- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Did ST Editor misunderstand Mrs Chiam’s English?[/h]
March 23rd, 2013 |
Author: Editorial
Mrs Lina Chiam, NCMP
On 6 Mar 2013, NCMP Lina Chiam gave her speech in Parliament in response to Budget 2013.
In her speech, she covered many aspects of the budget. In the area of transport, and specifically with regard to the rising COE premiums, Mrs Chiam said [Link]:
Ms Chua gave her opinions on what some of the MPs said in Parliament. On NCMP Lina Chiam’s speech, Ms Chua commented:
Indeed, Mrs Chiam felt that she was completely misrepresented in Ms Chua’s reporting. Mrs Chiam wrote a letter to ST and it was published on ST Forum on 13 Mar:
Let’s examine Mrs Chiam’s original speech in more details. She said, “A COE for a car should be guaranteed for every family nucleus at an affordable rate.”
This is where Ms Chua made the mistake of assuming that if COE price is affordable, then every household will have a car automatically. In the past when COE was not implemented at all, did every family automatically have a car?
Obviously, in a bell-curve population, some can afford to buy a car but others can’t even though the price of a car may be reasonable. Then there are some who decide not to buy a car even though they can afford to because they thought that the public transport will give them a better value for money.
Indeed, in Mrs Chiam’s speech, she followed on to say, “There are reasons why public transport may not suffice for some – those who have elderly parents who are not mobile, for instance.”
In other words, Mrs Chiam acknowledged that some will be taking public transport while others will prefer to get a car because of, say, the need to transport their elderly parents around. So, in Mrs Chiam’s mind, she wasn’t advocating of “guaranteeing” a car for each household at all.
It appears that Ms Chua might be trying to put words into Mrs Chiam’s mouth? Or perhaps Ms Chua just simply misunderstood Mrs Chiam’s English?
.
Join our TRE facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/TREmeritus
On 6 Mar 2013, NCMP Lina Chiam gave her speech in Parliament in response to Budget 2013.
In her speech, she covered many aspects of the budget. In the area of transport, and specifically with regard to the rising COE premiums, Mrs Chiam said [Link]:
On cars – we seriously need a better COE allocation mechanism if we believe in a fair structure. A COE for a car should be guaranteed for every family nucleus at an affordable rate. It is the second and subsequent COEs for each family nucleus that should be subjected to higher bidding prices in the open market. Let’s not punish first-time car owners. There are reasons why public transport may not suffice for some – those who have elderly parents who are not mobile, for instance.
The next day (7 Mar), Straits Times’ Opinion Editor, Chua Mui Hoong, published her report, reporting the events happening in Parliament on the 6th (‘FROM THE GALLERY: Time for reality check amid calls to spend more’).
Ms Chua gave her opinions on what some of the MPs said in Parliament. On NCMP Lina Chiam’s speech, Ms Chua commented:
Not to be outdone, Non-Constituency MP Lina Chiam (Singapore People’s Party) thought every family should have a car: “A COE for a car should be guaranteed for every family nucleus at an affordable rate.”
The car population is about 520,000. There are about 1.15 million resident households. Mrs Chiam did not go into the impact on road congestion of doubling the car population overnight.
Actually, no where in Mrs Chiam’s speech did she say every family in Singapore would be guaranteed a car. There is a difference between saying ‘guaranteed a car’ vs ‘guaranteed a COE at an affordable price’.The car population is about 520,000. There are about 1.15 million resident households. Mrs Chiam did not go into the impact on road congestion of doubling the car population overnight.
Indeed, Mrs Chiam felt that she was completely misrepresented in Ms Chua’s reporting. Mrs Chiam wrote a letter to ST and it was published on ST Forum on 13 Mar:
‘Guaranteed’ COE for family nucleus: Lina Chiam replies
The article (“Time for reality check amid calls to spend more”; last Thursday) cited my speech in Parliament during the debate on the Budget 2013 statement, in which I mentioned that “a COE for a car should be guaranteed for every family nucleus at an affordable rate”.
The report said “not to be outdone, Non-Constituency MP Lina Chiam (Singapore People’s Party) thought every family should have a car”, and that I “did not go into the impact… of doubling the car population overnight”.
That point of mine was taken out of context. I was in fact calling for the certificates of entitlement (COEs) of the second and subsequent cars owned by each family nucleus to be subjected to higher bidding prices.
I proposed this as a means of controlling the number of cars on the road, while guaranteeing that the COE for a first-time car buyer remains affordable. For families with elderly parents facing mobility issues, for instance, the use of a car – just one – could be quite indispensable.
Lina Chiam (Mrs)
NCMP
Chairman, Singapore People’s Party
EDITOR’S NOTE: Mrs Lina Chiam was quoted as saying: “A COE for a car should be guaranteed for every family nucleus at an affordable rate.” As the article pointed out, if every household has just one car, the car population of about 520,000 would still double, given that there are more than one million households here. This holds, regardless of the number of households that own second cars.
In the footnote reply to Mrs Chiam’s letter, ST Editor continued to make the assertion that if every household was to have a car, the number of cars on the road would still double. No one will deny this. But is this what Mrs Chiam was trying to say in Parliament on 6 Mar?The article (“Time for reality check amid calls to spend more”; last Thursday) cited my speech in Parliament during the debate on the Budget 2013 statement, in which I mentioned that “a COE for a car should be guaranteed for every family nucleus at an affordable rate”.
The report said “not to be outdone, Non-Constituency MP Lina Chiam (Singapore People’s Party) thought every family should have a car”, and that I “did not go into the impact… of doubling the car population overnight”.
That point of mine was taken out of context. I was in fact calling for the certificates of entitlement (COEs) of the second and subsequent cars owned by each family nucleus to be subjected to higher bidding prices.
I proposed this as a means of controlling the number of cars on the road, while guaranteeing that the COE for a first-time car buyer remains affordable. For families with elderly parents facing mobility issues, for instance, the use of a car – just one – could be quite indispensable.
Lina Chiam (Mrs)
NCMP
Chairman, Singapore People’s Party
EDITOR’S NOTE: Mrs Lina Chiam was quoted as saying: “A COE for a car should be guaranteed for every family nucleus at an affordable rate.” As the article pointed out, if every household has just one car, the car population of about 520,000 would still double, given that there are more than one million households here. This holds, regardless of the number of households that own second cars.
Let’s examine Mrs Chiam’s original speech in more details. She said, “A COE for a car should be guaranteed for every family nucleus at an affordable rate.”
This is where Ms Chua made the mistake of assuming that if COE price is affordable, then every household will have a car automatically. In the past when COE was not implemented at all, did every family automatically have a car?
Obviously, in a bell-curve population, some can afford to buy a car but others can’t even though the price of a car may be reasonable. Then there are some who decide not to buy a car even though they can afford to because they thought that the public transport will give them a better value for money.
Indeed, in Mrs Chiam’s speech, she followed on to say, “There are reasons why public transport may not suffice for some – those who have elderly parents who are not mobile, for instance.”
In other words, Mrs Chiam acknowledged that some will be taking public transport while others will prefer to get a car because of, say, the need to transport their elderly parents around. So, in Mrs Chiam’s mind, she wasn’t advocating of “guaranteeing” a car for each household at all.
It appears that Ms Chua might be trying to put words into Mrs Chiam’s mouth? Or perhaps Ms Chua just simply misunderstood Mrs Chiam’s English?
.
Join our TRE facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/TREmeritus
