Time to rethink COE system?

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#1
This article reveals the truth I guess - the car population has been growing despite the high COE prices, so COE ends up being just another tax which fattens the Govt's coffers without any concrete effects on congestion! As I've said before, the solution is not to limit the car quota or even ERP like what Christopher Tan is suggesting - it is to tighten up on the financing of the car and reduce the loan tenure period. This should see an immediate effect! My views.

The Straits Times
Apr 30, 2012
commentary
Time to rethink COE system?

No real slowdown in car population growth, just inflation, social discontent

By Christopher Tan

IF THE purpose of the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system was to slow the growth of Singapore's vehicle population, it hasn't been working all that well. At least, not when it comes to cars - the main target of the quota system.

The system, officially called the Vehicle Quota System, was put in place in May 1990 as the Government deemed the prevailing vehicle growth rate of 3.5 per cent unsustainable in the long term.

The system was to cap growth at 3 per cent per annum, to be in line with the pace of road network expansion and me-dian income growth of Singaporeans.

An analysis of growth trends 20 years before the system was introduced in 1990, and 20 years after it, shows the car population has, on average, been growing faster post-COE than pre-COE.

According to data from the Registry of Vehicles and the Land Transport Authority, the average growth rate was 3.5 per cent per annum from 1971 to 1990. It rose to 4 per cent from 1991 to 2010. The growth rate after COEs were introduced was 14 per cent faster than before.

Why? Here's one theory: Before the quota system, consumer behaviour was influenced more acutely by factors such as economic slowdowns, oil crises and changes in tariffs. But with a quota system in place, consumers become shielded from natural market forces. While the quota system put in place a growth ceiling, it also established a 'floor' that prevents the market from collapsing - even in the depths of recession.

An example of the latter was well demonstrated in 2004, when Singapore sank into a deep recession. Car sales grew 19.2per cent that year.

The year before, when the country was in the throes of the Sars epidemic, sales grew 29.1per cent.

But what would have happened if there had been no quota system in place? Would Singapore have become as gridlocked as cities like Jakarta, Manila and Bangkok?

Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

While growing income tends to fuel the desire to own cars, there comes a point when the pattern goes into reverse.

A paper written by United States transport researcher Joyce Dargay and economist Dermot Gately (Income's Effect On Car And Vehicle Ownership Worldwide: 1960-2015) asserts that car ownership grows slowly when income levels are low. When a country reaches 'middle-income' status, the ownership growth rate becomes twice as fast. And when income goes beyond a certain level, the car ownership growth rate actually reverses.

The global car market today confirms this. Car sales in developed markets such as America, Europe and Japan are slowing, while sales in China and India are in the fast lane.

Singapore's per capita gross domestic product ($63,000 last year) is among the highest in the world. So, even if its car ownership growth rate was relatively fast in the 1990s (assuming the COE system was not in place), the pattern could well have gone into reverse gear by the mid-noughties.

Today, when COE premiums are heading towards record levels, the quota system causes unintended ill-effects too. High inflation is one. Ironically, public transport fare adjustments are influenced greatly by the inflation rate.

The other major ill-effect is social discontent. Like all auctions, the COE system favours those who are most able to pay. When the supply of certificates is constricted (as it is now), COEs invariably end up mostly with wealthy consumers, who buy bigger and costlier cars.

Interestingly, this contrasts with a common criticism of the high ad valorem taxation regime preceding the quota system. When car registration taxes added up to more than 220 per cent of a vehicle's open-market value (OMV, or roughly its pre-tax cost) before 1990, well-heeled buyers complained that the system placed an inordinately high penalty on bigger, pricier cars.

Car taxes today amount to 120 per cent of OMV.

If there was an attempt to incorporate social equity into the quota system by segregating COEs according to car engine size, it is now negated by an increasing number of premium brands with small-engine models.

In the first quarter of this year, brands such as Mercedes-Benz, Volvo and Audi accounted for 45 per cent of sales in the up-to-1,600cc COE segment. Five years ago, they had a mere 0.3 per cent slice of the segment.

This only serves to widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

So, after 20 years, perhaps it is time we took a long hard look at the COE system, to examine its relevance and to see if it can be improved upon.

In doing so, it might be useful to look at how other cities without a quota system have coped - Hong Kong, for instance.

Hong Kong has 59 cars per 1,000 residents - half of Singapore's 117. Taipei has 250 cars per 1,000 residents, but the annual mileage of cars there is half that of those here. Ditto Tokyo.

New York is another example. The Big Apple is one of the wealthiest cities in the US, but its car ownership rate is among the lowest (230 per 1,000 residents).

