Why is the Government flip-flopping on COEs?

[makapaaa]

[h=2]Why is the Government flip-flopping on COEs?[/h]

June 1st, 2012 |

Author: Contributions

Dear PM Lee, DPM Teo Chee Hean, and Lui Tuck Liew,

Do you consider the recent decision by the LTA to moderate the cut in the vehicle growth a flip flop?
Considering that many years ago PM Lee decided to increase the number of COEs issued to “meet the aspirations of the population” and then later cutting the COEs due to heavy congestion on our roads and then cutting it further recently and then no moderating the cut, is this not the table tennis equivalent of policy making?
In the 1st place why did PM Lee increase the number of COEs whilst increasing the ERP to control car usage? To ordinary people, this only seemed to be a ploy at making the government more money as any idiot will tell you that nobody buys a car in Singapore to keep it at the carpark.
The latest decision is kindly phrased by the MSM to be ‘answering the call for more COEs’ or ‘tweaking’. If the Opposition were to do something similar, what would they be called?
Since you are already flip flopping, why not flip flop in the right way by removing a pure bidding system for COEs which makes it increasingly affordable only to the rich, implement a hybrid system that incorporates a quota, have a separate category for commercial vehicles and other helpful suggestions by so many other writers.
Then maybe you won’t be shocked when citizens curse you for letting the cost of car ownership get out of hand.
Btw, while you’re at it, maybe you’d like to replace the idiots at the LTA. The many, many incidents of unhappiness with the LTA should be enough to show that there some serious issues with the agency. From the stupid CBD taxi stand rule, to the Bukit Timah MRT tunneling issue to the Bukit Brown saga, to the lack of effective supervision and effective of the local transport operators, the LTA really should be revamped.
‘Nuff said.
.
John Chan

 

[Fook Seng]

There are few redemption points left. Whatever available they must grab. But the COE issue is only delayed by six months. Thereafter, it still has to be dealt with. Not an easy problem to solve. It is a problem compounded by decades of neglect.

 

[RonRon]

I applause the Government on constantly review the COE system actively to dealt with the problem.

 

[Einfield]

The head of LTA or any other ministrys for that matter are hand pick by the ruling party,
Non of will do or change things without having the nod from above.

They know the problems but their own interest comes
first, to keep the cushy job, high pay, little work.

All they need to do is to be obedient, to be in complete
compliance and support for the person that put him there.

In return he is untouchable, unaccountable to the people he is
Suppose to serve and guarantee a nice retirement plan.

That is how Sinkiland is run.

Not happy? Vote them out! But they have a few tricks
up their sleeve to make sure you can't.

 

[Fook Seng]

I applause the Government on constantly review the COE system actively to dealt with the problem.

The problem is nothing fundamentally has changed with the COE and it has now come to a head and has to be dealt with decisively. LTY tried to be decisive in his own way to tackle the vehicle traffic (not the total transport system) but it has proven politically expensive and his ideas have to be withdrawn.

The coming economic crisis once again offers an opportunity for the transportation policy to be re-balanced. Let's see if there is enough political resolve. Unfortunately for the Government, there are several other priority areas asking for its attention.

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

Why is gahmen still screwing us with over priced petrol n absurd ERP charges????

 

[Loofydralb]

Because bookworm scholars can never be as creative as the streetsmart ah beng.

Overpaid and overrated. The results speaks for itself.

 

[shelltox]

[h=2]Why is the Government flip-flopping on COEs?[/h]

June 1st, 2012 |

Author: Contributions

Dear PM Lee, DPM Teo Chee Hean, and Lui Tuck Liew,

Do you consider the recent decision by the LTA to moderate the cut in the vehicle growth a flip flop?
Considering that many years ago PM Lee decided to increase the number of COEs issued to “meet the aspirations of the population” and then later cutting the COEs due to heavy congestion on our roads and then cutting it further recently and then no moderating the cut, is this not the table tennis equivalent of policy making?
In the 1st place why did PM Lee increase the number of COEs whilst increasing the ERP to control car usage? To ordinary people, this only seemed to be a ploy at making the government more money as any idiot will tell you that nobody buys a car in Singapore to keep it at the carpark.
The latest decision is kindly phrased by the MSM to be ‘answering the call for more COEs’ or ‘tweaking’. If the Opposition were to do something similar, what would they be called?
Since you are already flip flopping, why not flip flop in the right way by removing a pure bidding system for COEs which makes it increasingly affordable only to the rich, implement a hybrid system that incorporates a quota, have a separate category for commercial vehicles and other helpful suggestions by so many other writers.
Then maybe you won’t be shocked when citizens curse you for letting the cost of car ownership get out of hand.
Btw, while you’re at it, maybe you’d like to replace the idiots at the LTA. The many, many incidents of unhappiness with the LTA should be enough to show that there some serious issues with the agency. From the stupid CBD taxi stand rule, to the Bukit Timah MRT tunneling issue to the Bukit Brown saga, to the lack of effective supervision and effective of the local transport operators, the LTA really should be revamped.
‘Nuff said.
.
John Chan

If you take a look at primary school maths, your answer would had been answered. The LTA decided to provide coe 0.5% more than the 0.5% growth LTA ｉｎｉｔｉａｌｌｙ　ｐｒｏｍｉｓｅｄ．　　ＬＴＡ　ａｌｓｏ　ｄｅｃｉｄｅｄ　ｔｏ　ｐｒｏｖｉｄｅ　ＣＯＥ　０.５％　ｌｅｓｓ　ｔｈａｎ　ｔｈｅ　ｃｕｒｒｅｎｔ　ＣＯＥ Quota. Do you catch the ball. Prata maths。