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
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Weeks into the craze, nobody quite knows what to make of the OpenClaw mania sweeping China, marked by viral photos of retirees lining up for installation events and users gathering in red claw hats. The queues and cosplay inspired by the “raising a lobster” trend make for irresistible China clickbait. However, the West is fixating on the least important part of the story. As a consumer craze, OpenClaw — the AI agent designed to do tasks on a user’s behalf — would likely burn out. Without some developer background, it is too glitchy and technically awkward for true mainstream adoption,
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
RSS