bidding failed, the dateline for my old car is up. The sales staff told me that the 2nd hand car dealer will pay me $9479 to collect my old car as they had borne the $1000 out of the $10000 deposit. OK, I thought. Mathematically correct. PARF value in cheque by second hand car dealer to me : $9479 I was asked to top up $5000 during COE bidding which I rejected. There was once the sales staff asked if I wanted to remove some accessories from the new car in exchange for topping bidding amount. The sales staff then made a mistake by saying I could used the $1000 showroom car rebate to top up COE bidding to which I responded that I was not getting it because I took minimum loan. He then quickly changed subject but I already smelt a rat. My sixth COE (Feb, first round) attempt failed. I had no wish to extend my COE bidding any more and asked for a refund of my deposit. The sales staff made arrangement and I was told to wait 2 – 3 weeks for it. Deposit refund : $9000 as that was the amount I paid for the deposit. The other $1000 borne by the 2nd car dealer. Yesterday, while looking at my bank statement, I realized I had been careless and almost lose a $1000. Quickly called up the sales staff and demanded that he return it to me. He apologised saying its an honest mistake and made arrangements for the second had car dealer to bank ATM transfer $1000 to me last evening (14th Feb). Thinking it through, I was full of anguish and disappointment that such a thing could happened and if I have not seen the mistake, I would have loss $1000 and never knew about it. Can you guys spot where the lapses are? I am still waiting for my refund of deposit $9000 via cheque through mail. Please do not flame me for writing such a long story or that I am too naïve, etc. I am a rather trusting person and believes in the good of people if I treat them good with respect. But this episode may just change my view. What do you guys think?

Bidding status as at 05/02/2014 14:19:34.00 hrs A CAR UP TO 1600CC & 97KW 1 362 216 B CAR ABOVE 1600CC OR 97KW 1 360 91 C GOODS VEHICLE & BUS 1 267 142 D MOTORCYCLE 1 361 232 E OPEN 1 208 41 130hp go !

Wow - 5 year loans on cars LTV of 60% for sub $20k OMV, LTV of 50% for more than @20k OMV So how low will the COE go now? And what way round this will be found?

Here's the background. 1. Getz will expire end Feb 14. No problems with the car for the past 9+ years. Looking for hatchbacks only. 2. Will buy OPC cos I only drive on weekends. 3. Cabbing on weekends is too frustrating so trying out OPC. . 4. Cat A cars only. Wouldn't splurge on Cat B for OPC. Have cash but semi prudent. Dilemma 5. COE is supposedly going down in the coming years, optimistically 2015-2016 are hopeful years.. 6. To buy new car after CNY may cause some heartache when pt 5 materialises 7. Used cars seem to depreciate more than new. At least based on several shortlists I've done. Figured it's cos dealers are targeting buyers low on cash but want/need a car. Question 8.I thought of buying 5-7 years old car and scrapping it around 2015. Makes sense? 9. If you're in my shoes, would you buy New or Used? 10. If used, how old? Go!

Weeks ago, the Government announced changes to the age-old COE system, in a bid to level the playing ground in the industry as well as to ensure a better division of COE allocation between premium and mass market cars. Under the new implementation, banding for Category A will be tighten to cars with less than 130bhp only, on top of a 1.6-litre engine capacity. This means cars that were previously in Cat A but with more than 130bhp will be re-categorised into Cat B. The revised banding will take effect from February next year, and will without doubt affect the local car industry. With the influx of Cat A cars that will be shifted into Cat B, the latter’s COE premium is expected to soar due to higher demand. Assuming that premiums for Cat A take on a softer stance after the change, buyers may be attracted to model variants with lower power, and will turn to aftermarket kits to tune up the performance of their cars afterwards, as this route is more economically viable. Models such as those from German marques Audi and Volkswagen have become the local's tuning favourites. The increasing availability of basic and fuss-free tuning options, such as ECU re-flash and chip tuning, can easily bring cars at the brim of Cat A banding, such as the base Volkswagen Golf (122bhp) and Audi A3 Sportback 1.4 (122bhp), to Cat B standards of over 130bhp. This will likely spark new life into the aftermarket industry. But it will also make the situation unfavourable and unjust for Cat B car buyers. As such, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) may seize the opportunity to further clamp down on illegal modifications, possibly conducting more random checks and increasing the number of enforcement officers on patrol. Vehicle inspections would probably be more stringent as well, and in order to determine if the engine has been tuned, dyno tests could be conducted during inspections.

