The COE prices have risen significantly, possibly due to the impact of companies involved in private-hire services. Since the introduction of private-hire services in Singapore, nearly 50% of vehicles on the road now bear private-hire tags. While this is a positive sign for individuals fully committed to working as private-hire drivers, there is another perspective to consider. If private-hire service companies are heavily involved in COE bidding, it could create a significant shift in financial dynamics, potentially impacting the overall capital required for vehicle ownership. I believe a separate category of COE should be designated specifically for these companies, which could also include taxis.
Idea is good, but need to be simplified. - use or sell your credits by default. Individuals do not control the sale of the credits, hence no black market. - helps Singaporeans fight inflation better than wayang vouchers & it builds loyalty for SGreans doing NS & having kids - prioritize Singaporeans who need it most - self adjusting system that allow corporate expansion after the priorty needs are met first This proposal is worth a deeper study rather than sticking to an outdated system that benefits only the rich.😊😊😊
COE bidding system shouldn't include commercial vehicles like buses, vans, lorries. These vehicle should be charged by usage based system as proposed by LTA years back but was not inplemented. Businesses need to transport goods so high COE will increase business cost and high inflation. Car is discretionary as citizens can use public transport. PSP's proposal is democratic and fair but credit system is complex and can be misused. The objective is to minimize congestion and improve efficiency. Commercial vehicles should be given higher priority. Family who needs car can make use of car sharing scheme and gov can sbsidy those who needs them with vouchers. Now COE is 120K, do u want it to go up to 200K? Do u want to pay a few hundreds dollars just to service your Aircon?
Very innovative proposal that should be seriously considered and designed, just as property market. No excuse for government to deny and keep maintaining the present old system which has been implemented for more then 30 years, cars should not be just for the rich, but also for the one needed….
This guy very staunch opposition supporter. Any idea by opposition MP he will support enthusiastically without any regards of their merits. What is the point of your education if your decision making is all emotional?
I disagree. Hazel’s proposal is unnecessarily complicated and more crucially, not feasible. If I were PAP, I would be naughty and appoint her to be in charge of this credit allocation system. That will expose her ineptitude. Talk is easy, do is very difficult. It discriminates against singles or those with working adults who drive but living within the same household. I personally would love this credit proposal and I can easily defeat this proposal by having 1 brand new car and multiple 2nd cars. Many commentators tend to forget private car ownership is a luxury especially in tiny red dot SG but as a politician, this is glaring ineptitude. Indeed, people voted wisely.
So based on this suggested system, discriminate the group that is single + female + able bodied? 😂 singles are already getting discriminated for housing, and many other policies in the name of “needs”. Singles are lesser humans when it comes to “needs” and “convenience” but when it comes to taxes to do their part for society and sharing of “wealth”, singles pay the same or more. So much for PSP’s idea of “fairness”. 😂
I think they should just charge additional levy for second or third cars especially those more expensive kind. Also, they should hurry up and create a separate COE category for those commercial car....
there should be an ABSD on each additional car that is bought under the same household. There are too many cars illegal parking in housing estates along single white line, blocking cars moving in and out. When asked, they say they don't have enough parking in their car pouch. How is it that your problem becomes other people's problem?
1. Move PHV to another category. 2. Others go on owner self-bid ballot system just like bto (without giving rebates & citizens get priority) ... if fail to get ballotted then simply buy resale. 3. Increase COE lifespan to 12-15 years subject to rigorous fitness tests. Our infrastructures so good. A waste to scrap still-good-car.
Ban the use of car loans. Car loans with interest inflates the COE prices artificially. This serves the interest of banks and govt through collection of intrest, COE + GST. These groups would like the COE to be sky high at all times.
Agree with you. I have also suggested to government to ban dealers from bidding for COE. Look at the COE premiums, doesn’t that look like a cartel? If only potential buyers are bidding and restrict COE from car loan, I am certain the premium will plunge to a more reasonable level.
COE credits transferable?? create a black market for such credits. rich ppl just need to go Tekong or army camps buy up all the credits can buy 10 cars still 🤣 or even a black marketplace and black broker to buy, trade and sell such credits. worse than the current system
Gifting or purchasing means that wealthy people will have even more opportunity to own a car or more than one car. No gifting or purchasing of such credits.
@@qherwhw4-wn6po at least ordinary people get to earn some money openly, not the top earn, buy sell also scared to be in the open. Who decide policy to sell GCBs, then the cascade effects, then the $1million HDB, then cooling measures to suck back money from the masses at the bottom. Let the masses poor make some money. Who set policy and caused all this?
@@krollpeter anyway, even if such credits can't be purchased. there will always be a secondary or black market for the final product - cars. where the rich will buy off the cars from the poor at a price. it will be the same net effect. the cars will end up in the rich hands as its a limited supply. money talks and finds its way eventually e.g. 2 room flat - parents with 3 kids. get offered by rich guy 150k cash buy car for him and transfer full ownership model of his choice. will the family choose to drive and incur high running cost or sell the car for full cash just drop in bank account like that. anyway sg car population cant match all the families in sg. it still goes back to economics.
Higher COE price is mainly due to car industries players ie dealer, taxi companies and commercial car rental company by bidding high price. The high price will then transferred to the PhD (Driver). Basically owning a car for luxury lifestyle have no doubt to pay a price (usually higher). If a low income family depending on their breadwinner to support their whole family will need to be subsidise to help them with their children and elderly. Suggest those low income family PHD will have special rebate XX% link or inrelate with the COE average price. The special rebate condition is monthly collection of ie. $6000 or higher ( source : phv platform). This is to ensure no misuse accur.
Ridiculous proposal with almost no thought put into it, as typical of the minor opposition. Taking such a system in practice wouldn't even change the process of COE, it would simply complicate and make a process already tedious even far more complex. You would now have two separate bidding and price systems, one for the credits, and then the credit bidding itself. COE prices would become wildly unstable and possibly even higher than before since you can purchase credits from others. Doesn't this result in a lose-lose scenario? If the credits are worth more, people who wish to sell their credits can do so at a higher price, but the cost of COE itself is then higher as well. If the credit are worth less, then the price of COE could be less, but those whom do not wish to buy a car are then left selling their credits for meagre amounts. Not to mention how this will likely not allocate COE on any fair basis still. By allowing credits to be purchased openly, it means that cars are still going to end up being at a similar price to the current COE, the only change being that the population now has to trade it's credits among itself, creating a tedious and frankly useless system that will still result in COE prices being similar to what it already is. This would also effectively wipe out 7% of the Government's budget from COE sales, which is about 7 CDC vouchers worth. That's $7,700 in money that can go to households. Is NCMP Poa sure households selling their credits will be able to makeup for this figure? Extremely shortsighted proposal once again by PSP, with little thought or logic behind their populist proposals that only fool the simple-minded.
this guy very worried ordinary people pay lesser for coe. this guy internet bridgadge officer is it. stop suppressing democracy. opposition has the right to lower coe prices
COE isn’t controlled by ‘market forces’, gahmen artificially raises and lowers the cost. Ever since that $1 coe shenanigans, they’ll never not artificially inflate the COE
create a lottery effect system where the lucky winners can sell their golden COE tickets or cars to black market / rich buyers. net effect is the same. the rich don't need to buy from GOV anymore. they buy from poor folks whatever the price is FYI, COE generate the gov 4.5 BILLION last year which means taxpayer and Singaporeans have 4.5 Billion less subsidies every year. plug gap from?? Increase GST? Corporate tax? income tax?
