Poorly conceived policy leading to messy implementaion

[Baal]

  On 6/30/2014 at 5:22 AM, Turboflat4 said:

 

When you kena from me? I don't remember that, bro. I tend not to tekan people who talk sense and your posts are pretty much always quite well thought-out.

 

Maybe 'kena' is too strong a word. Perhaps, a little sharp or edged at times. But I have learnt to accept and appreciate your style of writing.

[1fast1]

  On 6/30/2014 at 5:40 AM, Baal said:

 

Maybe 'kena' is too strong a word. Perhaps, a little sharp or edged at times. But I have learnt to accept and appreciate your style of writing.

 

Haha, thanks. I've been told that my comments are as pointed as the top of my head - pinpoint!

[Myxilplix]

  On 6/30/2014 at 4:49 AM, Darryn said:

Yeah - but the major difference between car and house is that a car is portable - and a house is not.

 

With a car - you just need to pass over the keys - and you're done. Who is to know where a car is parked, who drives it or how it is used? A house is a bit different in that sense.

 

I do agree that "many" (probably even most) of the loopholes could be closed - especially given how "controlled" we are here - but the key thing would be

a) At what monetary cost? Is the cost of enforcement going to be "worth-it"?

b) At what cost to our "freedom" - most think we are already too tightly controlled - to be able to implement the sort of system that would be needed would require even more state control over our actions and movements - something that is not very palatable

 

That's why need braining storming lah bro.

 

Not from a "is balloting a feasible option" point of view, but more like a "we're switching to a balloting system, now let's troubleshoot this bitch from top to toe" kinda thing. Must get some crooked buggers also because it takes a thief....

[Darryn]

  On 6/30/2014 at 6:05 AM, Myxilplix said:

 

That's why need braining storming lah bro.

 

Not from a "is balloting a feasible option" point of view, but more like a "we're switching to a balloting system, now let's troubleshoot this bitch from top to toe" kinda thing. Must get some crooked buggers also because it takes a thief....

In that case - I volunteer to be a part of the committee

[Myxilplix]

  On 6/30/2014 at 5:12 AM, Turboflat4 said:

 

You're so right. It seems common sense is common everywhere except within the corridors of power.

 

If they're ever reckless enough to hold a public conversation before implementing this dumbass dyno-testing idea, I *will* definitely go. And try to drum up a team of like-minded enthusiasts from here and other forums (oh, you're definitely going to be on the list ). But I'm wondering whether organising a contingent of like-minded individuals to go and contest the gahmen's policies would be considered "inciting disaffection against the gahmen" or something under the sedition act?

 

I go! Simi sedition, I give them sexdition!

[Donut]

  On 6/30/2014 at 4:13 AM, L23 said:

Actually COE start off in a very basic and simple objective - to control the number of car on the road..

Why can't these authorities just go back to basics leh....

Just don't link it to $$ if you really want to make Singapore a better place to live in lo..

You need a car, just ballot for it lo..

No one will complain that the car is only for the wealthy, unless the authorities are thinking otherwise la..

Is money really the only source of solution to all these issues?

 

They are simply making all these policies (just like CPF) more complicated so that we, the simple-minded citizen, don't understand the policies and just pay and pay...

 

HDB also start as a very basic and simple objective......... but now......

[Penknife]

this country is not a communist country.

 

the only way to ensure equality is through the amount of money you have.

 

so, if you have more money, you will have more choices in choosing what you desire.

[159er]

Want to earn $$ just say la... Say what control car population... Puizzz...

 

Want to control car population, i believe all the MCFers can come up with more than 10 ways that do not need to involve $$.

[Strat]

  On 6/30/2014 at 6:20 AM, Donut said:

HDB also start as a very basic and simple objective......... but now......

 

COE and HDB become complicated because of one person.....

[L23]

  On 6/30/2014 at 6:33 AM, Penknife said:

this country is not a communist country.

 

the only way to ensure equality is through the amount of money you have.

 

so, if you have more money, you will have more choices in choosing what you desire.

There are many ways to go round it without linking the problem with $$ but some group of ppl like to do otherwise and choosing the easy way out.

 

The recent case of the medical policy changes is an absolute way of showing communism in our little island, FYI.

[Baal]

  On 6/30/2014 at 4:29 AM, Darryn said:

Problem is -

 

If you make it balloting - you will just make it MORE inequitable not less.

 

"The rich" will have the resources to "get" people to ballot for them, to pay cash to successful winners that cannot buy a car, to pressure people in other ways etc etc -

 

What you will be doing will be to collect less money, with a greater proportion of the COE going to "the most well off".