Let me start the ball rolling COE 1st round Jan 2014 .............. A CAR (1600CC & BELOW) 1 364 79 B CAR (ABOVE 1600CC) 1 386 20 C GOODS VEHICLE & BUS 1 258 17 D MOTORCYCLE 1 489 247 E OPEN 1 261 4 Bidding closed at 4.00pm today ........

Round and round it goes, where it'll stop, nobody knows! What's your prediction for today? Up, down, sideways or inside out? I think we will see Cat B up a bit, Cat A down a bit and a further slide in Cat C. What say everyone else?

Quiet because of Christmas? Or busy because is the last round of the year? There is predictions of another quota cut for the first half of the year, before more COE become available in the second half of next year.. So wadda reckon?

Most people will agree that vehicle population control is necessary for a small, land-scarce country like Singapore. Most will also agree that the vehicle quota system - which requires motorists to bid for and secure Certificates of Entitlement (COE) before they can own a vehicle - has worked fairly well in that respect since implementation in 1990. At the same time, it has generated an estimated $50 billion in additional tax revenue over the years. But the 23-year old system can certainly be improved. This week, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Ministry of Transport (MOT) introduced engine power as an additional criterion to engine size, to group cars into their COE categories in a more equitable way. Alas, it won't be very effective. A far better way to ensure equity is to categorise cars according to their values. But first of all, does social equity have a place in a system that essentially accords one access to a car based on one's ability to pay? It does. The quota system was originally designed with an element of equity. There were four car categories in the past: Cat 1 (up to 1,000cc); Cat 2 (1,001 to 1,600cc); Cat 3 (1,601 to 2,000cc) and Cat 4 (above 2,000cc). Engine sizes were a proxy for car values. In 1999, they were distilled into two: Cat A (cars up to 1,600cc); and Cat B (cars above 1,600cc). The move was made to "improve liquidity" and minimise "price distortions". But as a result, a measure of equity went out the window, as budget car buyers had to compete with buyers of costlier cars. Buyers of family carriers (such as MPVs) had to compete with buyers of Porsches and Ferraris. The situation worsened five years ago when Mercedes launched a 1.6-litre C-class, followed by sub-1,600cc models from Audi, BMW and Volvo. These pricier cars began to nudge mass market cars such as Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas and Hyundais out as buyers of the latter could not keep up with bids from those who could afford the pricier brands. Today, premium and luxury brands account for 70 percent of Cat A cars sold - up from less than 1 percent five years ago. After four months of deliberation and consultation, the LTA and MOT decided to apply an engine power cap to inject some equity back into Cat A. Cars in this COE category must not only meet the 1,600cc cap, but also not produce more than 130bhp of power. On the surface, this makes sense, as premium and luxury cars tend to have more powerful (largely turbocharged) engines. And with the change, some 90 percent of cars remaining in Cat A will have an open-market value (OMV, or approximate cost price) of less than $20,000. But just as engine capacity has become irrelevant as a proxy for a car's value, the power cap will soon lose its bite. Mercedes and BMW (and most other European makes) already have engines that produce less than 130bhp. These are mostly manual transmission models, which are not popular here. But it won't be long before manufacturers make automatic versions. Industry watchers expect the first to arrive within nine months. What will the authorities do then? Lower the power limit? If so, budget cars will be affected as well. Already, the 130bhp cap - which kicks in in February - will move some mass market Cat A models to Cat B. They include cars from Proton, Suzuki, Citroen, Ford, Hyundai, Opel, Peugeot, Skoda and Volkswagen. Using a power criterion is thus simplistic and ineffectual. If the idea is to categorise cars according to their values, why not use values to begin with? Why use proxies? Cars already have an OMV assessed by Singapore Customs. It is calculated based on a vehicle's cost price, freight, insurance and all other charges incidental to the sale and delivery of the car from country of manufacture to Singapore. The LTA and MOT argue that OMVs are prone to fluctuations, and thus are not a suitable measure. It is a difficult argument to follow. First, OMV for a particular model does not fluctuate wildly unless there is a regional or global financial crisis. Second, averages can be used to pare down whatever little variations there are. We can use three, six, nine, 12 or even 24-month averages of OMV. Or the authorities could remove the foreign exchange element in OMV for this COE categorisation exercise. This would be similar to international accounting standards which allow companies to restate their financials before and after taking into account forex gains or losses. Or perhaps OMV should be redefined, for instance by streamlining elements that have little to do with a car's intrinsic value. Car dealers and manufacturers have been coming up with inventive ways to minimise their OMV for decades now - despite stiff penalties for under-declaration. The trend has taken a new turn with manufacturers setting up offices here to do their own importation, and the lifting of a ban on imported used cars. Fixing the COE conundrum thus begins with fixing OMV. Admittedly, it is far more difficult than drawing an arbitrary line across engine sizes or outputs. And it requires inter-ministerial cooperation, which often slows things down considerably. But it will be a worthwhile exercise, given that the entire vehicular taxation system hinges on OMV. Fixing it will pave the way for equity - not only for buyers, but sellers too. In fact, with a robust value-based system, we could have one COE category, with premiums pegged to the OMV of each car. Picture credit : ST Illustration by Miel