She is supposed to study Economics at Cambridge. Still, she doesn't seem to understand that her proposal will create far more problems than it solves. When government revenue falls due to the reduction based on COE charges she is proposing, it will lead to higher public transport costs, offsetting revenue for anyone who doesn't want to own a car and sells the COE credit in a free market! The PSP proposal is incredibly complex and a hassle for everyone, without any benefit.
Aside from COE contributing to the high cost of car, nobody seems to mention ARF rates which contributes highest to the cost of the car, that system has to go
Many cars operating as private hire cars has renewed COE. As a result, it reduces the recycling of COE. Perhaps LTA can make a ruling like Taxi, 7 years for private hire cars
Hmm, hard to administer. B) t easiest is to give each car owner a certain no of free miles -- credit a year. C) it is t use of t car that creates congestion. Ownership does not. C2) one can own a car , leave it at home & only use it for impt matters or during off- peak periods. C3) this creates little congestion. D)The mileage credit charges shd be adjusted to t travel times. Drivers who travel during peak periods will use up their alloted credits faster. D2) a sliding scale of additional erp fees over your annual allocation for heavy usage will discourage excessive use of t car. E) to summarise, a mileage charging system is fair as t more u use, t more u pay. E2) t rich will still hv an advantage simply becos they hv t $$. But if t peak period pricing is high, it shd discourage most of t less impt trips. Esp if a sliding scale of higher charges are imposed for heavy use. F) agree tat there will be a short term spike in inflation as pple adjust to the higher transport expenses & costs.
Why are COE being bidded by Sellers of cars instead of the public Buyers. Why not the COE payment be handled by LTA itself with monthly installments , instead of having a third party (credit companies) that charges interest on top of the hefty COE B.S ? The best is Scrap the COE system totally or Scarp the party that wants to implement it .
Yes, considerations according to needs need to be factored in as well as reducing the occurrences of the wealthy buying up two or more of what is a limited comodity unnecessarily. Her ideas may need some work, but it's coming from the right considerations. One of Madam Khor's counter is a false argument - the PSP member did not say that, she did not say it was a speculative commodity. The member points were to address the wealthy buying multiples of a limited commodity unnecessarily while families with more justifiable needs aren't able to obtain even one, effectly priced out by the former. The same tools can be used to address both. No reason why not. Whether one is speculative or not is quite irrelevant here, we're talking about commodities which are limited in supply in both cases, that's the characteristic being addressed.
Before anyone says "oh all talk, but no solutions", I'm still developing an idea in my mind... Tentatively I call it "Staggered Bidding" - gets rid of the issue of the credits, as described in the PSP member's idea, being translatable to a monetary value, and actually uses the same mechanism that LTA is employing now with this announcement of an extra 20,000. Stay tuned, more info to come... Also, I'll explain further here, that when you buy additional homes, the additional taxes both counters any pure desire of just owning extra property and the lure from potential speculative gains i.e. even if you're buying a second home just to sit on, the additional taxes acts to counter that. So they would be even more effective on a commidity that doesn't even have potential speculative gains in the first place.
Ok, have some time now to type this thing, hopefully somebody in govt or transport authority is reading these comments. So, I call it (tentatively) Staggered Bidding :D The bidding process is exactly as before, only one session really, and everyone can get involved just as before. Now, let's keep it simple for now with just one extra classification called Special Bidders (SB). 1. A household with greater needs can apply for SB status after meeting a few criteria. The exact criteria are up for discussion, my ideas here seek to address more of the bidding/price-setting mechanism side of things. I guess, it could be something like if they have two young children below a certain age, or one young child and an elderly parent, or two elderly parent, or immediate family members (spouse, siblings, children, grandchildren) living together who could qualify for special parking, below certain household income level etc. or whatever. All other bidders are Normal Bidders (NB). 2. All bidders NB's and SB's bid in the same exercise. Let's say, we set a quota of 1,050 for CAT A (for example, this past Jan 2025 first bidding exercise had 1,034 CAT A quota with 1,381 bidders). The top 825 quotas will go to the top 825 bidders which can include NB's and SB's, with the price set when the top 825 is matched (Normal Price). Now, the next 225 quotas will go to the next 225 highest SB bidders only, with the price set when the top 825 plus next 225 SB's is matched (Special Price). Basically, NB bidders will be bidding for 825 COE's and SB's will be bidding for 1,050 COE's. (Even if an NB had placed a bid that's within the Special Price band and higher than an SB in that band, they do not qualify for those 225 Special COE's) Some issues to ponder (I'm aware): - Those ratios might have to be reworked, according to how many bidders are anticipated to be SB bidders. A better balance will definitely be found by people with much better access to relevant data than me and with further studies. - This might have an inflationary effect on the Normal Price, as NB's are now vying for a smaller quota, but depending on the ratios, that effect could be countered somewhat with SB's now having incentive to try to avoid bidding into the upper Normal Price band. Whatever effects that may materialize, the upward bidding pressure (pull) on the Special Price won't be as intense as the current system's upward pull on the one COE price that all bidders are vying for at the same time. P.S. I have some more points to make about how this avoids a credits based system, where the credits are effectively translatable to a monetary value, which in itself would have an inflationary effect if not live regulated with some mechanism as the bids are going (adding to quite a bit of complexity). And I don't agree with credits being able to be traded, kinda beats the whole point. But I do agree with an ABSD style mechanism for potential buyers of more than one car. Also, this might even kill another bird with one stone: I bet this will inadvertently be quite the incentive to have more kids! Govt's #1 challenge right?! I'd like some feedback on this actually (if anyone's reading lol).
Also, I'm aware of how the current mechanism works, with the price rising until the number of people match the quota (to put it simply). With this 'dual band' prices idea, it will start with a single price that will rise at the same rate as before, but the Special Price will stop before the Normal Price (Staggered!). Once the two prices have split, the two price levels will stop and go independently as according to their own quotas (1,050 and 825 respectively). Yes, that would mean that it's possible for the Special Price to come very close to the Normal Price - but then they were given a good chance in the first place, and if they still price themselves like this, then it's their prerogative. I've got plenty more scenarios I've already thought about and could talk about e.g. what if all the SB bidders in the exercise are within the top 825 band of bidders etc., but my comments are getting really long-winded now, and I can discuss those some other time (btw, in that example, I'd say then it essentially becomes like the current system, but we have to accept that possibility as it is their prerogative again - at the end of the day the difference is they were given a better chance to start with compared to the current system).
