REACH (Telegram) 163 - What are your views on LTA’s proposed changes to the COE? What should be considered to ensure the system remains fair, transparent and responsive to different transport needs?
(SK)
09 Oct 2026 (10am - 7pm)
REACH (Telegram)
[9/10/2026 9:45 am] REACH Singapore: Dear Contributors,
Welcome Back! ๐
⏰ We will be opening the chat from 10am to 7pm today. ⏰
House Rules (short version of our Terms of Use) to keep in mind:
1. Be kind and respectful. We all want to be in a safe space to share our views.
2. Any and all threatening, abusive, vulgar or racially, religiously and ethnically objectionable content is prohibited.
3. Consider the quiet ones among us and give them a chance to comment.
4. No need to repeat your comment or in different forms (including caps) - we heard you loud and clear the first time.
5. Let's protect each other's privacy and keep contact details in this group what it should always be - confidential.
Full set of Terms of Use: https://www.reach.gov.sg/Participate/reach-telegram-group/REACH-Telegram-Group-Chat-Terms-of-Use (https://www.reach.gov.sg/Participate/reach-telegram-group/REACH-Telegram-Group-Chat-Terms-of-Use/)/
We will strive to uphold these rules to ensure this is a safe space for all.
Please be assured that the points made by participants during the chat are aggregated and shared with relevant agencies.
The topic will be posted shortly.
Thank you.
Megan ๐
[9/10/2026 10:01 am] REACH Singapore: ๐ข Topic ๐ข
On 8 October (Thursday), the Land Transport Authority (LTA) launched a public consultation on proposals to merge car COE Categories A and B, introduce a value-based rebate and surcharge system to better distinguish between mass-market and higher-end cars, and make adjustments to Category E (Open category).
๐ฌ What are your views on LTA’s proposed changes to the COE? What should be considered to ensure the system remains fair, transparent and responsive to different transport needs?
๐ LTA's public consultation
LTA stated that:
(1) All cars would bid in a single COE category if Categories A and B are merged, with a rebate or surcharge applied based on each model’s median Open Market Value (OMV).
(2) LTA is consulting on either a three-band or five-band structure, with the maximum rebate and maximum surcharge set at $15,000 each. LTA emphasised that the proposed changes are intended to better differentiate mass-market and higher-end cars, but are not meant to lower overall COE prices, which would continue to be determined by demand and available supply;
(3) LTA is separately seeking feedback on whether Category E (Open Category) should be removed or modified, and said the public consultation will close at 11.59pm on 2 November, with findings and recommendations to be shared by the first half of 2027.
๐ Other proposals that were considered but not adopted
LTA also explained why it did not take up various suggestions that were floated during its dialogue sessions.
On allocating COEs based on family needs, LTA said doing so requires judgment about whose needs should receive greater priority. Setting aside more COEs for families with young children would mean fewer COEs for other groups such as caregivers and multi-generational households, it said, noting the difficulty of administering such a system fairly over the lifespan of a COE as household circumstances change over time.
Other ideas raised include adopting a pay-as-you-bid system for COEs, creating a separate category for private-hire cars, and imposing a surcharge on owners of multiple cars.
On creating a separate category for PHV cars, the LTA said the move will mean setting aside some COEs for the new category, and prices could rise if too many COEs are reallocated from the existing pool.
On the other hand, setting aside too few would reduce the number of private-hire vehicles on roads, leading to higher rental fees for drivers and more expensive fares for travellers.
