Even the article acknowledges that “The city-state has excellent public transport links by bus and subway”. Clearly the city realizes they are running out of space and want to prioritize people over cars. The remark at the end - " your own family comes first" - just ends up sounding selfish and anti-social.

It does suck that it caters to the rich rather than the needy but taxation is just how you deincentivise certain behaviors in a capitalist society. Hopefully Singapore counters this with subsidized special transport for the handicapped and elderly.

I’ve been to Singapore. You would have to pave every square inch of the island just store all the vehicles if everyone owned a car. The problem isn’t that cars are too expensive: it’s that the government pussy-footed around the issue and soft-banned vehicles through high fees rather than the more equitable approach of outright banning them for most private use. It’s like the saying: if the only punishment for breaking a law is a fine, then that law only applies to the poor.

Being a dense city and tiny island, life would be much improved for everyone if vehicle ownership and use were limited to businesses/workers that can demonstrate a work-related need for a vehicle, taxis, and people with disabilities that prevent them from utilizing public transit and/or taxis.

A system where only the rich have cars and everybody else gets around with good public transport is certainly suboptimal. But it’s still far better than being completely choked with cars like many other Asian cities.

Anyone have a non-paywalled link?