Who voted for this opposition? Unneccesary complicated system that will cost a lot to implement. Black market carousell for credit. We don't need to have a private vehicle. We need good public transport system
Cars need to be expensive as it is a status symbol at times BGs can have their extra marital affairs with their loved ones after a hard day at Parliament
why make it so complicated? the "COE credit" categories are already addressed by income tax rebates, grants for baby policies, disability, HDB sizes, elderly CPF topups etc etc... the biggest problem is the private hires as a business outbidding private household use
The suggestion will create 1) Complexity to calculate and how points are allocated - there will be a lot of dispute 2) Create a backend market ( you will see highest bidder - selling credit on Carousell ? ) 3) How about other threatening for you to give them your credits or bully you in to it… or being cheated by it.. scammers can then sell to the highest bidders 4) this also create 2 tiers of bidding - first to get credits from poorer people and then fight to see how much each credit is valued + how many credits is needed to bid for car .. And can foresee .. many many other issues.. this is a worse system than the current..
Cars needs space for roads and parking and land is scarce in S'pore. Hence, why not just adopt an ABSD (used in S'pore property) like mechanism to - discourage multiple car ownerships by an individual - allow differential pricing between S'poreans and Foreigners in favour of S'poreans - allow differential pricing between PHVs and normal use cars The "ABSD" will specify an additional % amount payable over the prevailing COE Road tax should also be higher for individuals with multiple cars, Foreigners and PHVs.
if the rise of coe still unable to solve vehicle overcrowding, then any policy that reduce the coe amount is gonna make it worst. Keep coe higher every year, then use coe to subsidies public transport fees. And remove commerical vehicle coe but add sets of rule to prevent misuse
I propose setting the COE very high. Then a credit system can be used to reduce this high COE, for example based on the number of children living in the household, or elderlies, disabled, or the size/weight of the car, the emissions, the energy efficiency. No transfer of credits, no gifting, only one car per household, and no credits applicable for extra cars. Rewards for walking, bicycling or using public transport. Cancel road tax and setting it off by a more mileage road tax = only needs increase the fuel tax.
It's sad when the opposition is so useless that a TH-cam comment has far more logic than the entirety of that party. Your proposal is far more logical and workable.
@@krollpeter Sorry Peter, I disagree. Firstly, your proposal, although better than Hazel’s, is still very complicated and more crucially, not feasible. If I were PAP, I would be naughty and appoint her to be in charge of this credit allocation system. That will expose her ineptitude. Talk is easy, do is very difficult. Like your proposal, it discriminates against singles or those with working adults who drive but living within the same household. Moreover, how do you “set the COE high” when the COE is based on free market? Don’t forget, PAP has already done that by setting ARF, PARF very high. Removing/reducing road tax and charge based on usage is unfair to everyone who depends on motor vehicles for a living. Prohibiting transfer of credits is fine but I simply buy a 2nd car that a friend bought yesterday … like a sham marriage 😂. I personally would love your credit proposal but it is not feasible. Many commentators tend to forget private car ownership is a luxury especially in tiny red dot SG.
@@CalvinK-the_old_fogey I personally find the current system outdated, counterproductive to environment and the needs of people. For example, it encourages to own big cars. Or who needs a car most say a family with two kids, they can often not afford it.
so basis this system, how many COEs will be available and does it reflect what the infrastructure can support? this kind of proposals are just made to make people feel good, but its totally unrealistic.
How can amy prove beyond reasonae doubt what she claims about coe ? Can i ask, who audited the value of coe pricing generated or derived? How exactly did the figures come about in a transparent and independently audited way? Or is it based on believing what they claim?
No need for such an impractical solution. She obviously does not drive. Simply carve out some COEs for PHVs, like they did for taxis. Taxis need to clock a certain minimum mileage every month, while there is no such restriction for PHVs. The barrier of entry for PHV is just too low. Every other car on the roads are PHVs, excluding those on long term lease to expats, foreigners, companies, etc.
Make all cars purchased by rental company comes with a different car plate labelling and cannot be changed. Those who bought from rental company under PHV after full payment and took Iver the car ownership cannot sell in the resale market. See which brian damaged individual still willing to commit for PHV with high COE.
Even a family NEEDS a car due to elderly parents with 3 young children, if they cannot afford car also LL. Now you take credit bit/sell would be rampant.
The simplest system is to just let everyone bid for coe themselves before buying a car. But car dealers will complain cannot forecast demand properly etc. Govt won't be happy because even the rich will not pay so much for a COE if they bid it themselves.
@entrydenied Got penalty fee when go dealer with COE. And majority still use dealer to bid. So ultimately dealers still control the price to a certain extent.
I appreciate PSP's innovative suggestions to revamp the COE system. Decades of PAP circle jerk has led them to sit on their hands on outdated policies and rejecting well thought-out suggestions proposed by opposition so as to not legitimise them. Do better.
The only thing you need to do better is use your brain. This scheme makes no sense and is just a worse form of COE where the credits are controlled completely by the free market ie. Rich people. That's right, cars will be even more expensive under this scheme
COE should also be based on the number of car under each household. Accelerated COE (% of the coe price) for the 2nd, 3rd or 4th car. Plse remember there is a grp of multi-millionaire coming in. Each GCB BUNGALOW family will need 3 to 4 or even more cars. So tax them appropriately. Current bunch won't listen😮. So VTO them😊
Car rental companies will ensure COEs to stay high or push even higher. This way, they can push out most to be/ current drivers that aren’t able to keep up and decides to give up, thus ensuring that those who wants to drive will have to rent from them as part time or full time drivers or to use their transportation services. This is survival instincts for rental companies. If COEs goes back to the days of 10 - 30k, all these grabs like/rentals companies will have to suck thumb and exits the markets….. So the rental companies strategy is to Ensure COEs remains and stays HIGH and or shoot to the SKY. Those who rent from these rental companies will knows the patterns more than badminton loopholes to suck your money dry…..just my 2cents…
Well categorised n control to help those in need of car for their disabled family member than those rich that can afford more than 2 cars in the family. I know some have 6 cars in their garage
sound good if only education of the public on the system and implementation of the system would cost more than any benefit of adopting this system for probably a century
A high COE benefits the dealerships as even the buyers for the smallest motorcycles need to take loans. These loans range from 4% to 10% or more for used bikes and come with a lot of clauses to prevent early termination.
Hazel Poa PSP suggested a point-based system that considers factors such as nationality and needs-based criteria for families with young children or persons with disabilities, instead of relying solely on the bidding price.
"wasted" if you are giving away these credits to someone who is are in the categories of people taht you mentioned and they do not need need it as much. eg; single child die standing; show how this can help lower cost for public transportation.... too messy!!
I thought Hazel has an excellent proposal but seems like the PAP is still too lazy to take Hazel's proposal and that egg-hoarder aunty simply brush off again saying singapore got limited land, but then how come recently can suka suka increase quota?
Aunty amy should be aware that cpf policies and system are the mother of all complexities or complications. What is Proposed improvements to COE is nowhere near as complicated as cpf system
This kind of system will not work well... people will find ways to gain the credits and soon there will be a "black market" dealing with these credits. Look at how skills future credits had been abused by certain organisation in the early days of implementation.