๐ https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/merging-cat-a-and-b-rebates-based-on-car-value-among-proposed-changes-to-coe-system
๐ https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/car-coe-merge-category-fee-rebate-lta-proposal-consultation-6436626
๐https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/priority-for-families-with-children-new-ride-share-car-category-among-ideas-left-out-of-coe-review
๐https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2026/10/news-releases/launch-of-public-consultation-on-coe-categorisation-for-cars.html
๐ https://www.reach.gov.sg/latest-happenings/public-consultations/2026/public-consultation-on-proposed-changes-to-certificate-of-entitlement--coe--categorisation-for-cars/
----
[9/10/2026 10:07 am] Adam: It looks like the system is improving. Not perfect but better. The govt looks to be acknowledging the limitations of the current system
[9/10/2026 10:10 am] G: It is very very concerning that the covid jabs are now included in the national immunisation schedule.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/covid-19-vaccination-national-immunisation-schedule-cda-6438661
This is despite the countless harms that these jabs have caused.
Furthermore, Pfizer is being sued by the Florida attorney general for misleading safety data, misleading transmission claims for their covid jabs
https://www.myfloridalegal.com/sites/default/files/oag-v.-pfizer_filed-complaint.pdf
[9/10/2026 10:11 am] Adam: I think much of the price of the car is because of the middlemen culture our country has. Hard to buy car and bid coe differently.
What the gov should do is regulate loans and car purchases like house and bank loans. Are they selling a car or selling a financial product? Should MAS step in.
[9/10/2026 10:14 am] G in reply to G:
> It is very very concerning that the covid jabs are now...
Example of pfizer's own data that was used to push the narrative that their covid jab was safe (from the lawsuit):
"76. By February 28, 2021, Pfizer possessed reports for 458 pregnant women
exposed to its COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy:
a. More than half of the pregnant women (248 cases, or 54%)
reported an adverse event from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
b. More than 1-in-10 women (52) who received Pfizer’s COVID-19
vaccine during their pregnancy reported a miscarriage, many within
days of vaccination.
c. Nearly all these miscarriages occurred in the first trimester,
suggesting miscarriage rates among those receiving the vaccine in the first trimester were significantly higher than 1-in-10.
d. Six women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine during their
pregnancy reported premature deliveries; several babies died. "
[9/10/2026 10:14 am] Adam: Are we discussing the same topic in Reach?
[9/10/2026 10:16 am] G in reply to Adam:
> Are we discussing the same topic in Reach?
It's ok. REACH has shown us many times in this group that not staying on topic is acceptable as long as whatever is being discussed pertains to national policy
[9/10/2026 10:16 am] Daniel in reply to G:
> Example of pfizer's own data that was used to push the...
I thought even a normal pregnancy has a 1-5 to 1-4 chance of miscarriage in the first trimester, so 1-10 seems like it's well within normal ranges.
[9/10/2026 10:17 am] Daniel: I think these changes to the COE are good. Make the bidding a bit more predictable.
[9/10/2026 10:18 am] G in reply to Daniel:
> I thought even a normal pregnancy has a 1-5 to 1-4 chance of...
Pregnancy is just 1 aspect
Women's reproductive health is another:
"77. These concerning reports were reinforced by tens of thousands of
adverse events Pfizer knew about by April 2022 showing its COVID-19 vaccine was
impacting women’s reproductive systems—including heavy menstrual bleeding (27,685); menstrual disorders (22,145); irregular periods (15,083); delayed periods (13,989); absence of periods (11,363); and other reproductive system effects."
[9/10/2026 10:18 am] Daniel: Overall I wish policies would be a bit less car centric and favour pedestrians and busses more, since a bit majority of the population does not own a car. Making public transport or walking/cycling more attractive will also lead to less demand for COE and hopefully lower prices of COE.
[9/10/2026 10:19 am] Adam: We need more people centric infra design
[9/10/2026 10:21 am] Adam: Imagine if crossings were raised to pedestrian level and colored as pedestrian roadside. Instead of us stepping down to a road to cross
The psychological implication that a car is intruding into a pedestrian space will slow them down. Current state is car being entitled as walkers are intruding into the car's space
[9/10/2026 10:22 am] Adam: And if got accident, the image of someone being hit who isnt on a road
[9/10/2026 10:23 am] G: Pfizer hid adverse event data, but was forced to reveal them via the freedom of information act
"90. The Pfizer Feb. 28, 2021 Adverse Event Data document was only
obtained through FOIA litigation and at a much later date than February 28, 2021.
