Poorly conceived policy leading to messy implementaion

[TJX]

  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

It's call policy shift my friend.. Other than pappies, corrective actions by the rest are known as call U-turn.

[Alheych]

  On 6/30/2014 at 6:35 AM, Strat said:

 

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

 

that's what i tell everyone. pity the incumbent who has 3 lousy predecessors' worth of dung to clean up.

[Super7]

  On 6/30/2014 at 3:48 PM, Alheych said:

 

that's what i tell everyone. pity the incumbent who has 3 lousy predecessors' worth of dung to clean up.

 

The three are laughing to the banks and enjoying pension plus full medical covers for their entire family till they die!! [thumbsup] using our tax money

 

[Super7]

  On 6/30/2014 at 2:01 PM, TJX said:

It's call policy shift my friend.. Other than pappies, corrective actions by the rest are known as call U-turn.

 

they will decide white = black to suit themselves.

[Dinobros]

I find that all these knee jerk reactions and lame policies are just a smoke screen.

End of the day, the only reason why COE went up is because of the drastically lower supply.

U-turning will hurt their EGO and thus the various weird policy to pacify some of the stakeholders.

 

This is a free market. Should there even be protectionist measures at all? For Malaysia to do it for proton and perodua, fair enough but for Singapore?

 

Actually, when technology makes engine more efficient or allowing us to have a bigger car and better car with a small capacity.

It is a good thing. Who cares if its Merc BMW or Toyota introducing such cars to the market as long as we benefit with better fuel economy, better quality and comfort.

 

If a continental car can give better mileage, better comfort, better safety at a comparable price to a Japanese or Korean car.

Why not? Dun see the need to split them into premium or non premium model at all.

 

As what many brothers pointed out, car itself is not a need but a luxury. If I can afford, I will buy a better car, if I cannot then I will buy a cheaper car, if I cannot even afford a cheaper car, then just take taxi, bus or MRT.

 

As compared to many other countries, for a small country like Singapore. Our public transport is tolerable.

What I am so frustrated is all the various policy tweak and changes just to solve the COE problem.

 

COE is a efficient and simple way to restrict total no of cars in Singapore.

Just leave it that way, forget about PREMIUM or non PREMIUM cars.

 

As for certain roads which has heavy traffic. ERP is the right way to go. But it will be good to use technology and reflect the actual traffic and determining the ERP charges. Satellite Navigation that shows the road that has terrible traffic (not due to accident) and the correspondent ERP fees.

 

Complicated but at least it serves a simple point like the COE system.

Tax and fees on roads with heavy traffic.

[Jellandross]

Pissed Germans strike back. FTA contravention wor, dua diao liao. I like Mr Mannering's response The LTA scholars must be furiously flipping through their 10-year series for a reply now.

 

  Quote

http://www.asianewsnet.net/news-62856.html

Carmakers question need to test engine power for Singapore

Christopher Tan

The Straits Times

Publication Date : 29-07-2014

A new test to verify the engine power of cars before they can be sold here is turning into a potential trade issue.

German carmakers have raised concerns with the Singapore Government about the so-called dynamometer test, which they claim runs counter to a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between Singapore and the European Union.

The Straits Times understands that members of the Singapore- German Chamber of Industry and Commerce (SGC) and a senior German government official have broached the subject on separate occasions with the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI).

Spokesman for the SGC's automotive committee Klaus Landhaeusser said: "As businesses, we're concerned with how the new regulation was introduced, and what else will come later."

Landhaeusser said: "(Trade and industry) minister Lim (Hng Kiang) was very supportive. He referred us to the Ministry of Transport, which told us the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will get back to us on this."

The transport ministry did not comment, but the MTI said the engine power verification requirement "is consistent with Singapore's FTA obligations".

The LTA announced last month that cars meant to be classified under the Category A certificate of entitlement (COE) will be tested to verify the engine power outputs declared by their manufacturers. From October, cars producing between 81kW and 97kW in engine power will be tested on a chassis dynamometer - a "treadmill" for cars.

The move comes after a new COE classification was introduced in February. Besides a 1,600cc cap on engine size, cars in COE Category A must not produce more than 97kW or 130bhp.

This was meant to level the playing field for sellers of mass-market cars, who in recent years have been edged out of Category A by luxury brands such as Mercedes-Benz and BMW.

But, dealers of premium models began bringing in cars producing less than 97kW to maintain their share of the Category A market.

Observers said the dynamometer test and related checks - which will lengthen the approval period for cars to four months (from four weeks previously) - could be construed as a non-tariff trade barrier.

According to a draft of the EU-Singapore FTA, "Singapore shall accept on its market as compliant with its domestic technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures, without further testing or... requirements to verify" vehicles that have already been approved by EU regulators.

Landhaeusser said: "We don't understand why this dynamometer test is necessary. It's not feasible for manufacturers - be they German, Japanese or Korean - to adjust power outputs just for the Singapore market." He said it will delay the arrival of new cars and add to costs.

Each dynamometer test is expected to cost between S$500 (US$402.62) and S$1,000 (US$805.25), and 30 to 40 cars are expected to be tested each year.

Jeff Mannering, managing director of Audi Singapore, which is a member of the SGC, said: "Basically, we're being called liars."