While I may not have the technical expertise to fully evaluate the feasibility of such a credit system, I strongly believe it represents a step in the right direction. In addition, reforms in vehicle taxation could play a pivotal role in shaping a more sustainable future. Larger vehicles should face significantly higher taxes, while smaller cars could benefit from preferential conditions. To discourage overconsumption, owning more than one car per household should come with substantial financial disincentives, regardless of social factors. Drawing inspiration from Japan, introducing a Kei car class could encourage the adoption of compact, efficient vehicles. Similarly, small motorcycles -such as those under 400cc and 200kg could benefit from reduced COE rates. It’s also time to introduce a new class of electric bicycles, designed for road use, with a capped speed of 40 kph. To ensure pedestrian safety, pavements should strictly limit power-assisted vehicles to a maximum speed of 6 kph. Only traditional, pedal-powered bicycles should be allowed to exceed this speed, but only within designated bike lanes. These measures would strike a balance between innovation, accessibility, and safety, paving the way for a more efficient and environmentally conscious transportation ecosystem.
The rich like ministers should continue with the existing coe bidding system and bid as high as they want. The rest peasants should ballot for coe without paying an arm and a leg. Likewise , those who support lifelong cpf lockup should not be allowed withdrawal and only month drawdowns or should even ask to not drawdown but to continue enjoy the interest rate. The rest peasants should enjoy a Superior CPF retirement Policy by Opposition to allow lumpsum withdrawal for life emergencies but not 100%. The reasons provided shall be carefully scrutinised and audited to ensure such withdrawals cannot be abused
The COE, Road Tax, Custom Duty on OMV etc relating to vehicle must be accounted to LTA budget expenditires and goals on serving the mass commuters. It's not govt revenue but level playing scheme to enable masses to use mass transport, walking, wheelchairs and cycling roads. If, in the event that that mass trasnport is so successful and road vehicles are much lesser, then, moneterization of stations along mass transport routes can be introduced. If you think Norway is successful in launching its Green Drive with over 90% adoption rate for EVs, Norway is exporting more polluting fossils to add to their sovereign funds. Norway has almost nil mass transport support due to its low population density residences. The easy HP financing in Sg also lend its purchasing power to higher wages earners to own more than one car. The private car direction in Sg is driven by lack of public transport support and status symbol. As a senior elder, I prefer not to own a car (and for many discriminating reasons against elders) but my mobilty can be improved by mass trasport conveinience. At the end of the day, law makers are elected to serve the population and demographic shifts than increase the gov revenue.
Slowly, all Superior solutions will be provided and put on record by Opposition parties vecause mamy flaws exist. But i worry some will twist words and call it another name. This GE, make sure you incorporate these superior solutions in your rally speeches which is when most may hear it.
Just allocate 'right' of ownership - 1 car per 4 persons in a household. Those who need more cars can buy the 'right' from those whi don't want it at a fixed or agreed price. Needs will be met and cars will be allocated based on demand. Prices too, if value of ownership right is based on free market dynamics.
Sorry disabled person can also be very rich. Large family can also be very rich. COE in Singapore is destined to be for the rich. Poor commoner Singaporeans are destined to take the public transportation no matter what COE scheme with the expensive parking fees, high fuel cost, electric city and car maintenance cost, spare parts that seems to inflates together with COE prices. PAP is destined to win the next GE.
The system is not broken, so no need for additional procedures for the COE system. There is already a multitude of possibilities for the use of a car. Further the key is the public transport, not greater car ownership!😂
PSP is on to something WRT to consideration of social factors to offset vehicle ownership. Adjusting COE may be a way to do so, but the mechanics need some thinking and if the government is open to considering how this can be done, we may come up with a possible solution that supports social needs. Or, in line with social factors consideration, vehicle ownership grants tiered according to these factors may be a possibility? Just spit balling in my free time. 😂 What do I know.
Understand that private ownership of vehicle is a luxury and not a commodity no matter what...so there is no such thing as need basis, its only a want basis.
Tell that to people whom have the VERY Young and the VERY Old to care for. It’s NOT a want then but a NEED instead! Stop being self centred and proclaim yourself to have the right to speak for others.
Credit trading is straight up dumb and highly abusable. Even mentioning this discredits the entire proposal by PSP. This is a farily good idea but the way it illustrated is just poorly thought through. Lets not forget there are also professionals who require personal vehicle to execute their duties, and these can be tracked by ACRA/ EMA/ PEB/ COEA and regulated for compliance. Private hire should be in their own category and kept to a fixed population quota with other forms of for-hire services, e.g., taxis, and should have criterias set on them for social engineering purposes. Young adult should be discouraged from such vocations unless absolutely the last resort.
The COE prices have risen significantly, possibly due to the impact of companies involved in private-hire services. Since the introduction of private-hire services in Singapore, nearly 50% of vehicles on the road now bear private-hire tags. While this is a positive sign for individuals fully committed to working as private-hire drivers, there is another perspective to consider.
If private-hire service companies are heavily involved in COE bidding, it could create a significant shift in financial dynamics, potentially impacting the overall capital required for vehicle ownership.
I believe a separate category of COE should be designated specifically for these companies, which could also include taxis.
Do you have a source for that 50% or just anecdotal?
COE system is dated and should be revamped. Private Hire cars should have separate categories.
dated but still getting in big bucks...y rock e boat...
Idea is good, but need to be simplified.
- use or sell your credits by default. Individuals do not control the sale of the credits, hence no black market.
- helps Singaporeans fight inflation better than wayang vouchers & it builds loyalty for SGreans doing NS & having kids
- prioritize Singaporeans who need it most
- self adjusting system that allow corporate expansion after the priorty needs are met first
This proposal is worth a deeper study rather than sticking to an outdated system that benefits only the rich.😊😊😊
COE bidding system shouldn't include commercial vehicles like buses, vans, lorries. These vehicle should be charged by usage based system as proposed by LTA years back but was not inplemented. Businesses need to transport goods so high COE will increase business cost and high inflation. Car is discretionary as citizens can use public transport. PSP's proposal is democratic and fair but credit system is complex and can be misused. The objective is to minimize congestion and improve efficiency. Commercial vehicles should be given higher priority. Family who needs car can make use of car sharing scheme and gov can sbsidy those who needs them with vouchers. Now COE is 120K, do u want it to go up to 200K? Do u want to pay a few hundreds dollars just to service your Aircon?
“Family who needs cars can use car sharing schemes”..
How simple minded..
ok, so I go start a shell company and buy cheap COE. Thank you very much.
Very innovative proposal that should be seriously considered and designed, just as property market. No excuse for government to deny and keep maintaining the present old system which has been implemented for more then 30 years, cars should not be just for the rich, but also for the one needed….
This guy very staunch opposition supporter. Any idea by opposition MP he will support enthusiastically without any regards of their merits. What is the point of your education if your decision making is all emotional?
I disagree. Hazel’s proposal is unnecessarily complicated and more crucially, not feasible. If I were PAP, I would be naughty and appoint her to be in charge of this credit allocation system. That will expose her ineptitude. Talk is easy, do is very difficult. It discriminates against singles or those with working adults who drive but living within the same household.
I personally would love this credit proposal and I can easily defeat this proposal by having 1 brand new car and multiple 2nd cars.
Many commentators tend to forget private car ownership is a luxury especially in tiny red dot SG but as a politician, this is glaring ineptitude. Indeed, people voted wisely.
