RDU’s Ravi Philemon speaks out on Singapore’s market-centric mobility system

SINGAPORE: In a scathing public statement, Red Dot United’s (RDU) Ravi Philemon has reignited debate over Singapore’s Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system, describing it as a prime example of “boomer economics”—a worldview he claims worships markets, shuns moral judgment, and outsources justice to the highest bidder.

His words are timely. Just days earlier, former Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong delivered a speech at the Economic Society of Singapore dinner, where he defended the COE auction system as the most efficient way to allocate a limited resource.

However, to Mr Philemon, this entire framing misses the point.

“Letting the market decide is not a neutral act. It is a choice,” he wrote, “It is choosing to let wealth be the measure of worth.”

“Latin in the church, economics in the state”

Mr Philemon began his piece with a powerful analogy: the idea that economic jargon has replaced sacred language as the modern gatekeeper of power. Just as Latin once barred laypeople from interpreting scripture, economic complexity now shields policymaking from public scrutiny. Phrases like “auction dynamics” and “price signals” are used, he argues, to speak over everyday Singaporeans when they ask why cars, homes, and dignity seem increasingly out of reach.

His critique is more than rhetorical. Mr Philemon pointed to data showing a booming luxury economy: Singapore is now home to 240,000 millionaires. Sales at Marina Bay Sands’ high-end Shoppes are projected to hit S$14 billion this year. Meanwhile, ordinary families are told that COEs must remain high—because this is what “efficiency” looks like.

The case against market fundamentalism

While Acting Transport Minister Jeffrey Siow has justified the current COE allocation as “efficient,” particularly for private hire vehicles that serve more riders per car, Mr Philemon questioned: efficiency for whom?

He highlighted those who are left behind by this model—the single mother taking her child to therapy, the elderly man going for dialysis, the hawker loading goods before sunrise. In these cases, cars aren’t a luxury; they’re a lifeline, but the auction system, Mr Philemon argued, doesn’t account for need—only purchasing power.

“This is not pragmatism. It is abdication,” he wrote of Mr Lee’s choice to defer COE decisions to market logic, “It is the clearest example of boomer economics.”

Mr Philemon’s use of the term “boomer economics” is a critique of a system that, in his view, prioritises abstraction over empathy, and market purity over moral responsibility.

Jamus Lim, rebutted

While careful not to discredit Jamus Lim’s parliamentary proposals—which include more flexible COE durations and separate categories for private hire vehicles—Mr Philemon argued that these are merely “tweaks,” not structural reform.

“If you begin with the belief that cars should be allocated by market price, then of course these tweaks make sense, but if you begin with the belief that access should reflect need, then the entire mechanism has to be redesigned.”

In doing so, he drew a line between policy adjustment and policy transformation. For Mr Philemon, justice is a matter of replacing the machine not just calibrating the rules.

Mobility as dignity, not just movement

What emerges is a deeper question about what public policy is meant to serve. To Mr Philemon, transport is not just a technical problem of demand and supply. It is a social contract issue: a reflection of what—and who—society values.

“We are not just being priced out of cars,” he warned, “We are being priced out of mobility. Of time. Of choice. Of dignity.”

And that, he argued, is the real cost of a system that mistakes price for fairness.