Latest news with #COEs
Business Times
19 hours ago
- Automotive
- Business Times
Passenger car COE premiums flat as Category A remains above S$100,000
[SINGAPORE] Premiums for the two passenger car categories – A and B – of Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) remained almost entirely flat in July's second round of bidding, while all other categories posted gains. The mass-market car category, A, remained the same at S$101,102, while the large-car category, B, dipped just 0.4 per cent or S$499 to S$119,101. The Category A COE is for mainstream cars with engines of up to 1,600 cubic centimetres (cc) in capacity or with up to 97 kilowatts (kW) of power, or for electric vehicles (EVs) with up to 110 kW of power. The Category B COE applies to larger, more powerful cars with engines of more than 1,600 cubic centimetres (cc) in capacity or with more than 97 kilowatts (kW) of power, or to electric vehicles (EVs) with more than 110 kW of power. The premium for Category C, applicable to commercial vehicles and buses, posted the largest increase in this round: It was up 2.9 per cent or S$1,911 to S$68,600. The premium for Category D, which is used for motorcycles, rose 1.3 per cent, or S$122, to S$9,511. Category E, the open category, which can be used to register any type of motor vehicle except for motorcycles, was up 1.3 per cent or S$1,500 to S$120,000.
CNA
17-07-2025
- Business
- CNA
No easy way to distribute COEs fairly and cheaply: SM Lee Hsien Loong
Scroll up for the next video X No easy way to distribute COEs fairly and cheaply: SM Lee Hsien Loong
Straits Times
16-07-2025
- Automotive
- Straits Times
Instead of overcomplicating COE system, Govt has ensured affordable transport for all: SM Lee to Jamus Lim
The Workers' Party's Sengkang GRC MP Jamus Lim had said that the COE bidding system does not account for those who may genuinely need to own a car. SINGAPORE - Complicating the certificate of entitlement (COE) system by having it account for the needs and circumstances of different groups may render it unworkable, said Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong on July 16. Instead, the Government has ensured that everyone has access to affordable and efficient transport, even if they do not own a car, he added. And those who need more help, such as families with young children, are helped directly such as through grants which can go towards paying for a COE, he said. SM Lee was responding to a Facebook post by Workers' Party Sengkang GRC MP Jamus Lim, who said that the COE bidding system does not account for those who may genuinely need to own a car. Associate Professor Lim added in his July 16 post that relying on market forces may not be the best way to adjudicate between the competing needs of different groups. He was commenting on what SM Lee had said at a dialogue on July 15 at the Economic Society of Singapore's (ESS) annual dinner . ESS president Euston Quah, who was moderating the dialogue, had asked SM Lee about calls to let some groups pay less for COEs. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Over 600 Telegram groups in Singapore selling, advertising vapes removed by HSA Singapore 2 weeks' jail for man caught smuggling over 1,800 vapes and pods into Singapore Singapore Jail for man who fatally hit his own daughter, 2, while driving van without licence Singapore Primary 1 registration: 38 primary schools to conduct ballot in Phase 2A Singapore ComfortDelGro to introduce new taxi cancellation, waiting fee policy Singapore Here comes the sun: Less rain, more warm days in second half of July Singapore Strong argument for cockpit video recording, says Iata chief in wake of Air India crash report Singapore Baby died after mum took abortion pills and gave birth in toilet; coroner records an open verdict Responding, SM Lee said there were many 'good arguments' for why certain groups are more deserving of a car. However, it would be very difficult for the Government to design a COE system which takes into account how many children people have, if they have a disabled family member or old folks at home, and whether their jobs require them to move around, among other things, he added. 'I think if you want to design a scheme which worries about all those things, it will fail,' he said at the dialogue. There is no fair and easy way to distribute something valuable like road space while making it very cheap, he added. What the COE system does is to act as a proxy for road space, price this scarce resource at fair market value, then allocate it using economic principles, he noted. Referring to these comments, Prof Lim, who was also at the ESS dinner, said what was 'sorely missing' in such a system was how those with genuine needs may not be able to afford a car, even if their needs have more merit. He added that having 'every aspect of their lives determined in a transactional way' was not how humans wished to live. 'Society has values—about compassion, equity, respect, and loyalty - that are poorly valued by impersonal markets. It's why we teach our children to share, why we don't charge an hourly rate to time we spend with our kids, why we don't think twice in breaking the bank when our parents fall in, and why we devote so much of our energies to causes that we believe in,' he said. 'That's why, for all our economic successes, there are ways that Singapore, Inc. operates that rubs many people the wrong way.' At the dialogue, SM Lee said that the Government can guarantee every Singaporean affordable, convenient transportation, but cannot guarantee that everyone can have an affordable car. He added that for those who have a special need, it was better for the Government to help directly rather than giving them cheaper COEs. For instance, families with young kids get bigger baby bonuses, which they can use to defray the cost of a car. 'Directly help the group you need to help in cash, rather than make complicated schemes, which then end up with all kinds of contradictions and wrong incentives,' added SM Lee. Prof Lim, who teaches economics at the Essec Business School, said in his post that the bottom line for him was that people are 'not mindless slaves to the prevailing structures and institutions' and can actively shape the future they want. 'If we want to head in a different direction, toward a more empathetic and just economy and society, then it is on us to seize that vision and make it real,' he added. In his Facebook comment, SM Lee said: 'Therefore where we disagree is not over who cares more for our fellow Singaporeans, but what is the best way to meet people's needs and take care of them.'