Dude how far do u think this propose can go let me tell u this will never go far so no point case close
So based on this suggested system, discriminate the group that is single + female + able bodied? 😂 singles are already getting discriminated for housing, and many other policies in the name of “needs”. Singles are lesser humans when it comes to “needs” and “convenience” but when it comes to taxes to do their part for society and sharing of “wealth”, singles pay the same or more. So much for PSP’s idea of “fairness”. 😂
This person obviously not listening. She mentioned those she mentioned are examples and non exhaustive..
@@wanchitan4146 nah he pretty much summarised it quite accurately
Now we know voters actually chose wisely.
The party who speaks of anti-discrimination, proposes the most discriminating and xenofobic ideas.
I think they should just charge additional levy for second or third cars especially those more expensive kind. Also, they should hurry up and create a separate COE category for those commercial car....
there should be an ABSD on each additional car that is bought under the same household. There are too many cars illegal parking in housing estates along single white line, blocking cars moving in and out. When asked, they say they don't have enough parking in their car pouch. How is it that your problem becomes other people's problem?
1. Move PHV to another category. 2. Others go on owner self-bid ballot system just like bto (without giving rebates & citizens get priority) ... if fail to get ballotted then simply buy resale. 3. Increase COE lifespan to 12-15 years subject to rigorous fitness tests. Our infrastructures so good. A waste to scrap still-good-car.
Of course pap don’t want ! They lose money ! Please make #phv have a separate coe ! What are you allowing them to bully us
Ban the use of car loans. Car loans with interest inflates the COE prices artificially. This serves the interest of banks and govt through collection of intrest, COE + GST. These groups would like the COE to be sky high at all times.
Agree with you. I have also suggested to government to ban dealers from bidding for COE. Look at the COE premiums, doesn’t that look like a cartel? If only potential buyers are bidding and restrict COE from car loan, I am certain the premium will plunge to a more reasonable level.
Lmao like that no one will buy a car, gahmen wouldn’t want that
@@JojoJoget don’t think so. Singaporeans are very rich. Many live in HDB but pretend to be underprivileged. Buy car using cash type 😂
COE credits transferable?? create a black market for such credits. rich ppl just need to go Tekong or army camps buy up all the credits can buy 10 cars still 🤣 or even a black marketplace and black broker to buy, trade and sell such credits. worse than the current system
Gifting or purchasing means that wealthy people will have even more opportunity to own a car or more than one car. No gifting or purchasing of such credits.
@@qherwhw4-wn6po at least ordinary people get to earn some money openly, not the top earn, buy sell also scared to be in the open. Who decide policy to sell GCBs, then the cascade effects, then the $1million HDB, then cooling measures to suck back money from the masses at the bottom. Let the masses poor make some money. Who set policy and caused all this?
@@krollpeter did you listen to her suggestion or just read the headlines? your last sentence obviously meant u didn't watch her full video
@@krollpeter anyway, even if such credits can't be purchased. there will always be a secondary or black market for the final product - cars. where the rich will buy off the cars from the poor at a price. it will be the same net effect. the cars will end up in the rich hands as its a limited supply. money talks and finds its way eventually
e.g. 2 room flat - parents with 3 kids. get offered by rich guy 150k cash buy car for him and transfer full ownership model of his choice. will the family choose to drive and incur high running cost or sell the car for full cash just drop in bank account like that. anyway sg car population cant match all the families in sg. it still goes back to economics.
Higher COE price is mainly due to car industries players ie dealer, taxi companies and commercial car rental company by bidding high price. The high price will then transferred to the PhD (Driver). Basically owning a car for luxury lifestyle have no doubt to pay a price (usually higher). If a low income family depending on their breadwinner to support their whole family will need to be subsidise to help them with their children and elderly. Suggest those low income family PHD will have special rebate XX% link or inrelate with the COE average price. The special rebate condition is monthly collection of ie. $6000 or higher ( source : phv platform). This is to ensure no misuse accur.
Ridiculous proposal with almost no thought put into it, as typical of the minor opposition. Taking such a system in practice wouldn't even change the process of COE, it would simply complicate and make a process already tedious even far more complex. You would now have two separate bidding and price systems, one for the credits, and then the credit bidding itself. COE prices would become wildly unstable and possibly even higher than before since you can purchase credits from others. Doesn't this result in a lose-lose scenario?
If the credits are worth more, people who wish to sell their credits can do so at a higher price, but the cost of COE itself is then higher as well.
If the credit are worth less, then the price of COE could be less, but those whom do not wish to buy a car are then left selling their credits for meagre amounts.
Not to mention how this will likely not allocate COE on any fair basis still. By allowing credits to be purchased openly, it means that cars are still going to end up being at a similar price to the current COE, the only change being that the population now has to trade it's credits among itself, creating a tedious and frankly useless system that will still result in COE prices being similar to what it already is. This would also effectively wipe out 7% of the Government's budget from COE sales, which is about 7 CDC vouchers worth. That's $7,700 in money that can go to households. Is NCMP Poa sure households selling their credits will be able to makeup for this figure? Extremely shortsighted proposal once again by PSP, with little thought or logic behind their populist proposals that only fool the simple-minded.
this guy very worried ordinary people pay lesser for coe. this guy internet bridgadge officer is it. stop suppressing democracy. opposition has the right to lower coe prices
@@homehome3071the issue is it doesn’t lower COE at all
the issue is money are transfer from riches to poorer citizens and the riches will object it as buying car don’t reduce taxes anymore😂
@@homehome3071 What's the point of lowering the COE prices? To become the next Manila, KL or Jakarta?
No matter how it implement, they will never agree, they only agree to increase taxes. In their mind is only of lucrative
The COE system is simply flawed. With a small amount of COEs available, motorcycle dealerships can bid up all the COEs and control the pricing.
If PAP can’t earn from the buying and selling of credits, then it’s no go.
It’s time to revamp the COE system for sure
COE isn’t controlled by ‘market forces’, gahmen artificially raises and lowers the cost. Ever since that $1 coe shenanigans, they’ll never not artificially inflate the COE
Her proposal has merits. But i like to propose a simpler system, add another category based on drawing of lots.
create a lottery effect system where the lucky winners can sell their golden COE tickets or cars to black market / rich buyers. net effect is the same. the rich don't need to buy from GOV anymore. they buy from poor folks whatever the price is
FYI, COE generate the gov 4.5 BILLION last year which means taxpayer and Singaporeans have 4.5 Billion less subsidies every year. plug gap from?? Increase GST? Corporate tax? income tax?
Car dealers jacked up the prices
to earn from the higher loan.
When buyers can’t pay,
they repossess the car,
sell, loan and earn again.
Interesting idea but needs tweaking after discussion.
She is supposed to study Economics at Cambridge. Still, she doesn't seem to understand that her proposal will create far more problems than it solves. When government revenue falls due to the reduction based on COE charges she is proposing, it will lead to higher public transport costs, offsetting revenue for anyone who doesn't want to own a car and sells the COE credit in a free market!
The PSP proposal is incredibly complex and a hassle for everyone, without any benefit.
Transport is not the only way to increase revenue.
