Whatever route, Hong Kong taxi trade must improve
- Vested interests are demanding fare rises now, but they must also demonstrate they can deliver better services
Which is putting the cart before the horse: raising taxi fares to pay for improvements to poor service, or improving service first to justify fare rises?
Customers would say the first proposition has got it wrong. The question is raised by Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor’s statement to lawmakers that the government would propose enhancements to the service quality and safety of taxis, which would also tackle fare-rise issues.
“If we want to improve service quality, we need to raise the fare,” she said.
But Lam and taxi owners association chairman Wong Po-keung do not seem to be on the same page. He says taxi owners need a fare increase now to cover rising costs and declining revenue, and to attract younger drivers to an ageing workforce.
There is no suggestion of an improved or safer service. That needs to be addressed first.
Hong Kong’s taxi monopoly remains a failure. That is the public’s verdict.
The survival of Uber, an illegal ride-hailing service targeted in defence of the monopoly, is testament to that. A proposed fare increase of 20 per cent in 2018 ran into stiff resistance from commuter advocates, who cited complaints about rude drivers who overcharged, cherry-picked passengers and took indirect routes, not to mention worn out vehicles of dubious roadworthiness.
The idea of a monopoly was to ensure stability and reliability and guarantee a quality service. The outcome is the opposite.
Taxis operate as if it were the 1980s or 1990s, with resistance to any kind of technological advancement, such as even payment by Octopus card.
Hong Kong taxi fares could rise to fund changes to service, safety issues
Hong Kong remains one of the few remaining major cities without a legal ride-hailing service. Resistance to change protects the interests of taxi licence-plate owners – among them rich and influential people – who are enjoying the benefits at the expense of the public.
In some people’s minds, they are a glaring example of Hong Kong’s problems, such as unaffordable housing.
The industry has shirked the challenge posed by Uber and other ride-hailing services for more than seven years, in self-serving contempt for the public interest. Let’s hope that Lam’s proposed improvements are meaningful and that, if so, powerful vested interests do not succeed in rendering them meaningless.