These cities share a common denominator: a superior rail network and limited parking facilities. In the case of New York's Manhattan, 60 per cent of work trips are made by public transport. In Hong Kong, the figure is 90 per cent.

None of them has a quota system, or even high taxes on cars. They rely instead on letting the motorist bear the brunt of driving: jams and the frustration of not being able to find parking.

That, however, exerts a huge environmental cost. Singapore can do better. We have electronic road-pricing. All we need now is a policymaker brave enough to expand the gantry network and treble or quadruple ERP rates.

After all, it is ultimately congestion we are tackling. ERP, if priced right, will be more efficient at controlling congestion than a vehicle quota system.

And if a quota system is deemed still necessary, we should have one without the sharp supply fluctuations that send premiums to $90,000 in one year, and $5,000 in another.

christan@sph.com.sg
My Value Investing Blog: http://sgmusicwhiz.blogspot.com/
Reply
#2
(30-04-2012, 07:20 AM)Musicwhiz Wrote: This article reveals the truth I guess - the car population has been growing despite the high COE prices, so COE ends up being just another tax which fattens the Govt's coffers without any concrete effects on congestion! As I've said before, the solution is not to limit the car quota or even ERP like what Christopher Tan is suggesting - it is to tighten up on the financing of the car and reduce the loan tenure period. This should see an immediate effect! My views.

Why do you want to help the rich to pay less?
The tightening of car financing and reduce the loan tenure period will mean that the rich will pay less for a car since they can afford the car without a loan.

As for those who insist to buy a car even though they are barely able to afford it, the right way is to educate them and let them understand the impact of buying a car. A mandatory personal or household financial analysis to the aspiring car owners at the expense of our dear government can be implemented if there is a need.

And this Chris Tan ends with a sentence that is basically useless. 讲好像没讲。
Quote:And if a quota system is deemed still necessary, we should have one without the sharp supply fluctuations that send premiums to $90,000 in one year, and $5,000 in another.

For quota system, the money is channelled to Gov's coffers.
For parking limitation that are mainly the key to car usage restriction in wealthy populated cities, the money goes to the car park operator and then to the landlord. Good meh?

By the way, the statistics over the last ten years showed that the vehicle loan quantum remains relatively stable over the years despite increase in car population. So, the general impression that S'poreans are taking up huge loans to buy car is not necessarily correct.
Reply
#3
(30-04-2012, 08:51 AM)yeokiwi Wrote: Why do you want to help the rich to pay less?
The tightening of car financing and reduce the loan tenure period will mean that the rich will pay less for a car since they can afford the car without a loan.

By the way, the statistics over the last ten years showed that the vehicle loan quantum remains relatively stable over the years despite increase in car population. So, the general impression that S'poreans are taking up huge loans to buy car is not necessarily correct.

With reference to the above which you mentioned, I have to clarify that my stance on reducing car population was more targeted towards those who take up significant loans to finance their car purchases. The rich totally can't be bothered if they pay say $10,000 more or less, as they will have the money to just plonk down in cash for the entire purchase price anyway.

As for your point in financial education, MAS has a program called MONEYSENSE which has been ongoing since 2004 - but I've yet to see young couples being more financially savvy and not plunging headlong into debt with huge car loans, expensive weddings and spending a ton on renovation for their new (and expensive) houses. I believe personal finance education starts at home - when parents pamper their offspring too much by "subsidizing" their lifestyle, how can the kids be expected to remain prudent in their spending?

As for your last point, I do recall an article (sorry forgot the link) which stated that car loan quantums are at record-highs (I think it was at a check with the banks). There were also some statistics which mentioned that the total amount of loans is increasing, in addition to the absolute amount of each loan. To me, this signals that more and more people are borrowing for their cars, and borrowing more for that matter. Smile
My Value Investing Blog: http://sgmusicwhiz.blogspot.com/
Reply
#4
For a start, COE should be treated the same as HDB COV which must be paid in cash and cannot be covered by loan.
Reply
#5
COE as a control mechanism is alright. However, the same quota for different needs, this is where it needs finetuning.

1. Taxis

2. Company used cars

These are the 2 items that contribute to business and transport inflation. Lumping them with private cars does not make sense to me.

They know the problem, but dont dare to work out new solution... oh this cannot work, ah, this is not enforceable...

