Out of the few hundred cities in the world only Singapore has COE and Shanghai which recently
copied Singapore. There is no COE in MAJOR TOP CITIES like New York, Tokyo, Paris, Hong Kong, Melbourne, SEOUL.
Yet these cities retain their status and many are ranked more LIVABLE than Singapore. Even Tokyo which has 10M people in a place smaller than Singapore has no COE.....
Why is this so?
You see, without the COE, the only way to solve the problem is to improve the public transport system.
For example in Paris, there is a subway station within walking distance in almost any part of the city and
driving a car to your destination is actually slower than taking the public transport, this tilt the balance
so that public transport become good choice. In Hong Kong, small mini-buses able to stop almost anyway
make it ultra-convenient for commuter. In Seoul, the making the public transport so good, it discourages
people from driving cars is a primary goal.
So what actually happened in Singapore:
1. Once the COE system in place, the PAP could by brute force limit the number of cars.
2. This take away incentive of the PAP to upgrade the public transport infrastructure spectacularly
to encourage people to take the public transport.
3. They went on to privatise it into a profit making enterprise.
4. Singapore build up a class of ultra-rich to whom a $100K COE is basically nothing and this
system favors this class as it keeps our roads smooth and exclusive.
5. The struggling classes sometimes need a car due to children, elder parents, disabled members of family
...the are priced out of the car market. Creating a great mismatch between needs and allocation.
A top WORLD CLASS CITY is sometimes judged by this simple criteria:
A place where the public transport is so good, even people who can easily afford a car choose to take
the public transport.
But in Singapore the TRUTH is this:
It is a place where the public transport system is so crowded, packed and inconvenient, people would do anything
to get a car even borrow hundreds of thousands to buy one.
The PAP has created a misincentive for themselves by using a pre-text that if there are too many cars on our road,
it will be too congested. The truth is if the public transport system was up to mark and there was sufficient infrastructure investment,
there wouldn't that high a demand for cars and the road congestion would be manageable. Here is the vicious cycle ...once COE is in place,
the PAP didn't even bother with the public transport it already had it privatised and turn it into a for-profit enterprise.
This whole thing turned into a highly EXTRACTIVE system, in which those who have the need for cars either pay through their nose or were not
able to fulfil their needs. On the one hand it caused misery to those with a need for cars ...on the other it filled the govt coffers with the revenue extracted from the people.
This are about there are 200+ similar cities in the world NONE OF THEM NEEDED COE...
copied Singapore. There is no COE in MAJOR TOP CITIES like New York, Tokyo, Paris, Hong Kong, Melbourne, SEOUL.
Yet these cities retain their status and many are ranked more LIVABLE than Singapore. Even Tokyo which has 10M people in a place smaller than Singapore has no COE.....
Why is this so?
You see, without the COE, the only way to solve the problem is to improve the public transport system.
For example in Paris, there is a subway station within walking distance in almost any part of the city and
driving a car to your destination is actually slower than taking the public transport, this tilt the balance
so that public transport become good choice. In Hong Kong, small mini-buses able to stop almost anyway
make it ultra-convenient for commuter. In Seoul, the making the public transport so good, it discourages
people from driving cars is a primary goal.
So what actually happened in Singapore:
1. Once the COE system in place, the PAP could by brute force limit the number of cars.
2. This take away incentive of the PAP to upgrade the public transport infrastructure spectacularly
to encourage people to take the public transport.
3. They went on to privatise it into a profit making enterprise.
4. Singapore build up a class of ultra-rich to whom a $100K COE is basically nothing and this
system favors this class as it keeps our roads smooth and exclusive.
5. The struggling classes sometimes need a car due to children, elder parents, disabled members of family
...the are priced out of the car market. Creating a great mismatch between needs and allocation.
A top WORLD CLASS CITY is sometimes judged by this simple criteria:
A place where the public transport is so good, even people who can easily afford a car choose to take
the public transport.
But in Singapore the TRUTH is this:
It is a place where the public transport system is so crowded, packed and inconvenient, people would do anything
to get a car even borrow hundreds of thousands to buy one.
The PAP has created a misincentive for themselves by using a pre-text that if there are too many cars on our road,
it will be too congested. The truth is if the public transport system was up to mark and there was sufficient infrastructure investment,
there wouldn't that high a demand for cars and the road congestion would be manageable. Here is the vicious cycle ...once COE is in place,
the PAP didn't even bother with the public transport it already had it privatised and turn it into a for-profit enterprise.
This whole thing turned into a highly EXTRACTIVE system, in which those who have the need for cars either pay through their nose or were not
able to fulfil their needs. On the one hand it caused misery to those with a need for cars ...on the other it filled the govt coffers with the revenue extracted from the people.
This are about there are 200+ similar cities in the world NONE OF THEM NEEDED COE...
Last edited:
