Critics of the current COE trajectory argue that the system has become detached from the needs of average middle-income families. While the policy was designed to manage traffic, the extreme escalation of premiums has transformed car ownership from a practical necessity for many into a luxury reserved for the wealthy. This creates a social divide where the ability to own a vehicle is no longer based on utility, but on the capacity to absorb massive financial shocks.
For families with young children or elderly relatives, a car is often more than a convenience; it is a vital tool for managing daily logistics. When COE prices reach record highs, these households are forced to divert significant portions of their income toward transport costs, potentially sacrificing savings or other essential expenditures. This financial strain is exacerbated by the fact that the COE is a sunk cost that provides no residual value beyond the right to drive.
There is also concern that the volatility of the bidding process makes it impossible for families to plan their finances effectively. When prices swing wildly between tenders, it creates an environment of uncertainty that discourages long-term planning. Critics suggest that the government should explore more stable mechanisms or tiered systems that could provide relief to those who need vehicles for essential family purposes rather than discretionary use.
Ultimately, the current system risks alienating a large segment of the population who feel that the dream of vehicle ownership is being systematically priced out of reach. If the goal is to manage traffic, critics argue that there must be a way to achieve this without imposing such a heavy burden on the average citizen. A more balanced approach could prioritize social equity while still meeting the necessary traffic management objectives.