The Minister of Transport, Lui Tuck Yew, has announced that the quota for increase in motor vehicles will be reduced from the current 1.5% per annum, but will state the exact figure at a later date.
I agree with this decision to reduce the growth in vehicle population. In fact, I believe that we already have too many vehicles in Singapore - judging from the congestion on our roads and the difficulty in finding parking spaces at the homes, workplaces, shopping malls and other destinations. It is appropriate to start reducing the vehicle population, e.g. by not allowing some of the expiring permits to be replaced, but I do not think that the Government will take this step.
More important, we need to improve public transport, especially the local transport that brings commuters from their homes to the MRT stations or bus terminus. This can be done by issuing licences for local bus and taxi services that operate within a town. These services can be exempted from taxies and other fees, so that the cost to commuters will be kept low through competition. It will also provide employment opportunities for older people who have a driving licence.
I have written about these ideas in this paper on local transport and also in another paper on the public transport system. I have sent the papers to Minister Lui, but he had replied to me at that time that he is too busy to study them. I have not heard from him since.
Many people have to buy cars due to difficulty in getting public transport, especially if there do not live close to the MRT station. If there is a good system of affordable and convenient local transport, they may be willing to forego the expense of owning and using a private car,
Tan Kin Lian
I agree with this decision to reduce the growth in vehicle population. In fact, I believe that we already have too many vehicles in Singapore - judging from the congestion on our roads and the difficulty in finding parking spaces at the homes, workplaces, shopping malls and other destinations. It is appropriate to start reducing the vehicle population, e.g. by not allowing some of the expiring permits to be replaced, but I do not think that the Government will take this step.
More important, we need to improve public transport, especially the local transport that brings commuters from their homes to the MRT stations or bus terminus. This can be done by issuing licences for local bus and taxi services that operate within a town. These services can be exempted from taxies and other fees, so that the cost to commuters will be kept low through competition. It will also provide employment opportunities for older people who have a driving licence.
I have written about these ideas in this paper on local transport and also in another paper on the public transport system. I have sent the papers to Minister Lui, but he had replied to me at that time that he is too busy to study them. I have not heard from him since.
Many people have to buy cars due to difficulty in getting public transport, especially if there do not live close to the MRT station. If there is a good system of affordable and convenient local transport, they may be willing to forego the expense of owning and using a private car,
Tan Kin Lian
Owning, driving a car is akin to the days when owning, riding a horse is a symbol of wealth and sometimes authority.
ReplyDeleteWhen the horse is being riden, there is height and this gives an illusion of greatness as high as the sun.
All these feelings and perceptions exists even after 3,000 years. The
breed of horse - is is a pedigree?
(BMW/Mercedes/Lexus/Audi)
Does not matter if a loan was required.
Because of this natural tendency, it will be very difficult to entice people to give up driving unless there is some other form of ownership that can be visibly displayed.
Some success in Japan and Scandinavian countries where the taxis are so expensive that being seen riding in one is considered a luxury and hence wealth.
The rest of Asia has not arrived to such a point yet, and it includes Singapore. Regardless of infrastructures and futuristic landscapes.
The blunt way is what has been done
High taxes whether its COE,petril,ERP,parking.. its all money based punishment and disincentives.
Lets try another: give credit points for using trains & buses. Every 100km travelled within a 7 day period you get ( say ) 20 points. This will be captured within the current EZ-link system and you will get $20 credit for NTUC purchases, or some other participating merchants.. maybe insurance too.
How will it be funded? from car ownership and its use. From the ERP,parking and COE collected.
I dont know the cost-benefit ratio but its worth looking into:
Provided we are willing to give priority to cutting car use, as oppose to making a profit at the same time... that route is a pure PAP approach... a hallmark that will indicate failure.
"I have sent the papers to Minister Lui, but he had replied to me at that time that he is too busy to study them. I have not heard from him since."
ReplyDeleteHe is in a hole with a shovel.
He knows he needs to get out of the hole.
But he is too busy digging.
To listen to advice.
To stop digging.
And to start climbing.
Well, 60% of daft Singaporeans voted for this type of leadership.
It cannot be helped.
Dear Mr Tan
ReplyDeleteI read your 2 proposals.
Minister Lui wants to reduce the car population. This is his vision. This is how he defines the problem. Minister Lui sees this as a supply problem (of too many cars).
You want to improve public transport. This is your vision. This is how you see the problem. You see this as demand problem for cars. Which is part of a bigger problem ... good public transport.
So it's no wonder that Minister Lui does not have time to study your papers.
I'm glad I voted for you.
You don't disappoint me with your ability to clearly see the source of the problem.
Lui sees the supply of cars as the problem.... that is the PAP method.
ReplyDeleteSo, to reduce it, I issue less COE which in turn reduce supply.. but they do not tell it clearly:
More money collected due to higher bids.
Fantastic solution.. make money and reduce congestion.. create a class where only the ultra rich can own cars.. and enjoy higher traffic speeds! Ta-ddaaaa!!
unsolicited advice is seldom appreciated. You sent your paper, which you spent much time and effort, as well as leveraging on your decades of wisdom. But people like the ministers do not like this kind of unsolicited advice, since there is no backup should the plan fail and he gets the blame. Even if your plan is very good, 99% success and 1% failure, he will still not risk it. Instead, people like them like to engage consultants, even though the plan there may have 99% failure and 1% success, simply because if it failed, no one can blame him as it came from a renowned consultant, and they have paid for it through expensive consultation fees. In fact, this is how most civil servant works, that is the reason why a talented local who wants to teach General Paper for example, cannot get the job even though the students can improve vastly if he teaches them but they prefer a foreign Indian to teach GP at the Junior College, because the government line is that foreign talent is needed and even though the students cannot even understand what the heavily Indian accented English is all about but she gets the job because the civil servants who recruited the Indian national has all the paper requirements met and no one can fault them since the Indian is a foreign talent by the government standard, never mind if the certificate may be fake, never mind if the students don't even understand the brand of English spoken, never mind if we are all the worst off, just ensure personal gains are not compromised. Such is the sad state of affairs in Singapore.
ReplyDeleteLook at all their faces..
ReplyDeleteDo you think they are sucidal?
Firstly, the huge increases in property prices have squashed the dreams of ordinary Singaporean.
ReplyDeleteNext, we have the government again killing yet another dream.
In the end, Singapore becomes a place only for the rich who can pay the government any price it asks of them.
Not that I am against cars control,but I believe that our government should have enough talented people to come out with more constructive solutions instead of using a blunt instrument. There are people who need cars for their livelihood.
The government had made a blunder in the housing policies previously; I hope that they don't make the same mistake.