Online Citizen
16-07-2025
- Automotive
- Online Citizen
SM Lee defends market approach for COE while Jamus Lim urges more empathy and social fairness
SINGAPORE: On 15 July 2025, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong staunchly defended Singapore's Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system during a dialogue at the 69th Annual Dinner of the Economic Society of Singapore (ESS). Responding to public concerns over affordability and fairness, Lee reiterated that the COE system remains a vital mechanism to allocate Singapore's scarce road space through market pricing. During the event, moderator and ESS President Euston Quah raised the question of whether COEs should be made more affordable for those who may have greater need for a car. Lee replied that while he understood the desire to tailor COE prices to individual circumstances, but any attempt to engineer it too finely to meet individual needs would fail. 'There's really no easy way to make something which is valuable be distributed fairly, and at the same time, very cheap,' Lee explained, adding that trying to factor in individual needs such as family size or disability would make the system contradictory and unmanageable. Lee reiterated the purpose of the COE system: to use market forces to manage limited road space and control car ownership. He noted that the Government had already brought forward future quotas to increase COE supply and ease upward price pressure, but cautioned that managing demand remained the core challenge. Lee rejected alternatives like Beijing's licence plate lottery, arguing it would not be suited to Singapore's context. Pressed again by Quah on whether special groups should receive concessions, Lee maintained that while Singaporeans are entitled to reliable, affordable public transport, car ownership was not a guaranteed right. 'I can guarantee every Singaporean affordable, convenient transportation. I cannot guarantee every Singaporean an affordable car,' Lee stated. 'It is different from HDB houses. Every Singaporean household can get one. But cars, no.' Lee suggested that instead of adjusting the COE system, the Government could provide direct financial assistance to those in need. 'For example, if you have a child, it is better that I give you a bigger baby bonus rather than a cheaper COE,' he said, arguing that such an approach is more transparent and less prone to loopholes. Jamus Lim calls for deeper social values in policymaking In a Facebook post on 16 July 2025, Workers' Party Member of Parliament Associate Professor Jamus Lim acknowledged Lee's 'masterclass' in economic reasoning but expressed concern about over-reliance on market mechanisms. The Sengkang MP stressed that values such as compassion, equity, and loyalty cannot be captured by prices alone. 'What's sorely missing… is how those with genuine needs may not have the purchasing power to meet those needs, even if their needs may have more merit,' Lim wrote. Lim contended that when Lee defaults to an auction-based mechanism, he is not merely saying, 'I don't have the wisdom to decide. Let the market choose.' Rather, he is conceding the fulfilment of needs to those who are better positioned financially — those with more money. While acknowledging that Lee had rightly underscored the importance of access to public transport, Lim argued that not every facet of life should be governed by market logic. 'Society has values—about compassion, equity, respect, and loyalty—that's are poorly valued by impersonal markets,' Lim wrote, drawing parallels to family and civic life where altruism prevails over transaction. Lim called on Singaporeans to view existing policies not as immutable structures, but as systems open to reform. 'We are not mindless slaves to the prevailing structures… If we want to head toward a more empathetic and just society, then it is on us to seize that vision and make it real,' he stated. SM Lee responds to Lim's post publicly in rare gesture In a rare gesture, Lee's official Facebook account commented directly on Lim's post, reiterating key points from his dialogue remarks. Lee clarified that the Government's approach was to (1) ensure access to efficient public transport, and (2) directly assist groups in need, such as by increasing financial grants to families with young children. Rather than complicate the COE system, these targeted interventions better address social needs, Lee maintained. 'Therefore where we disagree is not over who cares more for our fellow Singaporeans, but what is the best way to meet people's needs and take care of them,' added Lee. Lim calls for more targeted measures In response, Lim thanked Lee for elaborating on his position, acknowledging the clarity on the two points raised. He agreed with the focus on accessible public transport and recognised the rationale behind financial grants, but argued for a more direct mechanism to signal support for specific social groups. 'I, however, favour a more targeted mechanism, ' Lim explained. 