91. As of February 28, 2021—about 10 weeks after Pfizer obtained
emergency use authorization—Pfizer’s adverse events database already contained
158,893 adverse events (from 42,086 case reports) from its COVID-19 vaccine"
[9/10/2026 10:24 am] Daniel: As an example, I used to have my kids in two different schools (preschool and kindergarten) and we couldn't get one near my flat. So I used a bicycle with two seats to bring them. That worked okay, but there are so many obstacles (barriers made to slow down bicycle are very hard to navigate with children's seats, but also no sheltered bike parking at the train station to get to work after dropping them off). It still worked for me, but barely. We almost got a car in the end. So lowering this kind of barriers (while still maintaining safety for pedestrians from errant cyclists) would enable more people to rely on walking or cycling for this kind of last mile commute and maybe slightly reduce the demand for COEs.
[9/10/2026 10:28 am] G: Against this backdrop of questionable safety profile, at least for the pfizer jabs, it is therefore very very concerning that MOH / CDA see fit to include them into the national immunisation schedule
"ROLLOUT OF UPDATED COVID-19 VACCINES
Updated COVID-19 vaccines targeting the XFG strain will also be rolled out from Oct 12 at more than 600 GP clinics, all polyclinics and MVT sites across Singapore.
The XFG Moderna/Spikevax and XFG Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccines provide better protection against current and emerging strains of COVID-19, MOH and CDA said.
Their safety profiles are comparable to those of previous versions, they added."
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/covid-19-vaccination-national-immunisation-schedule-cda-6438661
[9/10/2026 10:28 am] Adam: Demand for COE needs to be reduced for working class people. Right now public transit is too inconvenient for many jobs. Especially those that travel around singapore
[9/10/2026 10:38 am] REACH Singapore in reply to G:
> Against this backdrop of questionable safety profile,...
@t_l3e
Dear Contributors,
All contributors are reminded to adhere to the Terms of Use for this platform, which can be found at: https://www.reach.gov.sg/Participate/reach-telegram-group/REACH-Telegram-Group-Chat-Terms-of-Use/
It is requested that contributors refrain from making statements that are irrelevant to the ongoing discussions, or that may be considered harmful, offensive, or inaccurate. It is everyone’s responsibility to make this online space a safe and conducive one for all participants to share their views and feedback on national issues.
Thank you for your understanding and support.
REACH
[9/10/2026 10:42 am] Daniel in reply to Adam:
> Demand for COE needs to be reduced for working class people....
This is true. Especially busses are so slow to get anywhere.
[9/10/2026 10:54 am] G in reply to REACH Singapore:
> @t_l3e Dear Contributors, All contributors are reminded to...
Oh well, what's shared are verifiable facts (statements by MOH / CDA indicating the jabs' safety profiles being comparable to those of previous versions as reported by CNA, lawsuit by Florida AG vs pfizer highlighting numerous adverse events from the pfizer jabs)
What's not verifiable is my own opinion and feedback of concern arising from the backdrop established by facts.
Given the trend of others in this group frequently going off topic, I saw sharing my concerns and feedback on the covid jabs being included as part of the national immunisation schedule (it's a national issue) as permissible by REACH.
Thank you for your understanding.
[9/10/2026 11:00 am] REACH Singapore: [ Poll : I believe that the proposed changes will help in differentiating the prices between mass-market cars and higher-end models. ]
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
[9/10/2026 11:10 am] Daniel: I think the fact of giving a rebate on cheaper cars and making more expensive cars pay higher COE is a good way of making it cheaper for people who just need a car out of necessity. I wonder whether that approach could be calibrated a bit. Like it makes a difference whether the car is more expensive because it's a family van or a bigger vehicle to fit a wheelchair or whether it's more expensive because it's a fancy car. But obviously hard to consider all those.
