Robert Carroll
On the one hand, we have a high-tech startup officially encouraged and supported by the government body that has been set up to boost investment in Hong Kong. On the other hand, the same company is soon after raided by the authorities for, apparently, providing unwanted competition. The guilty parties: Invest Hong Kong, for helping to bring in an alternative taxi service, Uber; and Uber, for operating here at all. OK, that’s simplistic. But if taxis are regularly flouting the law by picking and choosing customers, and can be driven by anybody upon production of a driver’s license, why do Uber drivers have to be uber-regulated?
And hang on a moment – isn’t the chief executive’s currently stalled pet project, the Innovation and Technology Bureau, intended to support innovative companies like Uber? We could also ponder why a supposedly uber-free market like Hong Kong wants to be Uber-free? What happened to the hallowed, much-vaunted, so-called laissez-faire capitalism that earns the city a top ranking year after year from the Heritage Foundation, the world’s greatest champion of business freedom? Is the government doing an about-turn on Uber because taxi drivers protested? Maybe not.
Taxis aren’t owned by taxis drivers. Taxi drivers don’t make the big profits that rich, successful people do. Granted there are a few owner-operators, but at nearly USD1 million a piece, it’s not surprising there aren’t more. So who are these owners and would they be able to influence regulations regarding taxis and their competition? For a start, several are politicians, along with various other local bigwigs.
Oh and while we are on the subject, let’s put something to rest: Maria Tam Wai-chu comes to mind. Tam is the chairwoman of the Independent Commission Against Corruption’s operations review committee, having been appointed by CY Leung. That’s the part of the commission that decides which investigations should go ahead.
Now Tam is someone who has historically been uber-pro-taxi licenses, and has formerly been an executive councillor and overseer of public transport regulations, including taxis. It was famously reported that her family owned hundreds of taxis while she was in charge of taxi license issuance rules. Fewer licenses meant bigger return on investment; more meant less for licensees. It can now be once again put on the record at least from this correspondence that a woman of such high moral caliber, a barrister at law, a former Exco member and NPC member, and now a key figure heading anti-corruption activities, should surely be a woman above suspicion.
What’s odd about all the Uber bashing, and the ‘taxis versus Uber’ battle, is that Uber is not competing with taxis but rather with up-market cars and limousines. In the US and elsewhere, Uber has taken business away from taxis by undercutting prices; here prices can be 50 percent more than the cost of a cab.
If taxis and limo hire companies are not providing the service that customers want, and Uber is filling a gap in the market in a free market, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so?
As anyone who has tried to get a cab late at night in tourist-popular districts knows, there are always taxis but their “for hire” signs are often covered with “on assignment” covers until taxi drivers see someone who looks like they’ll pay a generous rate. That’s illegal and it’s done in front of patrolling police officers.
The law will be enforced if a spurned taxi customer makes a complaint at the police station and then appears in court as a witness for the prosecution. However, shouldn’t it be the police taking the initiative, not the public?
No Comments