Since electronic toll collection was made applicable to all freeway traffic on Dec. 20 last year, there has been widespread dissatisfaction and controversy over repeated problems with the system, which is run by Far Eastern Electronic Toll Collection Co.
System downtime, erroneous toll charges and poor service have all raised drivers’ ire. Some car owners had an electronic toll “eTag” installed by a well-meaning car dealer who was duped by marketing information saying that cars could not drive on freeways without an eTag.
It is unfortunate for the people who worked as toll collectors, who have now disappeared from the nation’s freeways.
The government and Far Eastern Electronic have failed to provide clear answers on many key points.
For example, did the company wrongly blame an anonymous hacker when its system broke down due to overload, or did a hacker really exploit a loophole?
Can the company’s promise — that no eTag user’s personal information has been leaked — be trusted?
Is it true that toll collectors’ contracts did not cover their benefits if they chose to change jobs, or has the company been shirking its responsibility to redundant workers?
What contractual basis is there for Minister of Transportation and Communications Yeh Kuang-shih’s (葉匡時) promise that drivers who have been overcharged would be repaid double the overcharged amount?
If the company cannot even keep to its promises regarding the free service line and payment handling fees, can promises of compensation be believed?
None of these problems could have happened when tolls were being collected by people, but they are sure to arise now that the government is using modern technology and private companies.
The electronic toll system is authorized according to Article 24 of the Highway Act (公路法) and the Regulations Governing the Management of Highway toll Collection (公路通行費徵收管理辦法), and the system’s only permitted purpose is toll collection.
Article 10 of the regulations stipulates that if the owner or user of a motor vehicle does not pay a toll in accordance with the regulations, the toll operator should tell the collection department and give it information about the vehicle involved, including the vehicle type, license number and a photograph or video recording.
Article 17 says that the collection department is a private institution that is appointed to handle toll collection.
However, personal data can be collected under a system defined as “toll collection.”
If the personal data are used to clamp down on unlawful driving, it is sure to lead to legal disputes — even more so if it is used for other purposes that have even less to do with toll collection.
Far Eastern Electronic is entitled to record traffic information to help it collect tolls on the transportation ministry’s behalf.
After the information has been used or becomes invalid, the person who is the subject of the data is legally entitled to have it erased.
What system is in place to ensure that the ministry and the company do their duty to protect personal information?
Have they ever given road users a clear explanation about how to exercise their rights in this respect?
When drivers who do not use eTags have complaints about the company’s collection of visual information about their vehicles, or about the way they calculate fees that are owed, is there a quick and convenient way to find answers or fix the problem? Has the government figured this out? Has it given the public a clear explanation?
Still, more importantly, the National Police Agency and the Taiwan Area National Freeway Bureau are obliged to explain what relationship exists between the police’s traffic information reference system, which was set up to investigate crimes and maintain order, and the electronic toll system.
These departments should explain why they are telling the company to provide the agency’s Criminal Investigation Bureau with unconditional and unfiltered data about vehicles on the nation’s freeways.
This retention and use of personal information is a serious breach of privacy.
In effect, it treats all freeway users as potential criminals.
What justification can there be for this in a democracy? What legal basis is there to authorize such a system?
Could it be that the authorities are planning to bring back the police state under a new guise?
Leave aside for the moment the point that the government’s appointment of a nongovernmental entity to operate the electronic toll system may not be an economically efficient solution.
People have ample reason to reminisce about being able to drive anonymously and without being monitored by the police when tolls were collected by people.
People are also justified if they boycott the electronic toll system to put pressure on the government and Far Eastern Electronic. The company and the government need to face up to these controversies and give a clear response to the public’s doubts and suspicions.
Liu Ching-yi is a professor at National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of National Development.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing