Chris Kuan recently responded to remarks made by Jeffrey Siow, the Acting Minister for Transport, on car ownership in Singapore, in a way that is clearly intended to feed resentment.
So what exactly did Jeffrey Siow say?
“If you had one COE left to allocate, is it better to allocate it to a private car owner, who then drives maybe two trips a day and leaves the car in the garage? Or is it better to share the car among a much larger group of Singaporeans who can have access to the use of a car when they need it? Surely it must be the latter, right?”
This was a rational, policy-oriented question, not a statement of class superiority.
Clearly, Jeffrey did not say that Singaporeans should not own cars.
He certainly didn’t imply that only someone like him should — because their time is “economically more efficient” than yours.
What he did was to point out a basic reality: that in land-scarce Singapore, private car ownership is one of the least efficient transport options — and that young Singaporeans, by choice, are increasingly turning to public and shared transport.
You can disagree with the transport model. You can call for changes to the COE System.
But to twist an objective statement into a class divide narrative is not just disingenuous, it’s intellectually irresponsible.
Economic Efficiency ≠ Dehumanisation
Chris paints the picture of a cold, technocratic state where value is measured in dollars and ordinary people are mere economic units.
This is both dramatic and misleading.
Transport policy is indeed shaped by economic efficiency — as it should be, in a dense city-state with limited land and road space.
This isn’t about devaluing individuals. It’s about balancing individual aspiration with collective reality. A society that allows unrestricted car ownership in a city like Singapore would choke on its own traffic.
Far from being elitist, the system tries — imperfectly, perhaps — to manage a difficult balance: keep roads moving, keep public transport fast and affordable, and still leave room for car ownership as a priced option, not an unrestricted right.
Jeffrey’s comment reflects that logic. He’s not saying “you don’t deserve a car.” He’s asking how society should allocate a finite resource for the maximum shared benefit.
The Populist Move: Attack The Messenger
Chris said, “His is 1m mighty S$ shot to the economy, yours just 60k on median salary.”
This is a classic populist move: attack the messenger instead of engaging with the message.
There is nothing in Jeffrey Siow’s remarks that suggests he said “plebs” don’t deserve cars.
An objective listener would understand his point that if there is only one COE left, and you had to choose, you would choose shared usage that benefits more people over individual ownership.
That’s not arrogance. That’s a legitimate — and necessary — policy question.
We should debate hard choices in transport policy — but we should do so honestly. Misrepresenting what was said may stir outrage, but it doesn’t serve the public good.
Singaporeans deserve better than outrage bait. We deserve honest debate, grounded in facts