[9/10/2026 11:27 am] Adam: The thing is it can be argued that everyone needs a car out of necessity. If we subsidize car usage for parents. The parents who cannot even afford a car will not benefit. Only benefit rich parents.
[9/10/2026 11:28 am] Adam: Same for disabled people. Only rich wheelchairs own a car for themselves
[9/10/2026 11:28 am] Adam: Are we gonna give credits to low income immobile people to take taxi?
[9/10/2026 11:29 am] Jun Ming: I can foresee more smaller car less big cars
[9/10/2026 11:29 am] Adam in reply to Jun Ming:
> I can foresee more smaller car less big cars
Singaporeans will always maximise the worth of their coe if possible
[9/10/2026 11:29 am] Adam: If small car and big car is almost same price, just pay a bit more so if some guy crash into you, you will not fly
[9/10/2026 11:30 am] Adam: In the end all car take 1 parking lot
[9/10/2026 11:30 am] Adam: Perhaps sg can incentivise japanese kei cars somehow
[9/10/2026 11:31 am] Adam: Its gonna be a race to the bottom. In america, if you dont drive big car, you will barely see past the car in front of you blocking your vision
[9/10/2026 11:32 am] Daniel in reply to Adam:
> The thing is it can be argued that everyone needs a car out of...
Yes, that is true.
[9/10/2026 11:32 am] Jun Ming: But coe have more rebate. So I guess more people would buy smaller cars. As it's worth it
[9/10/2026 11:32 am] Daniel in reply to Adam:
> In the end all car take 1 parking lot
You mention Kei cars. They got some tiny parking lots for those to.
[9/10/2026 11:34 am] Adam in reply to Daniel:
> You mention Kei cars. They got some tiny parking lots for...
K category cars with less restrictions could be done. But it will be a headache with many categories of users on the roads
[9/10/2026 11:34 am] Derek Teo: i personally think the impact of this proposal will be low. There are two problems they are trying to solve: (1) EVs that deliberately lowered their technical specifications to drop from CAT B to CAT A, and (2) the competition with PHV drivers.
The proposal only solved (1) but not (2), and you will still see a skyrocketing COE prices. I think it wont go back to the 'good-old-days' state but it can be lowered a little bit more.
On a minor point, the surcharge of 15k doesnt make a huge impact as the range of cars is too wide e.g., Mercs C-Class to Roll Royce. I understand from the CNA report that the impact of luxury class or multiple cars in a single house hold is low, which doesnt affect the overall the COE pricing when we look at it from a grander perspective. Still, i think the surcharge should be further tiered accordinly and can go way higher for those who are looking at luxury/supercars
[9/10/2026 11:35 am] Jun Ming in reply to Jun Ming:
> But coe have more rebate. So I guess more people would buy...
After all most people just need it to transport from point a to b fast
[9/10/2026 11:35 am] Jun Ming: Unless have big family
[9/10/2026 11:35 am] Jun Ming: Which low tfr does not justify
[9/10/2026 11:36 am] Adam: But really, it shouldnt be framed that a car is needed to do these essential things like transport family
[9/10/2026 11:36 am] Adam: The public transport should be good enough. But it isnt
[9/10/2026 11:37 am] Adam: So, if somehow the gov can fix bus such that its will always be on time. Maybe robot taxi for last mile. Are we still gonna argue about cars for family?
[9/10/2026 11:38 am] Jun Ming in reply to Adam:
> The public transport should be good enough. But it isnt
Would you stand for 1 h in mrt in a very pack environment
[9/10/2026 11:38 am] Jun Ming: Given a choice would you want to sit in your car
[9/10/2026 11:38 am] Adam in reply to Jun Ming:
> Would you stand for 1 h in mrt in a very pack environment
No choice. Are you implying that if mrt is crowded we need to build more roads and make cars cheaper?
