The government rejects a proposal to buy back taxi licences for HK$5 million each…
The value of a licence and a taxi has gone from a historic high of HK$7.66 million in 2009 to below HK$3 million in recent months, resulting in significant financial losses for owners.
The licence owners are not, of course, the people who actually drive taxis: they make their effortless income by renting the vehicles out to the old guys trying to make a few hundred bucks per shift. Families that have been sitting on stacks of the permits for decades have – some suspect – notable establishment credentials. Thus, so the theory goes, officials have been reluctant to issue more licences, or to allow Uber to operate legally. But it seems you can only postpone reality for so long. Still, full marks for having the nerve to demand HK$5 million for an artificially scarce piece of paper.
And then it’s back to NatSec…
The Chief Executive defends the inclusion of NatSec conditions for restaurants, funeral homes, etc…
Lee shrugged off worries raised by some businesses in the city that they may run afoul of the law unwittingly.
“Offending conduct means any offence that endangers national security, or acts and events that are contrary to national security and public interest in Hong Kong. It is very clear,” he said in Cantonese.
“Security is the foundation for development, and we will continue to revamp the laws and the mechanisms of safeguarding national security, he added.
Perhaps it is clear: you could lose your restaurant if an off-duty waiter is arrested for – let’s say – playing the wrong computer game.
Yes…
Hong Kong police warn people that downloading a computer game called Reversed Front: Bonfire endangers national security. It has…
…the aim of promoting secessionist agendas such as “Taiwan independence” and “Hong Kong independence”, advocating armed revolution and the overthrow of the fundamental system of the People’s Republic of China established by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. It also has an intention to provoke hatred towards the Central Authorities and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Any person or organisation who knowingly publishes the application or related content, including sharing or recommending the application to others via the Internet, may commit the offence of “incitement to secession” under Article 21 and the offence of “incitement to subversion” under Article 23 of the Hong Kong National Security Law, as well as “offences in connection with seditious intention” under Section 24 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance.
…those who have downloaded the application may be regarded as in possession of a publication that has a seditious intention. Under Section 24 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, a person who, without reasonable excuse, possesses a publication that has a seditious intention, commits an offence. A person who provides pecuniary or other financial assistance or property to the application developer, including making payment through in-app purchases, with an intent to provide funding to the relevant developer for the commission of secession or subversion, also commits an offence.
You would probably never have heard of it if they hadn’t issued the press release. It seems players ‘choose to pledge allegiance to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mongolia, Tibet, Kazakhs, Uyghur, Manchuria or the Rebel Alliance of Cathaysian and Southeast Asia’ to ‘overthrow the regime’.
Presumably, if you rewrite the app so you keep the female characters’ huge boobs but give the various territories different names – say Atlantis, Camelot, Avalon, etc – it suddenly ceases to threaten national security.
What if you rejig the game so the locations are parts of the Manchu Empire during the late Qing era?
All major public policy questions revolve around three players: the government, the banks and the property developers. All initiatives and policy decisions must be looked at through that prism.
Is it possible that taxi licence holders have borrowed large sums of money from the banks to invest in property, using the licences as collateral, and that a one-way trade that suited each of the Big Three for decades has turned sour, explaining why it is taking years to let Uber and others into the transport market, to give the licence holders and the banks sufficient time to unwind their positions?
I think we should be told.
It’s not artificially scarce you dolt, the scarcity is the foundation of the legal licensed taxi business. Yes it’s all been badly managed since the arrival of rideshare tech but those who invested in good faith deserve restitution – same has happened in Australia (where Uber, not the govt, paid out big money to medallion holders); London has a different model, a cap on licences and licence ownership based on knowledge investment, not money (arguably making it the greatest taxi fleet in the world) – London has protected those who have made that investment, banning Uber a few times and enforcing strict rules on quality.
And by the way, how much do you think the Uber drivers make? Funny cos it’s about the same as the taxi drivers. To paraphrase your teenage angst, Uber “make their effortless income by giving an app to old guys trying to make a few hundred bucks per shift driving their own vehicle at their own risk as an illegal rideshare.”