 

Sounds somewhat like the selling of human organs and the rich benefitting. Along those lines..

[Darryn]

  On 6/30/2014 at 6:41 AM, Baal said:

 

Sounds somewhat like the selling of human organs and the rich benefitting. Along those lines..

A little like that - even with something as difficult to "bluff" as organ transplant - we have seen people buy / sell organs before

[Hydrocarbon]

  On 6/30/2014 at 4:23 AM, L23 said:

At least everyone is on a FAIR PLAYING GROUND...

Hiya, as long as you link anything to $$, the whole policy go haywire liao..

 

Of course, if you wanna allocate some COEs to those wealthy or ppl who 'contribute' to Singapore, you can always do something special for them..

 

As far as pure balloting goes, nope, I don't support. Can afford, buy car, cannot, don't buy.

 

Difference is, COE supply not stable, so prices fluctuates a lot. A stable 40K - 50K COE would be better for drivers in the long run, and give less excuses to taxi companies to spike rental rates "due to COE prices" and other bullcrap. COE as a method to control car population, OK, but implementation / details wrong.

 

  On 6/30/2014 at 5:12 AM, Turboflat4 said:

You're so right. It seems common sense is common everywhere except within the corridors of power.

 

If they're ever reckless enough to hold a public conversation before implementing this dumbass dyno-testing idea, I *will* definitely go. And try to drum up a team of like-minded enthusiasts from here and other forums (oh, you're definitely going to be on the list ). But I'm wondering whether organising a contingent of like-minded individuals to go and contest the gahmen's policies would be considered "inciting disaffection against the gahmen" or something under the sedition act?

 

I love my (relative) freedom, but I give you support from outside jail ok? Haha.. Kidding.. Supportz

[Darryn]

  On 6/30/2014 at 6:53 AM, Hydrocarbon said:

 

 

Difference is, COE supply not stable, so prices fluctuates a lot. A stable 40K - 50K COE would be better for drivers in the long run, and give less excuses to taxi companies to spike rental rates "due to COE prices" and other bullcrap. COE as a method to control car population, OK, but implementation / details wrong.

 

 

Shhhh...

 

I'm waiting for the next announcement of a big clawback / minimum pricing when we see the next torrent of derigistrations

[Ahgong]

  On 6/30/2014 at 6:53 AM, Hydrocarbon said:

 

...

 

Difference is, COE supply not stable, so prices fluctuates a lot. A stable 40K - 50K COE would be better for drivers in the long run, and give less excuses to taxi companies to spike rental rates "due to COE prices" and other bullcrap. COE as a method to control car population, OK, but implementation / details wrong.

 

yep. i also say~!

[Darky8888]

  On 6/30/2014 at 4:13 AM, L23 said:

Actually COE start off in a very basic and simple objective - to control the number of car on the road..

Why can't these authorities just go back to basics leh....

Just don't link it to $$ if you really want to make Singapore a better place to live in lo..

You need a car, just ballot for it lo..

No one will complain that the car is only for the wealthy, unless the authorities are thinking otherwise la..

Is money really the only source of solution to all these issues?

 

They are simply making all these policies (just like CPF) more complicated so that we, the simple-minded citizen, don't understand the policies and just pay and pay...

 

there is a reason why we are called a "Fine City"....

all solution are base on $$ from our pockets...

[Rncw]

no policies are perfect, policies are formulated to meet the needs of a certain span of time...which worked...but policy makers are not quick enuff to change with time....

 

just like the 2 is enuff policy by LKY...now singapore not enuff babies and population greying out....

 

since some smart alec came out with the ERP and COE, they got too greedy....they will make sure these policies make them more monies....they will be enhanced....to make even more monies...thats their way of changing with time

[Ezfaun]

  On 6/30/2014 at 1:22 PM, Rncw said:

no policies are perfect, policies are formulated to meet the needs of a certain span of time...which worked...but policy makers are not quick enuff to change with time....

 

just like the 2 is enuff policy by LKY...now singapore not enuff babies and population greying out....

 

since some smart alec came out with the ERP and COE, they got too greedy....they will make sure these policies make them more monies....they will be enhanced....to make even more monies...thats their way of changing with time

 

With the propaganda that they're teaching to our "scholars" I doubt that any change is going to be a good one.

Everything is always pro-government one. Look at the current primary school social studies text books.

 

Like written by Kim Jong Un. More to communism and less to direct democracy.