[9/10/2026 11:39 am] Jun Ming: I am implying if people have a choice they will go for a car
[9/10/2026 11:39 am] Jun Ming: No matter how small it is
[9/10/2026 11:39 am] Adam in reply to Jun Ming:
> Given a choice would you want to sit in your car
I always had a choice. I wont go for car. Because the choice is not merely transport comfort. It considers the price
[9/10/2026 11:40 am] Adam: I took a $40 grab to work last week. Why?
My company pay for it. Not my money.
Imagine if the government subsidize your car.
[9/10/2026 11:41 am] Adam: I couldve take a train that makes the transit cost 10% less yet take only 20 mins more
[9/10/2026 11:41 am] Jun Ming in reply to Adam:
> I took a $40 grab to work last week. Why?...
If company compensate good if no?
[9/10/2026 11:42 am] Adam in reply to Jun Ming:
> If company compensate good if no?
Yeah. Its the buffet syndrome. If our gov did it, its the taxpayer footing the bill
[9/10/2026 11:43 am] Jun Ming: So I think gov need to expand more on public transport.
[9/10/2026 11:43 am] Jun Ming: Faster bus
[9/10/2026 11:44 am] Jun Ming: Don't run on 30km/h
[9/10/2026 11:45 am] Adam: Bus train all need to be solid. Idk how we can immigrate so much yet our infra cannot cope. If we have positive tfr how to handle?
[9/10/2026 11:45 am] Andy: I agree on public transport expansion.
But remember these come with increased public transport costs. Either way the money will have to come from somewhere.
[9/10/2026 11:47 am] Adam in reply to Andy:
> I agree on public transport expansion....
I'd say car usage can fund public transport building. Look at it this way too. More people using bus mean your coe is more roomy and your car can go less traffic
[9/10/2026 11:48 am] Jun Ming: Expand phv and taxi fleet too
[9/10/2026 11:48 am] Jun Ming: Everytime need to wait for long time to get a taxi
[9/10/2026 11:48 am] Andy: Overall I agree that nation should become more car lite. 1 car, fit 1 to 5 people. For the same unit size, a bus can transport more people. Car is selfish.
But then again I understand the dream of owning a car so we have our own space at our own convenience. COE definitely will continue to rise if supply drop
[9/10/2026 11:48 am] Adam: We need autonomous taxis so grab driver wont pull funny things
[9/10/2026 11:49 am] Andy in reply to Jun Ming:
> Expand phv and taxi fleet too
People dont wanna work PHV.. haha
[9/10/2026 11:49 am] Adam in reply to Andy:
> Overall I agree that nation should become more car lite....
I have dream of owning a gun, and shooting for fun. But alas i live in singapore. Ill do those things overseas
[9/10/2026 11:49 am] Jun Ming in reply to Jun Ming:
> Everytime need to wait for long time to get a taxi
Make sure if someone call a grab you can get phv within 5 min
[9/10/2026 11:50 am] Jun Ming in reply to Andy:
> People dont wanna work PHV.. haha
Lower down the age can drive phv
[9/10/2026 11:50 am] Adam in reply to Andy:
> People dont wanna work PHV.. haha
Hey this honorable job is reserved for singaporeans only
[9/10/2026 11:50 am] Jun Ming: I pretty sure some youngster want to drive
[9/10/2026 11:50 am] Andy: Oh, whats the age now? Didnt know got restriction
[9/10/2026 11:50 am] Jun Ming: 35
[9/10/2026 11:51 am] Adam: Lol 35 is when gov really give up hope. Cannot use the firstdate. Just hand over small hdb and drive grab.
[9/10/2026 11:52 am] Andy: I just searched is 30. But hor, yeah i surprised the age quite high
[9/10/2026 11:53 am] Adam: Wonder why 30. Feels like age is arbitrary. Maybe some people just wanna chill and drive car when grow up
[9/10/2026 11:54 am] Adam: On the topic of transport,
What if we allow ride hailing with motorcycles. Like indonesia got gobike.
