Rejected by the Straits Times Forum.

    contribute | contact us | about us

PARF policy on car more than 10 years old can lead of waste of resource

The LTA, in its reply, "PARF not an entitlement" (Apr 2, 98), unfortunately failed to address the central issue raised in my letter.

The issue is: to what extent had cars over ten years old caused traffic jams on our roads and the consequent inconvenience to other road users over the last few years, as compared to the traffic jams caused by accidents on the roads involving newer cars and heavy vehicles; taxis stopping on the roads; indiscriminate parking etc. The issue is not whether cars over ten years old tend to breakdown more frequently.

As I have argued, even if a ten-year plus car breaks down, its impact on other road users is minimal because it can be moved away easily. It does not cause inconvenience to other road users to the same duration and extent that an accident, which frequently involves the closure of more than one lane, can cause to other road users. At least the LTA has not released any statistic to show to the contrary.

The breakdown figure attributable to the Automobile Association of Singapore in itself does not support any argument that older cars had caused traffic jams. For example, I had called the AA to replace a punctured tire on the shoulder of the expressway, and to replace a flat battery in my compound. In none of the instances did I cause traffic jam, nor did I inconvenience other road users.

On the argument that ten-year plus cars had a higher failure rate during inspection, it is not surprising. I think it is probably true that eight to nine year old cars had a higher failure rate than the three- or four-year old cars. So why is it that the PARF benefit is not withdrawn after eight years?

The reason why older cars tend to fail the inspection test is probably the result of the PARF policy. If owners feel compelled to scrap their cars by the tenth year to qualify for the PARF benefit, then why should they bother to maintain their cars more than it is absolutely necessary?

I think there is a need to examine the breakdown statistic of cars in the ten to twelve year old category, as the incremental improvements in the manufacture and design became more noticeable after the early 1980ís. Perhaps we should exclude cars over 15 years old in any study.

Since the LTA brought up the issue of pollution, can it tell us whether the incremental amount of pollution a ten-year plus car make, as compared to a new car, justify the increase in amount of pollution when a new car is produced every ten, instead of fifteen years. Studies in America have shown that the energy required to produce a new car far exceeds the fuel consumption, and therefore pollution, by a car in its lifetime.

The deeper issue to examine is: Is the economic waste of scrapping a car in good working condition, greater than the actual loss suffered in the economy when a ten-year plus car breaks down on a public road, taking into account the actual rather than the perceived inconvenience such breakdowns cause to other road users. It is noteworthy that the LTA did not dispute that there is an economic waste inherent in the present policy.

A few years ago, MIT Professor Paul Krugman observed that the total factor productivity in the fast developing countries in Asia, including Singapore, was low. I suggest that the mindless waste of discarding an asset of economic value, which is inherent in the present PARF policy, lowers, rather than increases total factor productivity.

The current economic turmoil in Asia and the severe economic condition in Japan should be a timely reminder that we should make the most efficient use of all our resources in order to compete effectively in a borderless trading world. Even the most profitable companies in corporate America continually seek ways to eliminate waste and improve productivity. It is diabolical that Singapore should be wasting economic resource by scrapping cars prematurely, rather than maximizing its economic utilization.

The conditions under which the PARF policy was first introduced have changed very radically over the past 20 years and it is time the LTA face up to the changes.

Yours faithfully


    contribute | contact us | about us