Well, we did not pay $1M salary to think of simple solutions
Reply
#6
Why is everyone so angry?
If you nv plan to buy a car why bother how high coe is?
It the same thing for property.
The thing about karma, It always comes around and bite you when you least expected.
Reply
#7
This is BS. In US, the car ownership per 1000 capita is ~800 cars. In Europe is ~ 500+. In Japan it is 400+. In Singapore if you want go towards the Japan metric based on the high income model you are talking about 2 million cars on the roads here, 4x the current fleet. That study is a perfect example of why correlation is not causation. The reversal of car fleet growth in those country is mainly a function of saturation, not because they have become rich enough.

Quote:But what would have happened if there had been no quota system in place? Would Singapore have become as gridlocked as cities like Jakarta, Manila and Bangkok?

Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

While growing income tends to fuel the desire to own cars, there comes a point when the pattern goes into reverse.

A paper written by United States transport researcher Joyce Dargay and economist Dermot Gately (Income's Effect On Car And Vehicle Ownership Worldwide: 1960-2015) asserts that car ownership grows slowly when income levels are low. When a country reaches 'middle-income' status, the ownership growth rate becomes twice as fast. And when income goes beyond a certain level, the car ownership growth rate actually reverses.
Reply
#8
Quote:The other major ill-effect is social discontent. Like all auctions, the COE system favours those who are most able to pay. When the supply of certificates is constricted (as it is now), COEs invariably end up mostly with wealthy consumers, who buy bigger and costlier cars.

Interestingly, this contrasts with a common criticism of the high ad valorem taxation regime preceding the quota system. When car registration taxes added up to more than 220 per cent of a vehicle's open-market value (OMV, or roughly its pre-tax cost) before 1990, well-heeled buyers complained that the system placed an inordinately high penalty on bigger, pricier cars.

The current COE system amounts to a regressive tax i.e. the poor pay more than the rich. The old system was a flat tax - everybody paid the same, proportionately. Unsurprisingly, the rich have more political influence and the system now favours the rich. Sadly, too few of our politicians were born poor, and even those who were seem to have forgotten what it is like to be poor.

To his credit the current Transport Minister does seem to be making an effort to understand how the poor get around, though I suspect the problems are beyond his mandate to solve. He needs to get buy-in from higher up, otherwise the overhaul cannot be done right since it is a multi-faceted problem.

Not just cost of transport but cost of housing, cost of food etc. So HDB has to get involved (flat pricing, hawker centre rents), SLA (land cost) and IRAS (GST) too. Of course MOF will be heavily involved because it will affect the budget - not just the spending but the income too. But if we don't do this when we are able to afford it, when are we going to do it? Greece is an extreme example but it is a grim reminder of what misgovernance can do.

Contrarian Wrote:1. Taxis

2. Company used cars

These are the 2 items that contribute to business and transport inflation. Lumping them with private cars does not make sense to me.

I do not think company cars are a significant proportion of the car population as private vehicle expenses are not tax-deductible. So there is no advantage to having the company buy a car for the boss or key managers. Additionally the beneficiary has to pay tax on this benefit. Easier for the company to just pay more cash, perhaps as a car allowance (still taxable for the recipient, but deductible for the company).

As for taxis, I think they belong in category C (goods vehicles and buses) rather than A (cars 1600cc and below). Most taxi engines are larger than 1600cc so this is a concession to taxi companies, but in fact it pushes the cost of economy cars up so it is just a transfer of wealth from economy car buyers to the taxi companies. Better to put them in category C with buses.
---
I do not give stock tips. So please do not ask, because you shall not receive.
Reply
#9
Cat C is the one that is heavily being penalised by the COE system. The quota is also the lowest among the categories.
If you do not buy a car, the COE does not affect you.
But, the rise in CAT C will mean that the transport cost, daily neccessities, logistics, ground mails that depends on trucks, busses are affected by it.

To tax the rich more(which I am always in favour of), the current concept of using cc is outdated.
The COE allocation should be based on OMV. Different range of OMV will have different allocation. At least, in theory, those who wish to drive a BMW at 1600cc will have to fork out more than before.
Letting them get away with a lower COE is not the way.
Reply
#10
Christopher Tan of Straits Times Wrote:Singapore can do better. We have electronic road-pricing. All we need now is a policymaker brave enough to expand the gantry network and treble or quadruple ERP rates.

After all, it is ultimately congestion we are tackling. ERP, if priced right, will be more efficient at controlling congestion than a vehicle quota system.

Suspect this article is laying groundwork for eventual implementation of a satellite-based ERP system, currently under trial. With switch from current COE quota-based and gantry ERP usage-based systems to a fully usage-based system with satellite ERP.

Motorists should begin to envision a day when cars are relatively affordable but ERP charges start as soon as driving off from the car park... and car park charges probably shoot thru the roof too...
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)