[9/10/2026 11:55 am] Jun Ming in reply to Adam:
> On the topic of transport, What if we allow ride hailing with...
Too dangerous
[9/10/2026 12:21 pm] Andy: Back on topic, I welcome the idea of merging COE bands, and with additional fees imposed not on engize size/power, but on OMV.
1 thing I'd disagree is the flat surcharge. I'd prefer a percentage based surcharge which would really scale up the cost of luxury vehicles- these owners have money to pay it anyway, why let them off at only 15k?
[9/10/2026 12:33 pm] Andy: I'm also skeptical (not disagree, but skeptical) with the rebates for lower value cars. I don't think it is necessary to make owning cars cheaper. The additional revenue from surcharges can go back to improving public transport infrastructure.
BUT, on an adjacent topic, rebates for EV cars should continue due to environmental benefits.
[9/10/2026 12:44 pm] Adam in reply to Andy:
> I'm also skeptical (not disagree,...
The benefits have to be weighted. If we give rebates for evs, why not give rebates for non carowners. You burn wayy less fossil fuel by taking public transit.
[9/10/2026 12:48 pm] Adam: It would be better to simply do a fee on fuel and account that need to be maintained by electrical infra. Naturally if a car is more energy inefficient, it will be less economical to own.
Also would make less sense for someone to drive solo than as a group.
With the coe system, its a flat fee. No extra price for distance nor energy usage. so even if your cat drains fuel fast a bulk of the cost is already paid for.
[9/10/2026 12:51 pm] Andy in reply to Adam:
> The benefits have to be weighted....
Because they are not paying for coe? Public transport is cheap enough what rebates you mean?
[9/10/2026 12:54 pm] Andy: I mean, from my pov, rebates are given to drive a certain behaviour i.e. drive EV adoption. Rebates dont need to be given to public transport takers because well we dont have a choice ๐
[9/10/2026 1:20 pm] Adam in reply to Andy:
> I mean, from my pov, rebates are given to drive a certain...
But the way the rebate is structured is important. It cannot be gamed. Or applied ineffectively. Policies implemented hard to amend.
Pollution is ongoing for cars and variable. Cannot have flat amount for evs. Would you let a cybertruck get the rebate?
[9/10/2026 1:21 pm] Adam: And have to think of second order effects and perverse incentive. An ev owner at end of coe might choose to buy a whole new ev instead of maintaining current car. More wastage and environmental cost. They are gonna keep driving anyway so buy new subsidized car. Even if cost more than keeping old car, the small nudge of cheaper cost to buy and the psychology of govt footing part the cost will tilt in favor of wastage. Incentive to get new ev instead of maintaining old.
[9/10/2026 2:02 pm] REACH Singapore: ๐ข Topic ๐ข
[9/10/2026 2:25 pm] G in reply to REACH Singapore:
> On creating a separate category for PHV cars, the LTA said the move will mean setting aside some COEs for the new category, and prices could rise if too many COEs are reallocated from the existing pool.
This is nonsense.
COE mechanism for taxis today is separated vs private cars
Prior to 2012, taxi operators competed directly with private buyers for CAT A COEs, which pushed premiums for CAT A higher, and hence the de-coupling
Why not lump PHV car leasers with the taxis operators and let these businesses compete with each other instead of with private individuals?
Furthermore, these companies are allowed greater financing flexibility compared to individual buyers
[9/10/2026 2:59 pm] LCL Danny ๅฟ (1st HP):
1. I understand the logic of merging the Cat A and Cat B - because the advent of EV cars have increasingly make the differentiation of CC inapplicable - and hence unable to clearly differentiate the distinction of mass-market and higher-end cars.
2. I think is a good idea to introduce the rebate and surcharge cap at a maximum to distinguish between a mass-market and higher-end cars - as richer folks who want a super higher-end cars should contribute more to enjoy the prestige.
3. Having a maximum cap on the rebate and surcharge will also not overly penalise the higher-end cars - and introduce undue penalty or discrimination against higher-end cars. Hence I feel the maximum rebate and surcharge cap is appropriate.
