On April 21, about 5,000 Uber drivers gathered on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei to protest against the Ministry of Transportation and Communications’ amendment to Article 103-1 of the Transportation Management Regulations (汽車運輸業管理規則).
The amendment contains a so-called “Uber clause” that requires “vehicle rental services” — which are classified as distinct from taxis — to charge an hourly or daily rate, and requires rental vehicles to “return to the garage” after each trip without picking up fares on the return journey.
Separating vehicle rental services from taxi operators is a rather crude approach. Its unstated purpose is to exclude Uber and safeguard the business interests of established taxi fleets.
Given this, it is hardly surprising that Uber drivers feel the need to take to the streets.
For the past half century, successive governments have neglected to formulate clear policy to govern the taxi industry.
For many years, taxi drivers have entered the trade after a career change and learn on the job without proper training. Successive governments have also failed to crack down on moonlighting or deal with a supply excess. It is almost as if officials view the taxi industry as a kind of unofficial social security net.
The lack of proper regulation has created a situation in which the quality of driving and the condition of cabs is hit or miss, and has provided the perfect opportunity for a new generation of companies to enter the market.
However, since the taxi industry is full of people living near the breadline and drivers are notorious for their strong political opinions, there is undoubtedly strong motivation for politicians to formulate policies designed to win their support.
Several years ago, the legislature passed the harshest penalty of any nation in the world against illegally carrying passengers. The “Uber clause” is a clear demonstration of the tremendous power that can be unleashed when government and industry join forces.
However, by forcing Uber to provide a limited service and reducing the sense of foreboding felt by other providers, has the taxi industry successfully “pressed reset” and headed off the threat of competition?
Will customers meekly agree to pay increased taxi fares, given that the “Uber clause” clearly prioritizes the interests of business over consumers?
The Internet generation will certainly be unwilling to put up with taxis’ existing product.
Furthermore, since the “Uber clause” significantly raises the entry threshold for Uber drivers, it will force drivers underground and they will use Line to continue providing services. This will make them entirely unregulated, and they will stop paying taxes and make no further contributions to the national labor and health insurance systems.
Looking past politics, there is no reason that the sharing economy model employed by Uber cannot happily coexist with the traditional taxi industry.
The government needs to bridge the divide between the two models and mediate on issues of hardware improvements and driver welfare, including the establishment of standards and working hours.
Of course, the firms involved would also need to cooperate.
First, the government should require cab service operators — who have, after all, enjoyed 15 years of tax exemptions and make about NT$1 billion (US$32.35 million) per year — to provide a timetable for improvements to their service.
These improvements should include providing newer vehicles and payment methods, deregulating ride-hailing platforms and better managing work hours.
For example, many cab drivers are behind the wheel more than 10 hours a day, and have been for a long time.
Should the taxi firms fail to provide a substantial plan of their own accord, the government should withdraw preferential treatment, such as waiving vehicle licensing or fuel usage taxes.
Second, drivers should receive training and performance evaluations, and if they are able to increase their revenue by picking up additional fares on return journeys through other ride-hailing apps that offer more passenger carriage options, then a percentage of that increased profit should be paid back to the fleet.
In a deregulated environment, industry-wide performance evaluations should employ even stricter standards, together with either state or self-regulation.
Of course, Uber should make its business information available to transportation authorities, not only to safeguard consumers, but also to assist with traffic management as a whole.
At the same time, Uber drivers’ taxes should be made transparent to assuage public concerns.
Uber could also — given the unique nature of the nation’s taxi industry — direct a portion of its revenue to the government to help existing operators upgrade the industry. This would help the company in the long run and could be considered a prerequisite for Uber expanding its business.
Technology is disrupting industries around the world, and Taiwan is no exception. This is especially true for a segment that has existed for as long as the taxi industry, which needs to be especially cautious and ensure that preparations are in place to meet the challenge.
It will not do to overly indulge it or use politics to bulldoze through the competition in a society run by the rule of law.
The government failed to learn its lesson when it got burned after trying to slap a fine on Uber. The “Uber clause” only risks it losing more of the public’s trust.
Hochen Tan is a former minister of transportation and communications.
Translated by Edward Jones and Paul Cooper
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
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
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.