The future third runway for Changi Airport. The runway is expected to be ready for the airport's use around 2020. Terminal 4 is set to open in 2018, and Terminal 5 in the middle of the next decade. Changi Airport will then be one of the world's biggest airports, with room for 135 million passengers a year. Changi's planners have unveiled ambitious plans for the airport after an 18-month study. A 1,000ha piece of barren land adjacent to the existing premises will be developed for a mega-terminal to cater for up to 50 million travellers a year - more than T2 and T3 combined. When the new T5 opens in the middle of the next decade, Changi will be one of the world's biggest airports, with room for 135 million passengers a year. London's Heathrow - the world's busiest international airport - welcomed about 70 million passengers last year. Also in the pipeline at the new Changi East site: new MRT links and underground rail transfers for passengers between the existing terminals and T5. Hotels and offices, as well as facilities for air freight and aircraft repair, will be built too. Before the new facility opens, Changi Airport will have a third runway around 2020 to handle more flights. The plans announced last Friday by then Minister of State for Transport, Josephine Teo, who leads a 10-member multi-agency committee studying Changi's expansion, look good on paper. Expansion is critical for Singapore to remain the premier air hub amid keen contest from other airports in Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea, Hong Kong and Dubai, to name just a few. But is Changi adding capacity fast enough? A scrutiny of the plans shows cause for concern. Let's assume annual growth of 3 percent to 4 percent - the average over the past decade and fairly conservative, given the projected 6 percent growth for Asia's air travel market. In 2018, when T4 opens and T1 is expanded, Changi's traffic could exceed 64 million - about 75 percent of total capacity. With no announced plans to add more room after that, Changi could be operating at higher than 90 percent capacity in the last few years before T5 opens. Today, the airport uses about 77 percent of its total terminal capacity. Mrs Teo, now Senior Minister of State, admitted last Friday that, "potentially we will see a very tight situation at Changi". But traffic patterns can never be fully predicted, she added. Building ahead of capacity has served Changi well for more than three decades. But with the split of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) in 2009, the new Changi Airport Group which runs the airport as a separate corporate entity is mindful to strike a balance between efficient use of resources and building ahead of demand. When T3 opened in 2008, it was dubbed a "ghost town". A potential runway crunch could pose a bigger problem for Changi. Following a study, the CAAS said in December that Changi will not need a third runway until 2018 at the earliest. The existing two runways can support up to 430,000 flights a year if they are better utilised. Nats, which provides air navigation services for London's Heathrow and several other British airports, was roped in for the study. Changi's plans now call for a third runway at the end of the decade. In 2020, total flight numbers could exceed 440,000, again based on a 3 per cent to 4 per cent growth rate. Asked about the later-than-expected timeline for the third runway, CAAS' director-general Yap Ong Heng said at last Friday's press briefing that following the Nats study, new ideas have been drawn up to further increase runway capacity. The airport will also see how it can convince airlines to take up slots during lull hours, he said. In short, he is "confident" the current infrastructure can cope. The revelation, though, has not gone down well with airlines that are already complaining of problems getting slots. A runway squeeze could mean delays for travellers, they warned. Preparing the third runway for operations will also involve downtime for one of the two existing runways. Nats' managing director Paul Reid said when he was in Singapore last year that while Heathrow handles more flights than any other dual-runway airport in the world, this comes at a cost for airlines and travellers. "When something happens at Heathrow, if someone lands and bursts a tyre on the runway, then it's very hard to recover as the schedule is so tight." Similarly, schedules can be thrown out of whack amid bad weather, leading to flight delays and cancellations. Mr Brendan Sobie, a Singapore-based analyst at the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, has said repeatedly that Changi needs a third runway sooner rather than later. Changi's planners know the need well but the sheer scale of the work involved could explain the later opening. The challenge is in the linking of the third runway to the existing two. To do this, engineers must first relocate a six km stretch of Changi Coast Road and a 60m-wide canal that separate the existing airport from the new site. To add to the already mammoth task, engineers are working on reclaimed land with layers of soft marine clay which could require soil strengthening work. Changi Airport is embarking on its biggest, most challenging expansion since the move from Paya Lebar Airport to Changi in 1981. Few would argue with the statement that Changi is as good as it gets. But if it takes too long to add terminal and runway capacity, it could end up on a slippery slope towards tarnishing its image. If there is one thing travellers hate, it's delays. Snaking security and check-in queues are a pain. Nobody wants to be stuck in a plane on the tarmac waiting for take-off, or in a plane circling before landing. Mr Lee Seow Hiang, Chief Executive of Changi Airport Group which runs the airport, said, "It will be busier but it need not get worse." If the crunch comes, the airport is confident it has the ability "to still provide a service that people talk about", he said. It must. A failure could hurt Singapore's premier air hub status. Picture credit: ST Photo - Kevin Lim

Being in a relationship with your partner can be a chore when you're "in the mood to be single" and can be an exciting and lovely experience when you want to share your thoughts, ideas and love with someone close and familiar. But being in love with your car can be a relatively different argument altogether. Like getting yourself involved in social media websites such as Facebook (which is pretty much everyone, I assume?), breaking up can be a tough thing to do. I have about 500 friends on Facebook, of which I consider some 19 of them as "ex-girlfriends". The necessity to highlight the word ex-girlfriends is simply because they could be make-out buddies, one-night stands, challenged-by-friends flings, and a few ladies I never fully interacted with but flirted so heavily with that they can no longer be categorised as "just friends". I was once told, a long time ago, that breaking up is one of the easiest things to do. There are so many different ways to do it I hardly even know where to begin. My friends and I have all these exes, be it wagons or women. It's not just because we are more comfortable with blurring sexual boundaries but also because not committing seems like an easier way out to finding something fresh and new. It was supposed to be the same with cars, when COE was hovering at a much lower price. But considering how much more money you'll have to invest to get into a new relationship with another car, you're better off not having another ex. Of course that's also considering you're not some rich kid on the block. I was also once told, a long time ago, that COE prices were going to drop in a couple of years. It seems like everyone knows a thing or two about the COE system, just like how every guy seems to know a thing or two about women. How true that's going to stand is beyond me, and if you're honest enough, it'll be beyond you too. Till then, we'll all have to move on. Sort of.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has setup a website to seek feedback from the general public on how COE and car ownership schemes should be tweaked. The government is trying to inject some form of social equitability in car ownership in our land-scarce island. The feedback will help the government to better delineate CAT A from Cat B, so that buyers of mass market models do not have to compete directly with luxury car buyers. However, luxury brands' penetration into CAT A is only part of the equation in contributing to the astronomical rise in COE price in the 'mass market' category. The reduction in supply of COE and ever increasing population numbers would ensure that COE prices would remain sky high. If you are interested to air your views, do visit the website

Here's a guide that helps you understand how to calculate the de-registration value of your vehicle and the relationship between OMV & ARF. De-registration value / Paper Value You must have heard of the term 'de-registration value' or also known as 'paper value' being thrown around when the casual chat of cars arises between friends or colleagues. More often than not, you would be surprised at the innocence of many local motorists who do not know what it actually means. What is De-registration value? [COE rebate + PARF rebate] = De-registration value The de-registration value simply refers to the returns you are entitled to from the Land Transport Authority (LTA) when you de-register your vehicle. The de-registration value is calculated based on the COE rebates and the PARF rebate value of your car. *Do note that COE cars (cars more than 10 years old) do not have any PARF Rebate, therefore the de-registration value for COE cars are based on the Prevailing Quota Premium paid. COE Rebate If a vehicle is de-registered before the end of the 10-year COE cycle, the registered owner can be granted a rebate based on the number of months and days remaining on his vehicle's COE. COE Rebate = (Quota Premium Paid x Number of months left) / 120 months For example if your COE costs $16,897 and expires on the 5th June 2015 but was de-registered on the 2nd January 2013. Unused period of the COE: From 3/1/2013 to 5/6/2015 = 2 years, 5 months and 3 days = 29.1 months Thus COE Rebate = ($16,897 x 29.1) / 120 = $4,097 PARF Rebate Calculating the PARF rebate value of your car is relatively simple as there are only two factors contributing to the PARF rebate value - age of vehicle and ARF value. As you can refer from the table above, the PARF rebate is a certain percentage of your ARF value