Aside from COE contributing to the high cost of car, nobody seems to mention ARF rates which contributes highest to the cost of the car, that system has to go
ARF if removed will go into the COE bidding and price of COE will go up since people are 'rich' enough to buy car at current price.
Many cars operating as private hire cars has renewed COE. As a result, it reduces the recycling of COE. Perhaps LTA can make a ruling like Taxi, 7 years for private hire cars
Just intro additional stamp duty for additional car per households.
We need a new system going forward, and I do not believe having COE for motorcycles makes sense. SDP
Hmm, hard to administer. B) t easiest is to give each car owner a certain no of free miles -- credit a year. C) it is t use of t car that creates congestion. Ownership does not. C2) one can own a car , leave it at home & only use it for impt matters or during off- peak periods. C3) this creates little congestion. D)The mileage credit charges shd be adjusted to t travel times. Drivers who travel during peak periods will use up their alloted credits faster. D2) a sliding scale of additional erp fees over your annual allocation for heavy usage will discourage excessive use of t car. E) to summarise, a mileage charging system is fair as t more u use, t more u pay. E2) t rich will still hv an advantage simply becos they hv t $$. But if t peak period pricing is high, it shd discourage most of t less impt trips. Esp if a sliding scale of higher charges are imposed for heavy use. F) agree tat there will be a short term spike in inflation as pple adjust to the higher transport expenses & costs.
Why are COE being bidded by Sellers of cars instead of the public Buyers. Why not the COE payment be handled by LTA itself with monthly installments , instead of having a third party (credit companies) that charges interest on top of the hefty COE B.S ? The best is Scrap the COE system totally or Scarp the party that wants to implement it .
u can do so thru atm...isnt it?
Yes, considerations according to needs need to be factored in as well as reducing the occurrences of the wealthy buying up two or more of what is a limited comodity unnecessarily.
Her ideas may need some work, but it's coming from the right considerations.
One of Madam Khor's counter is a false argument - the PSP member did not say that, she did not say it was a speculative commodity. The member points were to address the wealthy buying multiples of a limited commodity unnecessarily while families with more justifiable needs aren't able to obtain even one, effectly priced out by the former.
The same tools can be used to address both. No reason why not. Whether one is speculative or not is quite irrelevant here, we're talking about commodities which are limited in supply in both cases, that's the characteristic being addressed.
Before anyone says "oh all talk, but no solutions", I'm still developing an idea in my mind...
Tentatively I call it "Staggered Bidding" - gets rid of the issue of the credits, as described in the PSP member's idea, being translatable to a monetary value, and actually uses the same mechanism that LTA is employing now with this announcement of an extra 20,000.
Stay tuned, more info to come...
Also, I'll explain further here, that when you buy additional homes, the additional taxes both counters any pure desire of just owning extra property and the lure from potential speculative gains i.e. even if you're buying a second home just to sit on, the additional taxes acts to counter that. So they would be even more effective on a commidity that doesn't even have potential speculative gains in the first place.
Ok, have some time now to type this thing, hopefully somebody in govt or transport authority is reading these comments.
So, I call it (tentatively) Staggered Bidding :D
The bidding process is exactly as before, only one session really, and everyone can get involved just as before.
Now, let's keep it simple for now with just one extra classification called Special Bidders (SB).
1. A household with greater needs can apply for SB status after meeting a few criteria.
The exact criteria are up for discussion, my ideas here seek to address more of the bidding/price-setting mechanism side of things.
I guess, it could be something like if they have two young children below a certain age, or one young child and an elderly parent, or two elderly parent, or immediate family members (spouse, siblings, children, grandchildren) living together who could qualify for special parking, below certain household income level etc. or whatever.
All other bidders are Normal Bidders (NB).
2. All bidders NB's and SB's bid in the same exercise.
Let's say, we set a quota of 1,050 for CAT A
(for example, this past Jan 2025 first bidding exercise had 1,034 CAT A quota with 1,381 bidders).
The top 825 quotas will go to the top 825 bidders which can include NB's and SB's, with the price set when the top 825 is matched (Normal Price).
Now, the next 225 quotas will go to the next 225 highest SB bidders only, with the price set when the top 825 plus next 225 SB's is matched (Special Price).
Basically, NB bidders will be bidding for 825 COE's and SB's will be bidding for 1,050 COE's.
(Even if an NB had placed a bid that's within the Special Price band and higher than an SB in that band, they do not qualify for those 225 Special COE's)
Some issues to ponder (I'm aware):
- Those ratios might have to be reworked, according to how many bidders are anticipated to be SB bidders. A better balance will definitely be found by people with much better access to relevant data than me and with further studies.
- This might have an inflationary effect on the Normal Price, as NB's are now vying for a smaller quota, but depending on the ratios, that effect could be countered somewhat with SB's now having incentive to try to avoid bidding into the upper Normal Price band. Whatever effects that may materialize, the upward bidding pressure (pull) on the Special Price won't be as intense as the current system's upward pull on the one COE price that all bidders are vying for at the same time.
P.S. I have some more points to make about how this avoids a credits based system, where the credits are effectively translatable to a monetary value, which in itself would have an inflationary effect if not live regulated with some mechanism as the bids are going (adding to quite a bit of complexity).
And I don't agree with credits being able to be traded, kinda beats the whole point.
But I do agree with an ABSD style mechanism for potential buyers of more than one car.
Also, this might even kill another bird with one stone: I bet this will inadvertently be quite the incentive to have more kids! Govt's #1 challenge right?!
I'd like some feedback on this actually (if anyone's reading lol).
Also, I'm aware of how the current mechanism works, with the price rising until the number of people match the quota (to put it simply).
With this 'dual band' prices idea, it will start with a single price that will rise at the same rate as before, but the Special Price will stop before the Normal Price (Staggered!).
Once the two prices have split, the two price levels will stop and go independently as according to their own quotas (1,050 and 825 respectively).
Yes, that would mean that it's possible for the Special Price to come very close to the Normal Price - but then they were given a good chance in the first place, and if they still price themselves like this, then it's their prerogative.
I've got plenty more scenarios I've already thought about and could talk about e.g. what if all the SB bidders in the exercise are within the top 825 band of bidders etc., but my comments are getting really long-winded now, and I can discuss those some other time (btw, in that example, I'd say then it essentially becomes like the current system, but we have to accept that possibility as it is their prerogative again - at the end of the day the difference is they were given a better chance to start with compared to the current system).
The fact that they do not need to pay the full COE amount and just a small amount for Temporary COE (tCOE) makes it really broken for years. Robin Low
what will happen to coe prices once autonomous vehicles become a reality in SG?
Who voted for this opposition? Unneccesary complicated system that will cost a lot to implement. Black market carousell for credit.
We don't need to have a private vehicle. We need good public transport system
In that case, we ban import of cars lor
Cars need to be expensive as it is a status symbol at times BGs can have their extra marital affairs with their loved ones after a hard day at Parliament
@@tiasenglim6078 Don't forget the WP leadership! That one is two for one offer!
