244

Certificate to own car in Singapore rockets to $106,000 (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 9 months ago by fne8w2ah@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 24 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Singapore has a 10-year “certificate of entitlement” (COE) system, introduced in 1990, to control the number of vehicles in the small city-state, which is home to 5.9 million people and can be driven across in less than an hour.

Including COE, registration fees and taxes, a new standard Toyota Camry Hybrid currently costs S$251,388 ($183,000) in Singapore, compared with $28,855 in the US.

In 2020, when fewer people in Singapore were driving, the price of COEs dropped to about S$30,000; a post-Covid increase in economic activity has led to more car purchases while the total number of vehicles on the road is capped at about 950,000.

The rocketing price puts cars firmly out of reach of most middle-income Singaporeans, putting a dent in what sociologist Tan Ern Ser said was the “Singapore dream” of upward social mobility – having cash, a condominium and a car.

Singaporeans have been hit by persistent inflation and a slowing economy, and some are selling the cars they bought when certificate prices were low to make a profit.

Jason Guan, 40, an insurance agent and father of two, said he bought his first car, a Toyota Rush, for S$65,000 in 2008, including the price of the COE.

The original article contains 389 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 48%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] mercano@lemmy.world 50 points 9 months ago

I’ve never heard a more perfect term than “Certificate of Entitlement.”

That did, Singapore has one of the most well developed mass transit systems in the world, so if there’s anywhere you can live without a car…

[-] mke_geek@lemm.ee 11 points 9 months ago

Singapore is known for it's low crime rate. Corporal punishment is widely accepted. Caning is used not only to punish criminals but also as a disciplinary measure in schools, the military, and domestically. You can find rattan canes for sale in the grocery store for about 50 cents.

[-] calhoon2005@aussie.zone 25 points 9 months ago

Yeah, but what relevance does that have about car prices?

[-] Volidon@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

When the CoE gets so high you opt for caning instead /shrug

[-] lando55@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

If you let the car rot, you get the stick

[-] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago

this is a good thing, other countries should do it too

[-] nexusband@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Other countries like Singapore, sure. Countries where you've got to go 20-25 km just to buy basic groceries, fuck no.

[-] fat_stig@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

I lived in Singapore without a car, there is no need to own a car. I used public transport and ride sharing without ever feeling that having a car would have improved my experience. In Hong Kong it was the same, and I lived in the Northern Territories, however in Sydney we had a car even though public transport was great, because its a big fucking country. Now in Penang, Malaysia there is no usable public transport, so a car is absolutely essential.

[-] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

bad transit planning

[-] Moneo@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

20km for groceries is not bad transit planning it's called living in the middle of fucking nowhere. It's completely irrelevant to any discussion related to urban planning and car dependency.

Smfh

[-] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago

did you really think I was referring to rural areas lmfao

[-] spongebue@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I mean, yeah? I did. Because what non-rural areas require going 20-25km for groceries by car?

[-] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago

bad suburbs

[-] spongebue@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Name one place so poorly planned, everyone within a 20km/13 mile radius all share a grocery store because that's the closest one - while still being considered urban. I'll even let you get away with sub-urban.

[-] Moneo@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

go 20-25 km just to buy basic groceries

Homie what the fuck. What percentage of people living in first world countries do you think this applies to?

[-] nexusband@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

In Germany, Austria and Italy? A lot. I'd say at least 40%.

[+] Maalus@lemmy.world -15 points 9 months ago

20-25 km to buy groceries means there should be public transport available to get you there. Or it means that your villages and cities are shittily built to not have neccessities within walking distance.

[-] nexusband@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Has nothing to do with shittily built, public transport for 5 people that's available around the clock isn't something that's even remotely feasible, nor is it economical.

Apart from that, if you think like that, you're part of the problem. Where do you think the groceries will come from in the future? From farmers that go about with public transport?

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah it is remotely feasible to setup public transport like that.

[-] Moneo@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Nobody advocating for reduced car dependency and public transportation want to force farmers or rural people to sell their cars and take the bus. This argument is so fucking stupid and so fucking tiresome.

[-] nexusband@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

It's being implied every single time this topic comes up.

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 4 points 9 months ago

And in the countries where there is no such public transport, they still shouldn't implement such a law until they get their public transport in order.

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

So they won't implement such law ever because nobody will go for public transport. Instead they'll add "one more lane"

[-] antidote101@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

I'm disabled and live among farms with no immediate public transport... I don't think other countries should try this. If I couldn't afford a car, I wouldn't be able to go anywhere.

[-] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago

Obviously this is only for urban areas

[-] Moneo@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Gotta love people pulling one in a million (and in this case completely irrelevant) exceptions out of their ass as a reason to argue in favour of car infrastructure.

[-] wahming@monyet.cc 1 points 9 months ago

This is Singapore, one of the most urban and built up areas on earth. You're comparing oranges and bricks.

[-] Moneo@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Upvote because you were at 0. I don't think paying $100,000 for the ability to drive a car is a good system.

Car dependency is better fixed by better city planning.

[-] wahming@monyet.cc 4 points 9 months ago

Singapore has pretty good city planning. But you still need a way to disincentivize car ownership, otherwise you end up with overloaded roads anyway.

[-] answersplease77@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

do you pay $100k to get a liscense or do you just have to have that much in your bank account or credit?

[-] Myro@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

You need to pay. It is a bidding, as mentioned in the first paragraph.

[-] lntl@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago

that price is too high! /s

[-] Bondrewd@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

I would have thought lemmy wont root for gaining privileges with more cash.

[-] lntl@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

lemmy does root for reduced car dependence tho :)

[-] Bondrewd@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Anti-rich resentment is a good contender though. Their brain might explode at some point, when they realise that these limitations only apply to them, who never actually made most of the pollution happen.

[-] Moneo@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Cars have a societal cost that is far greater than the car-related taxes paid by car owners. Aka car owners are subsidized by non car owners. Not saying Singapore has a fair system but people drastically underestimate how expensive cars infrastructure is for society.

[-] dingleberry@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 9 months ago

Equating a city-state with the rest of the world is silly and impractical.

And you don't have to be a car freak to know what this means for your freedom of movement if your government has this much control over the modes of transportation.

this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023

244 points (98.4% liked)

World News

37340 readers

2530 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.