423

Singapore: Right to own a car starts at $76,000. And that doesn’t include the car (edition.cnn.com)

submitted 8 months ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

148 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] kitonthenet@kbin.social 121 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

good tbh, their metro kicks too much ass to have everyone driving around, their system has it's problems but not driving isn't one of them

[-] HidingCat@kbin.social 32 points 8 months ago

Honestly, as much as I wanted a car as a 20-something, I do think this is for the better. There needs to be some adjustments as a lot of the buyers are commercial entities trying to corner a somewhat unsustainable ridehailing market, but overall I'm happy with the tradeoff, especially with the improvement in public transport in recent years.

[-] kitonthenet@kbin.social 22 points 8 months ago

improvement in public transport in recent years

I've only visited once and that was several years ago, I'm surprised to hear the public transit has actually gotten better. I'm from Chicago, which is one of the few US cities with a functional metro, and it's blown out of the water by the mrt just on comfort alone

[-] glimse@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

Chicago Transit is awesome if you're traveling toward/from downtown but god does it suck if you're traveling across the north or west side. Chicago needs a east and south train from the metro station in Jefferson Park or something

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] HidingCat@kbin.social 10 points 8 months ago

There was a period in the 2000s when the metro was under maintained and profits were maximised (fuck you Saw Phiak Hwa), where there were times even at 10pm I couldn't get on the train because they were so packed, thanks to horrible intervals between each train. Said undermaintence lead to some pretty bad breakdowns (for Singapore anyway) around the mid-2010s . Ever since then they've increased maintenence, decreased interval times during both peak and off-peak periods, and more lines were also added, though some of them were already being planned in mid-2000s.

The bus system has also improved when they moved to a hybrid model, where government tenders for operators to operate the bus routes, so there's private and public aspects into it.

While not perfect, it's definitely better than the mid-to-late 2000s, and I'm really grateful we have it.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] st0v@lemmy.zip 24 points 8 months ago

what a lot of people can't understand is that a car I'm singapore is a ball and chain. it's not freedom by any stretch of the imagine there.

it's a status symbol or a job requirement.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

[-] qyron@sopuli.xyz 75 points 8 months ago

With a fully functional, affordable, universal public transport system, owning a car is a luxury, not a need.

[-] moitoi@feddit.de 29 points 8 months ago

It never was a need. This is a myth build by the car manufacturers. They lobbied for the car centered model with oil companies. This never was the model.

The same applies for suburbs full of houses.

load more comments (15 replies)

load more comments (12 replies)

[-] Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee 45 points 8 months ago

It takes 14 hours to walk across the whole country at its widest point.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 36 points 8 months ago

Of course it's based on money and not need based or a lottery system or anything like that because fuck the non-rich, amirite? I mean, if you don't have a net worth in the seven figures are you even a person?

[-] Peaty@sh.itjust.works 89 points 8 months ago

You don't need a car in Singapore. Public transit is quite good and it isn't that big of a city

[-] Alteon@lemmy.world 49 points 8 months ago

I'm not disagreeing with you. But the only people that get the right to travel in a car are the rich. Rather than it be based on a needs-based system or lottery system. The rich get the right, but normal people don't. That's the point he's trying to make.

[-] mayonaise_met@feddit.nl 22 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I think it's a clever way to get rich people to pay high taxes. Singapore is just not a place suited for private cars for the able bodied. The same policy in other countries wouldn't be fair, but I could probably see it work in Manhattan or in the canal district in Old Amsterdam.

[-] Peaty@sh.itjust.works 11 points 8 months ago

The catch is you don't need a car in Singapore. It's less than half the size of London with an incredible public transit system.

The need isn't really there and the costs of maintaining one is very high. You aren't going to have many if any poor people who could afford a car to begin with.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (11 replies)

[-] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

It's going down. It was $106,000 yesterday https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/04/singapore-cost-car-certificate

[-] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago

If you read the article, it says that price is for any car over 1.6 litre

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 10 points 8 months ago

MFW a honda fit cost as much as a tesla

[-] otter@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago

I think the car itself is on top of this, but even the car is more expensive because they're harder to get

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023

423 points (98.0% liked)

World News

37283 readers

1789 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.