@@tiasenglim6078
Nonsense..
why make it so complicated?
the "COE credit" categories are already addressed by income tax rebates, grants for baby policies, disability, HDB sizes, elderly CPF topups etc etc...
the biggest problem is the private hires as a business outbidding private household use
The suggestion will create
1) Complexity to calculate and how points are allocated - there will be a lot of dispute
2) Create a backend market ( you will see highest bidder - selling credit on Carousell ? )
3) How about other threatening for you to give them your credits or bully you in to it… or being cheated by it.. scammers can then sell to the highest bidders
4) this also create 2 tiers of bidding - first to get credits from poorer people and then fight to see how much each credit is valued + how many credits is needed to bid for car ..
And can foresee .. many many other issues.. this is a worse system than the current..
This is similar to the old days of buying scrap letter to register brand new vehicle
Cars needs space for roads and parking and land is scarce in S'pore. Hence, why not just adopt an ABSD (used in S'pore property) like mechanism to
- discourage multiple car ownerships by an individual
- allow differential pricing between S'poreans and Foreigners in favour of S'poreans
- allow differential pricing between PHVs and normal use cars
The "ABSD" will specify an additional % amount payable over the prevailing COE
Road tax should also be higher for individuals with multiple cars, Foreigners and PHVs.
if the rise of coe still unable to solve vehicle overcrowding, then any policy that reduce the coe amount is gonna make it worst. Keep coe higher every year, then use coe to subsidies public transport fees. And remove commerical vehicle coe but add sets of rule to prevent misuse
This is a good idea for revamp the COE to remove money factor out.
But does this mean small families will find it more difficult against large families?
Simple use car grant similar as housing grant
I propose setting the COE very high. Then a credit system can be used to reduce this high COE, for example based on the number of children living in the household, or elderlies, disabled, or the size/weight of the car, the emissions, the energy efficiency.
No transfer of credits, no gifting, only one car per household, and no credits applicable for extra cars. Rewards for walking, bicycling or using public transport. Cancel road tax and setting it off by a more mileage road tax = only needs increase the fuel tax.
This is much better suggestion than what is proposed in video.
@@prime8krish thanks, Sir!
It's sad when the opposition is so useless that a TH-cam comment has far more logic than the entirety of that party. Your proposal is far more logical and workable.
@@krollpeter Sorry Peter, I disagree. Firstly, your proposal, although better than Hazel’s, is still very complicated and more crucially, not feasible. If I were PAP, I would be naughty and appoint her to be in charge of this credit allocation system. That will expose her ineptitude. Talk is easy, do is very difficult. Like your proposal, it discriminates against singles or those with working adults who drive but living within the same household. Moreover, how do you “set the COE high” when the COE is based on free market? Don’t forget, PAP has already done that by setting ARF, PARF very high.
Removing/reducing road tax and charge based on usage is unfair to everyone who depends on motor vehicles for a living. Prohibiting transfer of credits is fine but I simply buy a 2nd car that a friend bought yesterday … like a sham marriage 😂. I personally would love your credit proposal but it is not feasible.
Many commentators tend to forget private car ownership is a luxury especially in tiny red dot SG.
@@CalvinK-the_old_fogey I personally find the current system outdated, counterproductive to environment and the needs of people. For example, it encourages to own big cars. Or who needs a car most say a family with two kids, they can often not afford it.
Is she promoting “Huang Nui Piao” to our COE?
Idea is good. Car ride hailing and rental companies are forcing prices up
so basis this system, how many COEs will be available and does it reflect what the infrastructure can support? this kind of proposals are just made to make people feel good, but its totally unrealistic.
the fact that they are discussing prices in parliament is diabolical 😂
How can amy prove beyond reasonae doubt what she claims about coe ? Can i ask, who audited the value of coe pricing generated or derived? How exactly did the figures come about in a transparent and independently audited way? Or is it based on believing what they claim?
No need for such an impractical solution. She obviously does not drive. Simply carve out some COEs for PHVs, like they did for taxis. Taxis need to clock a certain minimum mileage every month, while there is no such restriction for PHVs. The barrier of entry for PHV is just too low. Every other car on the roads are PHVs, excluding those on long term lease to expats, foreigners, companies, etc.
Make all cars purchased by rental company comes with a different car plate labelling and cannot be changed. Those who bought from rental company under PHV after full payment and took Iver the car ownership cannot sell in the resale market. See which brian damaged individual still willing to commit for PHV with high COE.
Focus on usage. So much money has been poured into this yet usage is not implemented
COE system beed to allow access to all its data for PSP to derive a more precise solution. If PAP has no data it too cannot produce precise figures
Even a family NEEDS a car due to elderly parents with 3 young children, if they cannot afford car also LL.
Now you take credit bit/sell would be rampant.
Ni semua Poyo!!!
Rich become richer!!!
Poor become poorer!!!
The simplest system is to just let everyone bid for coe themselves before buying a car. But car dealers will complain cannot forecast demand properly etc. Govt won't be happy because even the rich will not pay so much for a COE if they bid it themselves.
You can bid for a COE yourself if you wish to.
@entrydenied Got penalty fee when go dealer with COE. And majority still use dealer to bid. So ultimately dealers still control the price to a certain extent.
Without this proposal, i guess the car ownership will be gentrified to be max for years to come.
I appreciate PSP's innovative suggestions to revamp the COE system. Decades of PAP circle jerk has led them to sit on their hands on outdated policies and rejecting well thought-out suggestions proposed by opposition so as to not legitimise them.
Do better.
The only thing you need to do better is use your brain. This scheme makes no sense and is just a worse form of COE where the credits are controlled completely by the free market ie. Rich people.
That's right, cars will be even more expensive under this scheme
I support this!
there must be some consideration for families with disabilities
What a crazy and stupid proposal. Allow to buy the COE credits and let it ends up like the BTO resale flat prices, skyrocketed pricing.
COE should also be based on the number of car under each household. Accelerated COE (% of the coe price) for the 2nd, 3rd or 4th car. Plse remember there is a grp of multi-millionaire coming in. Each GCB BUNGALOW family will need 3 to 4 or even more cars. So tax them appropriately. Current bunch won't listen😮. So VTO them😊
Car rental companies will ensure COEs to stay high or push even higher. This way, they can push out most to be/ current drivers that aren’t able to keep up and decides to give up, thus ensuring that those who wants to drive will have to rent from them as part time or full time drivers or to use their transportation services.
This is survival instincts for rental companies. If COEs goes back to the days of 10 - 30k, all these grabs like/rentals companies will have to suck thumb and exits the markets…..
So the rental companies strategy is to Ensure COEs remains and stays HIGH and or shoot to the SKY. Those who rent from these rental companies will knows the patterns more than badminton loopholes to suck your money dry…..just my 2cents…
Why so complicated just charge 2x more coe for the second car an individual has
Well categorised n control to help those in need of car for their disabled family member than those rich that can afford more than 2 cars in the family. I know some have 6 cars in their garage
sound good if only education of the public on the system and implementation of the system would cost more than any benefit of adopting this system for probably a century
A high COE benefits the dealerships as even the buyers for the smallest motorcycles need to take loans. These loans range from 4% to 10% or more for used bikes and come with a lot of clauses to prevent early termination.
Just revise the current COE bidding system to HDB balloting system for BTO flat.