Because my underlying philosophy is always go along the concept of "Middle Path" - not extreme at either end.
4. As for should we introduce the 3-band or 5-band structure - I feel that 5-band structure will introduce more administrative complications, sometimes can make mistake and public can be more confused.
But the following considerations - define my choice to go for a 3-band structure:--
a. 3-band structure will benefit the mass-market public more - as mass-market public have more choice and get higher rebate to a bigger pool of mass-market car.
b. Less administrative complexity (lower administrative cost), less confusing to public, less likely to make mistake.
c. Higher-end cars owners will pay higher surcharge due to bigger banding - detriment to high--end owners (but they have deeper pocket and can pay).
d. Of course these will also be less beneficial to high-end car sellers - as their high end cars will be more expensive. But high-end car purchasers will have deeper pockets - with the maximum cap on rebate and surcharge - their damage will be $15,000 - $30,000 - not open-ended.
[9/10/2026 3:13 pm] LCL Danny ๅฟ (1st HP):
Next let us address the open Category E - should it be abolished?
1. Understand that Cat E is for those that need cars urgently to buy in the open market without waiting for the next round of bidding.
Hence I feel is useful to keep Cat E.
2. However, I want to explore whether Cat E can be exploited to better used?
a. Instead of letting PHV car owners (that use the car as public transport and personal use) to bid in Cat A and Cat B, I feel that as the PHV car is used for revenue-generating, they should bid under Cat E and not from the merged Cat A and Cat B that should be reserved for personal used.
Cat E is an "open" category as such should be used for this purpose.
b. Wonder if taxi is under Cat E open category, shouldn't PHV cars be under Cat E as well?
3. With such distinction, then our COE system will be less cumbersome, less unwieldy, less complicated, less complex to manage, administer and managed - and less confusing to public, car dealers and the Administration.
Because there will only be 2 broad categories :-
i. Merged Cat A and B (Cat Private)
a. Band 1
b. Band 2
c. Band 3
ii. Cat E (Cat Open)
- PHV,
- Taxi
- Private (that need cars urgently).
[9/10/2026 3:28 pm] LCL Danny ๅฟ (1st HP):
Now throwing these 2 broad categories into COE bidding, does anyone think that COE prices will come down?
1. I doubt so...... because it will depends on how strong the demand is. If the demand is strong, COE will still be about the same as currently the COE $130,000 reflected - plus and minus the surcharge or rebate of $15,000 - $30,000 - or could be higher if the demand is strong that will neutralise the surcharge or rebate of $15,000 - $30,000 - to prevent high-end car bidders from crowding out the mass-market car bidder.
The surcharge and rebate - is to give mass-market bidders an even ground (handicap gain) to compete more fairly with deep pocket high-end car bidders.
[9/10/2026 3:39 pm] LCL Danny ๅฟ (1st HP):
Should we intrude into the space of according priorities to families based on social needs - to become a "Social Judge"?
1. This evidently won't work, who is to judge :-
A family with young children (VS) a family with elderlies (VS) a family with disabled (VS) a family with large number of members (VS) a family with lesser number of members (VS) professionals or business or blue collar that need cars - has higher priorities over the other ?
2. A family with young children grow up already leh? Then unfair to others.
3. A family with elderlies - elderlies go to nursing homes leh? Then unfair to others.
4. A family with disabled - recover and become well leh? (Eg. got PMA, got artifical leg, mental disability recovered) - Then unfair to others.
5. A family with lesser number of members - suddenly breed and have more children - Then others unfair to these families.
6. Professionals or business or blue collars that need to run business, create jobs and contribute to our Economy.
Without them, our Economy fail, we got no jobs.
The last thing we want to become - is to be a Social Judge - Jamus now you understand?
[9/10/2026 4:02 pm] REACH Singapore: ๐ข Topic ๐ข
====
No comments:
Post a Comment