It's only fair to make COEs affordable for all car buyers

Mar 07, 2013

[COE and Car Ownership policies brings out the crazies. Some are more silly than others. Most tend to get one basic thing wrong: they think car ownership is a right. Or more specifically, they think affordable or even cheap car ownership is a right.]

I DISAGREE with Mr Trent Ng ("COEs based on need: Let's not get on that slippery slope"; last Thursday) that the Government does not have an obligation to make certificates of entitlement (COEs) affordable to citizens.

His notion that "cars are a luxury good and not an entitlement" does not seem to take into account that the definitions of luxury versus necessity, or want versus need, are nebulous.

For example, the public accepts the need to ballot for primary school places and for HDB flat ownership. It is claimed that education and homes are necessities, but how far is that true?

There are enough school places for every child in Singapore. Therefore, having the convenience of going to a school of one's choice should be considered a luxury and not a necessity.

As for HDB flats, young couples already have a home in the sense that they can stay with their parents. To own a home for themselves, or even to upgrade to a better one, should also be considered a luxury.

[See what I mean about crazy? You have to be quite detached from reality to argue that your right to own a car supersedes a young couples need to have their own home. Or that wanting your own home for your spouse and children is just so much fancy luxury.]

The COE system is an artificially created system to regulate congestion on the road.

There should be equal opportunities for rich and poor buyers alike to own a COE, since cars owned by both groups contribute equally to congestion. Hence, balloting is the way to go.

I fully acknowledge that it is not the Government's responsibility to make the basic cost of car ownership affordable; however, it has a responsibility to make its policies fair for every potential car buyer.

Abel Tan

Comment online:
The crux of the letter above is simply this: "There should be equal opportunities for rich and poor buyers alike to own a COE".

What's your definition of "opportunity"?

Is this a true statement: Everybody, rich and poor, has the opportunity to bid for a COE, but only the rich who can afford to bid more, is likely to actually get a COE?

If the above is true, then everyone has an *opportunity*. And the letter writer has no point.

If you deem the above untrue, and that opportunity must equal actualisation of the goal, then balloting, as suggested by the letter writer is also not the way to go. If 20 people ballot for every COE available, then only the Lucky will get a COE. So 19 people will NOT have the opportunity to own a COE.

And since now COE is neither granted based on need or ability to pay, but purely by Luck, then EVERYONE will try their luck. And every COE will have THOUSANDS of people balloting for it. So for every one that gets a COE, there will be thousands who did not get the opportunity.

Unless, you charge a balloting fee, to weed out the free-riders.

There is already such a ballot. It is called Toto and 4D. Go buy a ticket. If you win, you can afford COE. If you bet enough.

Update: Response by abeltan.09 [Some time on 8 Mar 2013]

your oppotunity definition is irrelevant.
What kind of logic is this? Thats like saying everyone from the pauper in Africa to Bill Gates has the oppotunity to own a PRIVATE JET.but because the rich can afford it, they can get a PRIVATE JET.
If you cant afford something, your oppotunity will be ZERO PERCENT.
I have already abandoned COE balloting in favor of bid as proportion of ANNUAL income. The highest bid of income will get the car. For example, a middle income can bid100% of annual income and get a COE for $50,000, while a millionaire can bid 100% of his income , and pay $ 1 million dollars.
I submtted this a day later than this argument, but ST wont publish it.
This will ensure that affordability is not a concern when it comes to COE. You bid as much of your income as you need to have a car. If you need it more, you bid higher.

Reply to abeltan.09

(some time on the 9 Mar)

I don't usually like to do a point by point rebuttal, because it is very time consuming. But when every sentence you write is screamingly unreasonable, I will respond.

abeltan.09: "your oppotunity definition is irrelevant."

>>>     So, what is your “correct” and “relevant” definition? You claim to be a scientist by trade. I am rather disappointed that your writings reflect neither the discipline nor the precision of a scientific mind.

abeltan.09: "What kind of logic is this? Thats like saying everyone from the pauper in Africa to Bill Gates has the oppotunity to own a PRIVATE JET.but because the rich can afford it, they can get a PRIVATE JET.If you cant afford something, your oppotunity will be ZERO PERCENT."

>>>  This is what I mean by lack of discipline and imprecision. A private jet has a specific price. What is the specific price of a COE? If the price of a jet is $2m, you need $2m. The price of a COE had previously fallen to $2 (Nov 2008). You telling me you can't afford $2? Everyone who bid for COE in that category in Nov 2008 got a COE. My point is not that COE will be $2 again. But that there is a chance which is NOT zero percent (as you brazenly claim with no reference to facts or precedent) that bidders can get a COE.

abeltan.09:"I have already abandoned COE balloting in favor of bid as proportion of ANNUAL income. The highest bid of income will get the car. For example, a middle income can bid100% of annual income and get a COE for $50,000, while a millionaire can bid 100% of his income , and pay $ 1 million dollars."

>>>        And of course our lives revolve around your thought processes - impressive as it is. So this means that you are not a man of your word? You say one mindless thing today. Change your mind next week. And your ill-informed utterances of a week ago becomes irrelevant? You abandon and disown your words like an unwanted baby? This says less about your integrity, and more about the amount of thought and consideration you give to your words. Like I said, your writings reflect neither discipline nor precision one expects from a scientist.  Or for that matter, a reasonably intelligent, consistent, and logical person. One would expect a scientist to be more circumspect in arriving at conclusions. To weigh their words more carefully.

abeltan.09: "I submtted this a day later than this argument, but ST wont publish it."

>>>    They probably regretted publishing your first letter. Or not. Based on the number of comments here, they are probably patting themselves on their backs for picking a good troll. So by your own admission, you abandoned your ballot idea one day later. Your ideas change day by day, eh?

        
abeltan.09: "This will ensure that affordability is not a concern when it comes to COE. You bid as much of your income as you need to have a car. If you need it more, you bid higher"

>>>     In any case I had addressed your “proportional income bid” system where COE applicants bid based on a percentage of their annual income. Frankly, I do not know how you come up with these ideas. The only people who stand to gain are those with NO income:

“Wow. So smart. I got a grandfather and a retired uncle. I will get them to bid 7 million percent of their income. Sure get COE one!
BTW, what is 7 million percent of zero hah? My grandfather and uncle not working. But I will pay them back when they get the COE, and give them a bit of kopi money for their trouble.
You also got retired uncle or grandfather with no income right?”

>>>     And... let me guess:  you will now change or adjust your “proportional income bid” system to address this HUMONGOUS loophole in your proposal and tell everyone you have already abandoned your ill-thought-out first draft and can we all just give you a break and listen to your latest (half-baked) idea?

>>> Why don't you take a break, think thru your ideas, and test them out on some people, preferably someone smarter than you. If you are truly a scientist by trade, I expect some of your colleagues should be pretty smart. As for you, well, there is the Bell Curve and -2 SD from the mean is still considered normal.