Its like creating a kids game, with kids rule. This will overinflate the bidding by alot
Hazel Poa PSP suggested a point-based system that considers factors such as nationality and needs-based criteria for families with young children or persons with disabilities, instead of relying solely on the bidding price.
Very complex proposition
I hope the men in white is actually paying attention but I really doubt they will.
"wasted" if you are giving away these credits to someone who is are in the categories of people taht you mentioned and they do not need need it as much. eg; single child die standing; show how this can help lower cost for public transportation.... too messy!!
Can buy credit = $$$= still who has more money will get car
how to vote for PSP?
I thought Hazel has an excellent proposal but seems like the PAP is still too lazy to take Hazel's proposal and that egg-hoarder aunty simply brush off again saying singapore got limited land, but then how come recently can suka suka increase quota?
Aunty amy should be aware that cpf policies and system are the mother of all complexities or complications. What is Proposed improvements to COE is nowhere near as complicated as cpf system
Clear evidence why PAP is in power ❤
The rich like ministers should continue with the existing coe bidding system and bid as high as they want. The rest peasants should ballot for coe without paying an arm and a leg.
Likewise , those who support lifelong cpf lockup should not be allowed withdrawal and only month drawdowns or should even ask to not drawdown but to continue enjoy the interest rate.
The rest peasants should enjoy a Superior CPF retirement Policy by Opposition to allow lumpsum withdrawal for life emergencies but not 100%. The reasons provided shall be carefully scrutinised and audited to ensure such withdrawals cannot be abused.
©️ Longan Lee 2025 . All rights reserved and awarded to all Oppostion parties.
Huh? Really. Credits.
Next Hazel will propose food stamp scheme
Erm just going a big round but not solving the root.
This kind of system will not work well... people will find ways to gain the credits and soon there will be a "black market" dealing with these credits. Look at how skills future credits had been abused by certain organisation in the early days of implementation.
While I may not have the technical expertise to fully evaluate the feasibility of such a credit system, I strongly believe it represents a step in the right direction.
In addition, reforms in vehicle taxation could play a pivotal role in shaping a more sustainable future. Larger vehicles should face significantly higher taxes, while smaller cars could benefit from preferential conditions. To discourage overconsumption, owning more than one car per household should come with substantial financial disincentives, regardless of social factors.
Drawing inspiration from Japan, introducing a Kei car class could encourage the adoption of compact, efficient vehicles. Similarly, small motorcycles -such as those under 400cc and 200kg could benefit from reduced COE rates. It’s also time to introduce a new class of electric bicycles, designed for road use, with a capped speed of 40 kph.
To ensure pedestrian safety, pavements should strictly limit power-assisted vehicles to a maximum speed of 6 kph. Only traditional, pedal-powered bicycles should be allowed to exceed this speed, but only within designated bike lanes. These measures would strike a balance between innovation, accessibility, and safety, paving the way for a more efficient and environmentally conscious transportation ecosystem.
The rich like ministers should continue with the existing coe bidding system and bid as high as they want. The rest peasants should ballot for coe without paying an arm and a leg.
Likewise , those who support lifelong cpf lockup should not be allowed withdrawal and only month drawdowns or should even ask to not drawdown but to continue enjoy the interest rate.
The rest peasants should enjoy a Superior CPF retirement Policy by Opposition to allow lumpsum withdrawal for life emergencies but not 100%. The reasons provided shall be carefully scrutinised and audited to ensure such withdrawals cannot be abused
Unfassbar
My speaker we should tax 100% more for all non natural singapore citizens
This proposed system is too complicated. Will end up costing more
The COE, Road Tax, Custom Duty on OMV etc relating to vehicle must be accounted to LTA budget expenditires and goals on serving the mass commuters. It's not govt revenue but level playing scheme to enable masses to use mass transport, walking, wheelchairs and cycling roads. If, in the event that that mass trasnport is so successful and road vehicles are much lesser, then, moneterization of stations along mass transport routes can be introduced. If you think Norway is successful in launching its Green Drive with over 90% adoption rate for EVs, Norway is exporting more polluting fossils to add to their sovereign funds. Norway has almost nil mass transport support due to its low population density residences. The easy HP financing in Sg also lend its purchasing power to higher wages earners to own more than one car. The private car direction in Sg is driven by lack of public transport support and status symbol. As a senior elder, I prefer not to own a car (and for many discriminating reasons against elders) but my mobilty can be improved by mass trasport conveinience. At the end of the day, law makers are elected to serve the population and demographic shifts than increase the gov revenue.
Resolving problem using problem creation solution.
Slowly, all Superior solutions will be provided and put on record by Opposition parties vecause mamy flaws exist.
But i worry some will twist words and call it another name.
This GE, make sure you incorporate these superior solutions in your rally speeches which is when most may hear it.
Can't afford car take grab or taxi , the road alreday too jammed and frequent accident
Good idea but hard to implement
This propose wont go far and no point
More kids also neglected.cdc etc .How to encourage the young to give u babies?
Just allocate 'right' of ownership - 1 car per 4 persons in a household. Those who need more cars can buy the 'right' from those whi don't want it at a fixed or agreed price. Needs will be met and cars will be allocated based on demand. Prices too, if value of ownership right is based on free market dynamics.
people without children dont need cars
Sorry disabled person can also be very rich. Large family can also be very rich. COE in Singapore is destined to be for the rich. Poor commoner Singaporeans are destined to take the public transportation no matter what COE scheme with the expensive parking fees, high fuel cost, electric city and car maintenance cost, spare parts that seems to inflates together with COE prices. PAP is destined to win the next GE.
The system is not broken, so no need for additional procedures for the COE system. There is already a multitude of possibilities for the use of a car. Further the key is the public transport, not greater car ownership!😂
the present system is good enuf
PSP is on to something WRT to consideration of social factors to offset vehicle ownership.
Adjusting COE may be a way to do so, but the mechanics need some thinking and if the government is open to considering how this can be done, we may come up with a possible solution that supports social needs.
Or, in line with social factors consideration, vehicle ownership grants tiered according to these factors may be a possibility?
Just spit balling in my free time. 😂 What do I know.
Understand that private ownership of vehicle is a luxury and not a commodity no matter what...so there is no such thing as need basis, its only a want basis.
Tell that to people whom have the VERY Young and the VERY Old to care for. It’s NOT a want then but a NEED instead!
Stop being self centred and proclaim yourself to have the right to speak for others.
Credit trading is straight up dumb and highly abusable. Even mentioning this discredits the entire proposal by PSP.
This is a farily good idea but the way it illustrated is just poorly thought through.
Lets not forget there are also professionals who require personal vehicle to execute their duties, and these can be tracked by ACRA/ EMA/ PEB/ COEA and regulated for compliance.
Private hire should be in their own category and kept to a fixed population quota with other forms of for-hire services, e.g., taxis, and should have criterias set on them for social engineering purposes. Young adult should be discouraged from such vocations unless absolutely the last resort.
Don't waste time suggesting to improve the current system. Their ego are just too great to accept other's opinion.
Remove COE for motorbike
ok boss
Sure CEO should not own a motorbike😊