I don’t know who Uber became such a saint in this city, probably all the PR money they gave to journalists and the fact that most hacks in this city are so snowflakey they don’t know how to walk (see Bloomberg journalists trying to find Kai Tak and giving up and getting an Uber lol).
It is also possible that taxi licence holders have borrowed large sums of money from the banks to invest in licences, using property as a collateral.
@Casira
Yes, that pencils, too.
Its not only the taxis. There is a run on the HK Mortgage Corporation with daily writs issued re the numerous defaults on properties bought by small companies.
That the original downpayments were most likely from funds garnered via the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme points to another ” three players: the government, the banks and the property developers” conundrum.
@RobO’Taxi – Do you or associates hold such licences? I’ve been in HK three decades and have known them to be speculative rent-grabbing instruments that have resulted in a largely shitty taxi service – even from the airport where assistants manning the line have to ask whether incoming cash to pay a bozo who either can’t – or won’t – adopt a touchless payment system.
I still prefer the MTR (which gets you to KTSP fine) or bus, but for journeys from Kowloon/HK island for appointments Uber has been superb. If competing ride-hailing apps are allowed to be used to further decimate that cretinous taxi monopoly all the better.
As for Lond0n, it has in the past been known for cabbies with the “knowledge” and the trade had a better reputation than the spongers here.
There are a few good cabbies I know here, including owner-drivers; but if gov has done one good thing it’s hopefully turning on those rentier wretches who have – yes – nurtured an artificial scarcity. Regulate and licence taxi and independent limo operators but let’s pull the plug on HK cartels.
@RobO’Taxi – Do cite the occasions in this city of Uber paying journos. It would be most interesting .
Related to National Security and events of several years back. I would not be surprised if the same actors that some contend are behind the ongoing riots/disturbances in the USA were also responsible for what happened here in 2019-2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3KW9UbYRcI
The opinion that management of taxis in HK went to shit with the arrival of ride share apps is a WWP editorial, but I’ve found it on a niche blog… and in the wrong language.
“scarcity is the foundation of the legal licensed taxi business”
Interesting argument. Bullshit, but interesting.
The best thing for HK taxi drivers and users would be to issue 10,000 fresh licences for a nominal sum, in order to empower owner/drivers. And we could all sit back and listen to the bleating of parasites.
@Rectum 4skin – If ever there was testimony about what a bunch of dipsticks yourself and the followers of that moron in the clip are, you’ve just confirmed it.
Folks, no need to watch listen to the bilge, there’s a mercifully brief summary, and it’s laughable.
In other news, I gather that other gobshh*te Yonder Latrine has quit the scmp.
@Rob O’Taxi
“…but those who invested in good faith deserve restitution.”
Why?
I invested in good faith in Apple Daily (Next Digital).
Do I deserve restitution, too?
Rob O’Taxi is absolutely correct about Uber’s labor policies–they’re at least as exploitative as the taxi cartel’s. And how many of those old men own a car, anyway? There’s a whole new younger demographic of scuffling people to screw over!
And I wish Reactionary #4 would stop posting his jerk-off videos. Keep it to yourself, dude.
@Rob O’Taxi
Firstly you’ve conflated a taxi licence with a taxi driver’s licence at least in the London instance — very different pieces of paper.
A taxi licence lets you own and ‘run’ a Taxi (you’ll need someone with a taxi driver’s licence to drive it, though). For that TfL just want the cash, and to know (every year) if your cab is up to spec and insured and you can keep it up to spec and insured. You could be a dumb as Nury Vittachi and have no idea where Marble Arch is at all for all they care. The knowledge is for the driver’s licence.
Secondly Hong Kong’s Taxi licence setup isn’t remotely like TfL’s above.
Hong Kong licences are permanent and transferable, and no new ones have been issued since 1998 (except for the new “fleet-only” things, I guess).
TfL’s are non-transferable and must be renewed annually, and are based on whether the car is fit to be a Taxi, and the owner is fit to own it.
These two small differences mean taxi licence ownership in Hong Kong is a very very different animal from London.
Here’s a website on what HK taxi licence ownership is really all about (hint: it has almost bugger all to do with running a Taxi).
https://www.chungshingtaxi.com/en/taxi-investment/investment-tips/