It was a long time coming, but after 22-years since the introduction of COE vehicle quota system, Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew has hinted the system might undergo a review amidst sharply rising COE prices. According to The Straits Times, one possible area industry players are hoping for change is the way cars are classified. Currently cars are classified under three categories: Category A is for cars up to 1,600cc, Category B for cars above 1,600cc and an open category. Mr Lui commented the Transport Ministry together with LTA are studying the several feedback provided by the public regarding the issue. Under numerous occasions the public have commented that car classification should be altered to be based on emissions levels or power output - even through sgCarMart

In recent years, the downsizing of engines by premium brands has led to luxury cars competing for a slice of the Cat A COE, which is of 1600CC capacity and below. For instance, a 1.6-litre Volvo S80 is something unthinkable 10 years ago but it is available today. Before that, Cat A COE used to be dominated by work horses such as the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic. With the tightening of COE supply, prices are sure to head north. As premium brands would normally command higher profit margin, it is expected of them to out-bid a Korean or Japanese brand in securing a COE. But is there a fairer way to allocate the limited resources? Perhaps, COE could be categorized by the car's Open Market Value (OMV) instead of capacity. OMV is assessed by the Singapore Customs, based on the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the country of importation. This price includes purchase price, freight, insurance and all other charges incidental to the sale and delivery of the car to Singapore. To ensure that a middle income Singaporean is not out-priced in the COE hunt, Cat A COE could be classified as cars of OMV below S$20,000. Cars with OMV of between S$20,001 to S$35,000 could be classified under Cat B. In this scenario, a Corolla buyer would not be going after the same piece of COE as a wealthy Volvo S60 T4 buyer. Rather, this would put the 1.6-litre S60 and the 2.0-litre Camry in the same category, which I believe should make more sense. Cat E COE could be classified as cars with OMV of S$35,001 and above. Car sales dominated by luxury brands are unheard of in other countries. It is time to put things back to normal.

[extract] The headline of The Straits Times on 27 October 2012 reads,

In October 2011, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) announced a reduction in vehicle growth rates from the current 1.5% p.a. Now LTA announced it has completed the study and will implement measures with effect from August 2012. Following the review, the vehicle growth rate will be reduced to 1.0% p.a. from August 2012, before a further reduction to 0.5% p.a. from February 2013 to January 2015. This allows for an estimated 390 more COEs, or about 10% of the current monthly quota from August 2012 to January 2013. A total of 4,789 COEs comprising over-projections from 2008 and 2009 and expired COEs from 2009 were scheduled for bidding from August 2012 to January 2014. These will be postponed till August 2013 and run till January 2015, allowing for 266 more COEs or about 7% of the current monthly quota per month. Through these two measures LTA aims for a smoother transition to lower vehicle growth rates, as the Government continues to manage vehicle population growth. Also announced was a reduction in contribution rates to CAT E COEs. Currently, 25% of COEs from de-registered vehicles in each category form the quota for the CAT E open category, and can be used to register vehicles from CAT A to CAT D. However the contribution rate to CAT E will be gradually reduced to 20% from August 2012, and 15% from February 2013. Through this more COEs from de-registered vehicles will return to their respective categories, leaving fewer quotas in CAT E. The COE quota for the periods of August 2012 to January 2013 will be announced in July 2012.

Here's one Volkswagen which we may not be able to see over here in this region due to high taxes and the COE. The 5 door Volkwagen Up is actually a pretty neat 'People's Car' (which is what Volkswagen stands for) in that it provides a decent set of wheels for the general urban populace. It is set to be sold in Europe by the fourth quarter of 2012. This little UPstart follows hot on the heels of the recently launched 3 door hatchback variant. It has clever packaging and frugal fuel sipping engines that actually make it a very good city car. It has a 1.0liter petrol engine equipped with BlueMotion Technology. This means all the usual VW economy gaining tricks and stop-start function too. But as I stated, this is one Up and coming city car that we most probably will not be able to buy. It is down to economics presumably, and basically the dreaded Certificate Of Entitlement. The COE lumps eco-friendly 1.0liter cars together with cars (and sadly, taxis) 1.6liters and below. So if VW were to bring in the Up, it would have to actually be Up (pun intended) against the Polo and the Golf. And as Singapore is a small market, in-house competition isn't good especially when external competition is already pretty ridiculous as even Mercedes Benz is technically a competitor with the C-class sedans. Note that the same 1600cc and below COE is required to buy the Mercedes C class and if the COE costs SG$50,000. That would be the COE you need to pay for a truly tiny car like the Up and it isn't logical to the eyes of potential car owners. They'd rather buy a bigger car for better value of money. But I suppose most of you are already aware of this, aren't you? And therefore, there is presumably no chance of a Volkswagen Up in whatever form for people over here.