'It would not only better channel behavior toward a specific social objective, but also signal more directly as to how the government is helping certain groups out (while also blunting the transactional nature of the system).' Lim concluded by emphasising that the disagreement was not about who cares more for Singaporeans, but about different philosophies on how best to help them. ' And that, in turn, hinges on our differing beliefs about the behavior of people, and the efficacy of markets,' Lim wrote. Calls grow for needs-based tweaks to COE system amid fairness concerns A Netizen commented on Jamus Lim's post agreed that while the COE system is efficient, it can be unfair to those with genuine needs who cannot outbid wealthier buyers. The comment suggested ideas like reserving a portion of COEs for people with special needs, offering targeted subsidies, or creating separate COE categories for essential use vehicles. Others proposed measures such as instalment payments or capped bids to protect vulnerable groups from price spikes. Some pointed to international examples like Beijing's licence lottery, arguing it shows how non-market allocation can reduce inequality and traffic. Others noted that Singapore's own public housing and education subsidies prove needs-based systems can work. A comment criticised past governance for being overly profit-driven and for letting market forces dominate basic social goods like housing. Assoc Prof Lim himself replied that modern economics offers practical tools—like better auction designs and exemptions—that could balance efficiency with fairness if society chooses to act.
Business Times
18-06-2025
- Automotive
- Business Times
COE woes: When emotions get in the way of efficiency
SINGAPORE'S policymakers have always had an eye on efficiency. But efficiency may not be a convincing aim for citizens – as seen, for instance, with the perennial hot topic of Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices. In a recent interview with local media, Acting Transport Minister Jeffrey Siow disputed the popular narrative that demand from private-hire car (PHC) companies has pushed up COE prices. On the contrary, the PHC market helps to lower demand for private vehicles because it provides an alternative way to access private transport, he said. Without PHCs, there might be many more aspiring car owners competing for COEs. Crucially, the same single COE would serve many more commuters if it is allocated to a PHC, rather than to a privately-owned vehicle, he added. As with practically any politician's comments on COE prices, Siow's points drew impassioned responses online. Some argued that a COE given to a PHC results in greater congestion, as such drivers are on the road for much longer. Yet, this objection is arguably misaimed. It stems from a lack of clarity over the role of the COE system: as an allocation mechanism for vehicles, or a way to tackle congestion. In his interview, Siow made it clear that he sees the COE system as the former. Congestion, meanwhile, is being tackled by updates to Electronic Road Pricing. Indeed, the fact that a PHC is more active – and thus serves more Singaporeans – is precisely what Siow cited, in arguing for why it would better deserve a COE. Other objections, however, point to a more fundamental issue: the difficulty of applying cold hard logic in policy areas where decisions are influenced by emotion. Wants and needs Given Singapore's policy of zero vehicle population growth, it seems only logical to say that the best allocation of a COE is one that helps more people: that is, to a PHC. The problem is that logic is not the only foundation for policy, particularly in an area as fraught as private transport. Singapore's civil servants and politicians – not least politicians who used to be civil servants – are well-versed in fundamental concepts of behavioural economics, from nudge theory to moral hazard. Policies are crafted with a careful eye on what sort of behaviour they might incentivise, intended or otherwise. But beyond objective gain and loss, there are other forces that must be factored in, and which are far less measurable. There are, of course, many commuters who are concerned merely with the convenience of transport, and who will gladly choose not to own a car if there are better alternatives. However, someone who innately aspires to own a car – because of the image associated with this, the social status it conveys, or simply the joy of driving – will not be swayed. Transport, housing, education, jobs – all of these have been and will likely continue to be hot-button issues because they are tied closely to citizens' aspirations. In this irrational realm of hopes and dreams, objective efficiency is not the metric by which decisions are made. No amount of insisting that every school is a good school, for instance, will stop certain parents from moving house simply to be near brand-name schools. These impulses cannot be addressed by carefully crafted policies alone. Mindsets themselves must change – and policymakers may have to accept that some irrationality will always remain.