The MTI said "only about 14 per cent of all Category A applications will be impacted" by the dynamometer test. But motor companies said that as technology advances, more small cars will fall into the 81kW to 97kW bracket.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2014 by Jellandross

[Soya]

Hohoho.......well done LTA!

 

 

Edited July 29, 2014 by Soya

[Kangadrool]

Don't pray pray with these German car makers......

 

We have seen it.......

 

Pushed for diesel cars.................reduced diesel tax.

 

And you see many German cars with RD plates running around.

 

But, did you see any Jap and Koreans?

 

 

[Myxilplix]

I laughed at the mental image of the LTA idiots flipping their schoolbooks for an answer.

[Soya]

  On 7/29/2014 at 6:42 AM, Myxilplix said:

I laughed at the mental image of the LTA idiots flipping their schoolbooks for an answer.

 

 

Tink they'll be looking up the oxford dictionary for "blind alley". Which is exactly the spot they got themselves into wif such a goondu populist policy.

[Wt_know]

how come this Jeff guy bo air bo sound when LTA revised CAT A limit at 130bhp and already said testing is underway / going to happen

sibei ... horse back cannon (ma hou pow)

 

anyway, i totally do not support nor agree with LTA about 130bhp .... it's a joke, it's epic failure, it's counter progress .... *facepalm*

 

  Quote

According to a draft of the EU-Singapore FTA, "Singapore shall accept on its market as compliant with its domestic technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures, without further testing or... requirements to verify" vehicles that have already been approved by EU regulators.

Landhaeusser said: "We don't understand why this dynamometer test is necessary. It's not feasible for manufacturers - be they German, Japanese or Korean - to adjust power outputs just for the Singapore market." He said it will delay the arrival of new cars and add to costs.

Each dynamometer test is expected to cost between S$500 (US$402.62) and S$1,000 (US$805.25), and 30 to 40 cars are expected to be tested each year.

Jeff Mannering, managing director of Audi Singapore, which is a member of the SGC, said: "Basically, we're being called liars."

Edited July 29, 2014 by Wt_know

[Coltplussport]

  On 7/29/2014 at 7:06 AM, Wt_know said:

how come this Jeff guy no air bo sound when LTA revise130bhp CAT A and already said testing is underway

sibei ... horse back cannon (ma hou pow)

 

anyway, i totally do not support nor agree with LTA about 130bhp .... it's a joke, it's epic failure, it's counter progress .... *facepalm*

 

 

There are only 30 to 40 cars to be tested a year, how come need to have a backlog of 4 months? I thought the process is as simple as putting the cars on treadmill, run it for 5 minutes, and next.

[Myxilplix]

  On 7/29/2014 at 7:01 AM, Soya said:

 

 

Tink they'll be looking up the oxford dictionary for "blind alley". Which is exactly the spot they got themselves into wif such a goondu populist policy.

 

It's not even populist ah, everyone seems to be calling it silly. Maybe it's popular in the LTA canteen hence populist.

[Kangadrool]

after that, go dig up the fine prints to study, like a lawyer fighting a case lor..... Then, tadda..... discovered new big road.

 

The silliest way is to cat by HP. I already said....want to cat, cat by physical size. This one hahhhhh, if they still don't believe in spec sheets, can use ruler/tape to measure.

 

  On 7/29/2014 at 7:06 AM, Wt_know said:

how come this Jeff guy bo air bo sound when LTA revised CAT A limit at 130bhp and already said testing is underway / going to happen

sibei ... horse back cannon (ma hou pow)

 

anyway, i totally do not support nor agree with LTA about 130bhp .... it's a joke, it's epic failure, it's counter progress .... *facepalm*

 

 

Edited July 29, 2014 by Kangadrool

[Gaolow]

They trying to act smart or be smart and they thought they are smart so they make it that they look smart..but in actual fact they dose not look smart..

this is another world wide laughing stock since the banning of chewing gum..

[Mr_b20]

  On 7/29/2014 at 7:10 AM, Coltplussport said:

 

There are only 30 to 40 cars to be tested a year, how come need to have a backlog of 4 months? I thought the process is as simple as putting the cars on treadmill, run it for 5 minutes, and next.

 

maybe you never work in gahment sector before... each case need several layers of management approval, each layer of approval takes 7 working days reply confirmation.. etc

  On 6/30/2014 at 6:35 AM, Strat said:

 

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

 

I thought was a horse?

[Soya]

  On 7/29/2014 at 7:31 AM, Gaolow said:

They trying to act smart or be smart and they thought they are smart so they make it that they look smart..but in actual fact they dose not look smart..

this is another world wide laughing stock since the banning of chewing gum..

 

 

At least banning chewing gum still got a logical rationale coz scared spoil the precious new, mrt then.

 

Capping at 130bhp in a era where car tech has moved leaps n bounds where TC = greener + more bhp is needed since cars hv become heavier due to additional safety reinforcements, has indeed become the new laughing stock.

[Mockngbrd]

I like how they tai-chi tai-chi down to LTA

 

  Quote

 

Landhaeusser said: "(Trade and industry) minister Lim (Hng Kiang) was very supportive. He referred us to the Ministry of Transport, which told us the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will get back to us on this."

 

Edited July 29, 2014 by Mockngbrd