Singapore’s Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system often attracts strong reactions, particularly when premiums spike.
In land scarce Singapore, the COE system is a hard cap on vehicle population and not just a pricing mechanism. Without it, traffic congestion would overwhelm our infrastructure, and mobility for everyone would suffer.
Recently, Jamus Lim criticised the approach that let the market allocate scarce COEs. He implied that it privileges the wealthy and ignores those with genuine needs.
Referring to the Economic Society of Singapore dialogue held some days ago, he wrote on Facebook that by “defaulting to an auction mechanism,” SM Lee Hsien Loong was “conceding the ability to fulfil needs to those with more money.” He called for a need-based system and ended his post with a call for empathy.
He suggested through his post that SM Lee is indifferent to ordinary Singaporeans who need mobility support. He implies that SM Lee’s leadership lacks empathy or moral clarity.
This mischaracterisation is unwarranted, unfair and far from the truth.
A Convenient Public Transport System
The implication that people in need are left without options has no basis. The truth is that helping people in their commute, including those with special needs, doesn’t require upending the entire COE system.
Singapore has a world class public transport that is subsidised to the tune of $2 billion a year. MRTs, buses, and last-mile connectivity have been steadily improving. 8 in 10 households will be within a 10-minute walk of a train station by 2030.
For those with mobility challenges, targeted schemes already exist—from barrier-free transport to the Taxi Subsidy Scheme for persons with disabilities.
Car-sharing services and short-term rentals are also readily available. These provide flexibility without contributing to long-term congestion. For those who occasionally need a vehicle such as to bring an elderly parent to a hospital, these options work well.
The Singapore Government’s approach is an egalitarian one to ensure that everyone has easy access to affordable, reliable and efficient public transport.
A moral ideal without substance
Jamus points to a moral ideal without any attempt to explain how it can be implemented.
What system is he proposing? What safeguards? What enforcement? What costs? None of these were addressed. He takes a lofty position without bothering to convince anyone of its feasibility.
Serious policymaking means grappling with the hard details, the implementation, cost, equity, unintended consequences, not just writing lofty essays online.
Empathy, of course, is vital. But empathy without structure leads to chaos, not fairness.
A vague call for a more “moral” system without saying how to get there is nothing more than political theatre.
