Lawmakers veto ride hailing debate

Pro-government lawmakers have voted en bloc against two debate proposals submitted to the plenary of the Legislative Assembly (AL) by lawmaker Ron Lam.

Lam was seeking a debate session to discuss the need for ride-sharing platforms in Macau, offering visitors and locals alternative solutions to the current, buckling taxi system.

He also sought to debate the construction of the local crematorium.

Both proposals were voted down by all lawmakers except two directly elected “New Hope” lawmakers, José Pereira Coutinho and Che Sai Wang, and Lam himself.

Lam noted the inadequacies of the taxi system, which has been unable to meet demand from local and visiting customers over the years, and argued that commuters, based on current worldwide trends, favored ride-sharing platforms to traditional taxi services.

He did not convince any pro-government lawmakers, who immediately voted down the debate proposals, claiming they were “unnecessary” and “time-consuming.”

Among the few lawmakers who intervened to substantially contribute to Lam’s proposals was Iau Teng Piu, a lawmaker appointed directly by the Chief Executive (CE).

He was against debate due to the government’s promotion of public transport, especially Light Rapid Transit (LRT), as well as improvements to pedestrian infrastructure, stimulating increased foot traffic.

Iau said transforming every car into a potential taxi contradicts the government’s policy of restricting the number of vehicles on the roads.

“The government is optimizing the taxi system, and in the future we will have some 2,000 new taxis available,” he said.

Another lawmaker appointed by the CE, Chan Hou Seng, picked up where Iau ended, adding, “To produce laws to regulate the ride-sharing system would take too long.”

Chan said modernizing and, therefore, improving the current system was a better and faster solution, “saving time and resources.”

He said he favored including better technologies to aid the calling of taxis, as well as electronic payment methods, as opposed to simply opting for ride-sharing.

A third lawmaker from the list of those appointed by the CE, Kou Kam Fai, also addressed the plenary.

He also said it was best to “improve the current system rather than create a whole new one.” Indeed, a new system, he added, “has the potential to create even more problems, instead of solving the current ones.”

Ma Io Fong, in his name and representing Wong Kit Cheng, repeated the same speech claiming there was no need to debate the topic because it was easier to improve the current system.

Making a new system would take too long a time, he said.

Chui Sai Peng, Ip Sio Kai, and Wang Sai Man, all of whom are lawmakers elected by indirect suffrage, representing the business sector, also said the government was already addressing the problems surrounding the taxi system.

They said a unified platform to manage all taxis, allowing for the better management of existing resources, was in development, remarking, “Since the government is already doing the work then there is no need for debate.”

Of those in favor of the debate, Pereira Coutinho said he would always support the discussion of matters that were considered of public importance, even in circumstances during which he already held strong opinions.

“A debate is always an opportunity to learn more on a particular topic and to share valuable ideas,” he said.

He noted that, while the government is making a huge effort to bolster Macau’s image among tourists from abroad, a necessity existed to analyze just how the city’s reputation was suffering from the current incongruence between Macau and, for example, the neighboring regions of Hong Kong, with which the local government is cooperating to reach some visitor sources.

“It makes no sense that China has this [ride-sharing] and Hong Kong has this, but we cannot have it,” he said.

CREMATORIUM NOT FEASIBLE

Building a crematorium facility is not feasible, a large majority of AL plenary lawmakers decided, without debate.

Lawmaker Ron Lam’s second debate proposal, which dealt with the construction of a crematorium, was voted down by all except, again, Lam, Pereira Coutinho, and Che.

The majority of the lawmakers claimed the crematorium was not a topic that deserved to be debated.

They argued the government had already conducted studies and presented proposals on the matter, and these had been rejected by the city’s population.

Several lawmakers said the number of cremations from Macau performed in the neighboring regions like Hong Kong or the city of Zhuhai is too small to justify investment in a local facility, which would require a significantly large, unused land plot.

These opinions were shared by lawmakers including, among others, Ma Shi Seng, Cheung Kin Chung and Ip Sio Kai.

Dissenting lawmakers argued debate on the matter would be insensitive, owing to the cultural beliefs and habits of Macau’s diverse people. Such a debate, lawmakers feared, might inspire social discord.

“We need to be very careful when talking about this. We should not propose a debate on this matter,” lawmaker Ma said.

Also unanimous among the lawmakers that voted against the debate proposal was the belief that Lam’s intentions to discuss the matter stemmed from the high prices of cremations in neighboring regions. 

Ma and Ip said, “The government can try to negotiate with the neighboring authorities to lower costs. There is no need for a debate.”

Ip added the government, settled in its decisions, would resort to “regional cooperation” to address pricing concerns.

Earlier, Lam noted that in 80% of recent deaths, residents had opted for cremation. In his opinion, Macau was mature enough to discuss the matter.

The lawmaker noted that, for Macau locals, cremation procedures in neighboring regions invoke many bureaucratic hurdles, and can cost 10-fold those paid normally by the residents of those places.

This situation is unfair for Macau residents, who should not have to shoulder such high expenses simply because Macau does not have a crematory.

In his presentation, Lam said that, considering his previous proposal about ride-sharing legalization, this was the 26th time a debate proposal had been brought to the plenary by the initiative of lawmakers only to be immediately voted down by other lawmakers that have formed a large, pro-government bloc. RM