Talk:Certificate of Entitlement

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Taxation (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles Singapore Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Transport Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The criticisms stated appear to be private concerns or research. The entire section is also full of weasel words with lines starting with "critics say" - who are the critics? This section appears to have been added in by a disgruntled person seeking to express his views on Wikipedia instead of the appropriate forums.

I have blanked the section unless someone can come up with any valid sources, which isn't likely as these complaints are only extant in forums and not in official journals, newspapers or reviews as of yet. --220.255.1.68 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, Mr.choppers, the content can be considered slander (against who? the goverment, or the person who implemented the policy). Unconstructive criticisms are slander when they are untrue and offer no viable solutions, and they should be assumed to be untrue unless verified with a reliable source. The google search for certificate of entitlement criticism doesn't bring up any valid articles, but it does bring up a lot of fake wikis copying the old criticism text. --220.255.1.89 (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms are not slander. They seem well-founded to me; the prices do fluctuate madly and obviously it drives up the price of car ownership. As an avid bicyclist, I support the idea of limiting car usage and find Singapore's roads amazingly empty. Nonetheless, we do not just delete content with which we don't agree. Instead, you add a {{citation needed}} tag and give other editors some time to defend the edits. As an alternative, you could find who originally added the content and request that they provide sources. And, yes, it is ok for the page to remain not quite perfect for a month or two, until interested parties have time to respond. There's no fire. Best regards,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's where you have made a mistake. Even if the prices do fluctuate and COE obviously drives up the price, this link should not be included here unless there is a source to state that COE drives the price up. Your "obvious" inference is original research. I did not bother with deletion tags in the first place because the rule even before adding material to this wiki is verifiability. Furthermore, point 3 contains weasel words and the last point absolutely reinforces that the entire section is original research, incorporating an amaturish comparision with Malaysia. Like I said, I did a Google search and found that this topic isn't notable at all.

Criticisms are also slander if untrue; and until sources are found to prove otherwise, they can be assumed to be untrue. The logical inference from the above statements, if untrue, imply that the government body or individuals who created the policies are incapable - which is slander. However, I realise that although many people readily recognise defamation towards indivduals, they fail to regard slander against groups (in this case, the government).

As a compromise, I will wait for another month from your last edit. If there are no new addition of sources, I will delete the section and I hope it will be final. --220.255.1.173 (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Certificate of Entitlement/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Certificate of Entitlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131119064854/http://www.channelnewsasia.com:80/news/singapore/coe-system-to-include/806728.html to http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/coe-system-to-include/806728.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous citation showed 404 and didn't go through — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.107.253 (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@116.89.65.85: Hi, let's discuss the additional points you add to the criticism section here instead of your talkpage. I took the liberty to copy the content from your talkpage to here.

Pls explain why my edit was factually incorrect 116.89.65.85 (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions contains several sources relating to subsidies given to taxis and car-sharing programmes etc. There is no mention of green-washing, increase of carbon footprint etc which you claimed in your edits. Please note that Wikipedia does not allow allow original research, please read Wikipedia:No original research. Also, please do not use Wikipedia as a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Thanks -- Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the article: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/private-hire-cars-driving-up-petrol-consumption-in-singapore-say-experts

it links the increase in petrol consumption, despite lower vehicle population to the PHVs. It is well understood that burning of petrol leads to greater carbon emissions (or do I have to cite a source for that too?) Happy to limit my edit to the above + subsidies that you mentioned. 116.89.65.85 (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It will still be considered original research as there is no mention of greenwashing or equivalent, the point that you are trying to make now. While it is known more petrol burning leads to more carbon emission, does LTA subsidising petrol costs for them means LTA is greenwashing? LTA subsidising them is about trying to make it affordable for such operators to continue their operations and not about their products, aims and policies are environmentally friendly (definition from Greenwashing). Your edit, claiming that by doing this, is termed greenwashing is what wikipedia called WP:SYNTHESIS, combining various sources and imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. As Wikipedia needs reliable sources for claims, a direct source saying LTA is greenwashing will be much better. If you have to combine various sources and come to your own conclusion (not by the sources), it is unacceptable by Wikipedia's standards. -- Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I've removed references to greenwashing and anything not explicitly cited by the sources 116.89.65.85 (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2022

Clean slate starts here. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@116.89.65.85: To address the latest revert I done,

• The COE system has failed to lower carbon emissions despite shrinking the vehicle population.... WP:SYNTHESIS. COE system has been used to set a quota limit to vehicles in Singapore. It is not used to lower carbon emissions, in fact, based on the formula, the number of vehicles will either not grow or grow at a determined rate.
• The system has been key in elevating inflation in Singapore Article only show COE has increased inflation despites decreasing inflation for one month, does not imply it is a key elevating inflation factor.
• According to Bosch, introduction of engine power into the COE system favours old technologies and is detrimental to the quality of life for Singaporeans, as it does not achieve a reduction in emission levels WP:SYNTHESIS. Not supported in article. Bosch is concerned manufacturers and dealers bringing in vehicles with older technologies (which are less efficient and emit more carbon dioxide) and not bringing in vehicles with their technology which will cause the vehicles to be in the more expensive COE categories. While it affects carbon emissions, there is no mention on quality of life for Singaporeans. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the first paragraph as the source does not back any of the statements, and does not even mention the COE. The second paragraph has been refactored to be more accurate to the source and added to the history section. The Bosch one requires more intensive reading and I will need time to understand it. Seloloving (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP116.89.65.85. Please do not copy directly from the source as it is a copyright violation, and note the three-revert rule. I do not wish to report your fourth revert and am willing to overlook it.

Having said that, the source only states that private transport costs rose in February after the COE premiums were raised. There's no sentence stating that it has contributed to inflation, or if this trend has been happening since the COE was implemented. The article also does not criticise the raising of the COE and simply lists it as a general fact, hence I refactored your statement to the history section as "Transport costs rose in tandem with the raising of the COE in February 2022". I hope this explains the matter. Seloloving (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this, you have misread the infographic. The contribution to high prices stem from "increase in car prices" amidst "tight supply of COE quotas". The COE itself has not contributed to inflation, and neither does the infographic claim it so. Seloloving (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(summoned from WikiProject Singapore talk page) As it is, the entire criticism section is rather problematic. There are only two reliable sources cited in the whole section: one from The Straits Times, and the other from Today. Both sources present valid criticisms, but the text directly preceding latter is copied wholesale from the source which is a copyright violation and needs to be reworded. The first point also contains a citation to MoneySmart, a self-published blog, and in fact states quite explicitly that it's an opinion piece. The second half of the second point seems out of place and citing purely sgCarMart, an e-commerce site, is strongly discouraged.

I would say due weight is also an issue, since both criticisms are rather limited in view as they are focused on specific segments of the COE introduced in recent times and not strictly criticisms of the general system as a whole. A much more prominent and long-standing big-picture shortfall of the entire COE system is equity, for which both journalistic and academic sources exist to explain: [1], [2], [3], [4] (this was from a quick search and is not exhaustive). The fact that equity isn't even mentioned in the article at all currently is somewhat worrying; based on coverage in reliable sources the lack of equity should be the most expounded-upon criticism and it's not even there. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]