Uber has been very active, moving from passenger transport to food delivery as it explores new avenues in an attempt to break through government red tape and enter the Taiwanese market. As the business model it introduces brings convenience to customers, there are opinions for and against the company, which is causing the Ministry of Transportation and Communications problems.
Other nations are dealing with Uber in one of three ways.
The first option is to ban the company altogether, as in Spain, where the government not only banned its operation, but also got a court ruling to cut off its financial sources.
Another approach is to let the company operate, as China did earlier this month, legalizing and regulating online taxi-hailing services such as Uber and Didi Chuxing.
Finally, there is the ambiguous approach, such as in Singapore, which does not say that the service is illegal, but observes it closely to prevent any unscrupulous behavior.
However, Taiwan seems to have taken a fourth approach: It has banned the company, but not really, and the service seems to be legal without a clear legal basis, creating a difficult situation.
The ministry and Uber are involved in a legal dispute as they strive to determine whether the company is an information platform or a transportation business, but there are also many other key issues that need to be resolved.
First, there is the criticism that Uber cars and drivers are not controlled by the authorities, meaning that there are no consumer guarantees, such as insurance to cover for possible accidents. A second issue is that the company does not pay taxes and other fees, which leads to unfair competition. A third issue is that although Uber brings new business opportunities, it also has a big impact on transportation businesses, which creates social issues.
The problems show that Uber’s approach is to only talk about its positive aspects and avoid talking about its responsibilities, while the ministry sticks to the law and focuses on blocking the service. It seems that it will be difficult to find common ground and who will win in the end will depend on whom the public supports.
Uber’s greatest advantage is that it focuses solely on market demand and offers a quick and considerate service. Nevertheless, by focusing on profits alone and avoiding its responsibilities, it seems to enjoy an extralegal status, and that will not be accepted neither by the public nor the government.
The government’s conundrum lies in that it has to follow the law while responding to a changing situation and public opinion. Given the strong sense of independence among Taiwanese, who prefer to do things their own way, the government will be criticized for any policy it implements, which puts it under considerable pressure.
The online world has become an inseparable part of society and people’s lives. Changes are quick and complex, and with the growth of the Internet of Things, the borders between business areas and scope are becoming blurred. This is something that the government must respond to quickly and it must urgently face the challenge posed by Uber.
The ministry’s effort to block the company is just an attempt to control it on behalf of the public — it is far from a comprehensive policy for dealing with long-term developments.
Faced with this challenge, the issue is no longer something that the ministry should deal with alone, instead a solution should be worked out in a cross-departmental effort aimed at creating an overall development policy that satisfies the government, the public and the business community.
Wu Jiann-Sheng is a professor of civil engineering at National Central University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry