‘Cannot drag our feet': Hong Kong gov't moves to regulate ride-hailing services
The Transport and Logistics Bureau will submit a paper to the Panel on Transport of the Legislative Council on Tuesday to outline a framework for regulating online car-hailing services in the city, Chief Executive John Lee said at a weekly press briefing on the same day.
Without naming any specific operator, the Hong Kong leader said different issues arose after a ride-hailing platform began operating in the city 11 years ago. The problems, which Lee described as 'complex' and 'involving a lot of parties and interests,' included the protection and safety of passengers and the 'coexistence' of ride-hailing services and taxis.
'I agree that this issue is complex, but we must not continue to drag our feet. The government must come up with a solution,' Lee said in Cantonese.
According to Lee, the proposed regulatory framework would cover operational standards for ride-hailing platforms, requirements on the vehicles used, drivers' qualifications and insurance requirements to ensure the safety of passengers.
The framework would also spell out a 'new environment' for taxis to operate in, he said.
'Online-hailed cars should co-exist with taxis to provide quality point-to-point personalised transport services for the public,' Lee said.
When asked about the number of licences the government plans to issue to cars providing e-hailing services, Lee said the authorities have to 'create room' that is 'favourable' for the operation of taxis.
He added that the legislative proposal would first tackle issues on which the public had a consensus before resolving other technical matters.
Grey area
Ride-hailing apps currently operate in a grey area in the city, which requires vehicles offering hailing services to have a hire car permit. Private vehicle owners who sign up with online platforms to provide hailing services without a permit could be punished by up to six months in jail and a HK$10,000 fine for the first offence.
Ride-hailing services such as Uber have seen rising popularity amid long-standing dissatisfaction with taxi service standards.
In February, a taxi union announced a plan to stage a five-day strike to put pressure on the authorities to commit to a crackdown on ride-hailing services. The plan was called off a week later after the chief executive warned that 'drastic action' would not receive public support.
Last month, Uber, which has operated in Hong Kong since 2014, revealed it had more than 30,000 drivers in Hong Kong in the past year.
Andrew Byrne, the company's global head of public policy, expressed concerns last month over a potential driver quota under the regulatory framework, which he said could ' make ridesharing less reliable.'
A cap on the number of drivers and vehicles allowed on the platform could result in longer wait times and higher prices, while limiting ways for people in Hong Kong to earn an income, he warned.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
9 hours ago
- RTHK
Lawmakers suggest tweaks to ride-hailing plan
Lawmakers suggest tweaks to ride-hailing plan A Legco panel heard that taxi drivers are concerned about their rivals undercutting them by providing customers with steep discounts. File photo: RTHK A majority of lawmakers at a Legco transport panel meeting on Friday backed the government's plan to license ride-hailing operators, although some called for changes. The government wants to introduce a licensing system for ride-hailing platforms, their drivers and the vehicles used. Transport sector lawmaker Frankie Yick said taxi drivers are concerned about their rivals undercutting them by providing customers with steep discounts. "Taxi regulations prohibit fare-cutting to attract customers, so discounts like 20 percent off are actually illegal. However, if platforms can offer cheaper services, it explains why the taxi industry is so agitated," he said. "Some platforms charge HK$20 for a ride that should cost HK$80, leaving taxi drivers feeling helpless." Gary Zhang said the proposed age limit for vehicles is too lenient. "In other cities with ride-hailing regulations, such as Shanghai, Shenzhen and London, the typical age limit is around three to five years. Our initial regulation of seven years could potentially allow vehicles to be on the road for over a decade, which I think is too lenient for Hong Kong's situation," he said. Chan Pui-leung, meanwhile, noted that while the government has proposed a limit on the number of vehicles that can be given a licence for ride-hailing services, it is not suggesting a limit on the number of drivers that can use them. He also expressed concern that some vehicle owners might secure a licence under the quota system but then not offer any services. Chan suggested a vehicle owner should lose their ride-hailing licence if they don't provide a minimum number of journeys. Transport Secretary Mable Chan said it is hoped the licensing requirements will eliminate market uncertainty and allow the taxi sector and ride-hailing services to coexist and develop smoothly. "The government's proposed framework for regulating online ride-hailing services puts the interests of citizens first. Our goal is to make citizens safer when travelling, with more choices and better point-to-point transportation services," she said.
AllAfrica
15 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Japan and South Korea know the way to compete with China and US
Governments around the world are hustling. European policymakers, for example, are eager to boost the region's industrial relevance in a world where the US and China dominate cutting-edge technologies. They want to move beyond the adage that 'the US innovates, China replicates and the EU regulates'. As part of this, policymakers worldwide are striving to foster their own versions of Silicon Valley. They have invested to create ecosystems abundant with ambitious startups backed by venture capital investors. Their ultimate aim is to see these firms develop into what are known as scale-ups and compete in global markets. But if governments – from Berlin and Brussels to Ho Chi Minh City – are to find their edge, I argue they should follow a model closer to Seoul's or Tokyo's playbook than that of Silicon Valley. South Korean and Japanese policymakers have long understood that the proliferation of startup activity should not be an isolated aim. In our 2025 book, Startup Capitalism, my colleague Ramon Pacheco Pardo and I revealed that the approach of these countries sees national champion firms like Samsung and Toyota use startups as resources to help them compete internationally. As the head of a government-backed startup center in Seoul told me, a key aim of South Korean government policy for startups is to 'inject innovative DNA' into the country's large firms. Policies attempt to embed startups into the fabric of lead firms, and do not try to disrupt their competitive positions. For this objective, the Silicon Valley playbook is sub-optimal. US government policy has enabled venture capital investment through regulatory changes and has ensured that talented people are free to challenge their former employers. Classic examples include the so-called 'traitorous eight' who left Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory in 1957 to found Fairchild Semiconductor. A more recent example is Anthony Levandowski, who left Google's self-driving car project to start his own company, Otto, in 2016. The competition was so close that Google sued Uber – as it had acquired Otto – in 2019 over the trade secrets Levandowski allegedly used to develop his self-driving truck company. Uber eventually paid Google a 'substantial portion' of the $179 million it was awarded initially in arbitration. The Japanese and Korean formula is distinct. Each of South Korea's 17 Centers for the Creative Economy and Innovation, established about ten years ago to drive innovation and entrepreneurship, has one of the country's large firms ( chaebol ) as an anchor partner. The chaebol 's industrial focus – whether it's shipbuilding, electronics or heavy machinery – is reflected in the focus of the startups engaging with that center. The startups work on issues 'that keep the large firm up at night' and, in return, the startups have unparalleled access to distribution channels, marketing and proof-of-concept testing. While the centers have not produced volumes of globally competitive scale-ups, they have delivered on the aim of injecting innovative ideas and talent into large companies such as Hyundai, LG Electronics and SK Group. In Japan, tax incentives encourage big businesses to acquire startups. The 'open innovation tax incentive' allows a 25% deduction from the price of the acquisition. The aim here is to encourage Japan's national champion firms to integrate startups into their core businesses. In 2024, for example, Toyota integrated high-tech wheelchair startup, Whill, into its mobility services offering. Various government initiatives also aim to provide coaching and mentoring for startups around raising venture capital funding and sharpening a pitch for demo day. In Japan and Korea, these initiatives embed big business throughout. In J-Startup, an initiative aimed at creating a cohort of so-called unicorns (startups valued at over $1 billion), the Japanese government involves industrial leaders as judges who help select applicants for the program. These people then act as coaches and mentors to the startups. Japan's lead firms are, in return, exposed to innovative technologies and startup culture. In a similar way, South Korea's K-Startup Grand Challenge connects participating foreign startups with the country's chaebol for proof-of-concept development. The government cites partnership and licensing agreements between the parties as an important outcome of the program. Through these connections, Korea's big businesses have another mechanism for accessing innovative ideas and talent from abroad. Governments that want to compete with China or the US cannot continue on their existing path. They need to do something different, and Japan and South Korea's approach offers an alternative. These approaches are not without downsides. There is, of course, the risk of well-resourced corporations operating 'kill zones' around their business lines. This might involve early low-value mergers and acquisitions, or even copying their products in a bid to eliminate them. The central position of large firms to the economy also means that the innovation agenda of startups is set by incumbent firms. This fosters complementary products, and not those that disrupt – and ultimately improve – domestic firms or technologies. There's also the worry of perceived corruption. But I argue that pursuing a half-committed strategy is riskier. If governments maintain a wall between big business and startups, believing this is essential to minimise corruption and that large firms will innovate just as startups will scale-up into larger firms, they risk underwhelming outcomes on all levels. We may see flailing productivity in the sectors in which countries have excelled. And scale-ups will fail to materialise while populations of 'zombie startups', that simply stagnate while propped up on state largesse, increase. Startups should be considered as resources to boost nationwide industrial capabilities, not efforts aimed at seeding a country's answer to Silicon Valley's Google or OpenAI. Robyn Klingler-Vidra is the vice dean for global engagement and an associate professor in political economy and entrepreneurship, King's College London . This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
HKFP
a day ago
- HKFP
Hong Kong minister urges lawmakers to support gov't proposal to give limited rights to same-sex couples
A Hong Kong minister has urged lawmakers to be 'objective' and support the government's plan to afford limited recognition to same-sex couples registered abroad. Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Erick Tsang said during a Legislative Council (LegCo) meeting on Wednesday that he understood the bill was controversial, but insisted the proposal would not undermine traditional family values. 'We maintain that the bill has struck a balance,' he said in Cantonese. 'Under the premise of an inclusive, cohesive, and united society, we also hope that legislators can conduct a professional review of this bill in an objective, impartial and fact-based way.' Earlier this month, the government presented lawmakers with a proposal to establish a registration system for same-sex couples who were married or had formed a civil union abroad. The bill is limited to granting registered couples rights in matters relating to healthcare and death, such as hospital visits, making medical decisions, and collecting the body of a deceased partner. At least one person in the couple must be a Hong Kong resident. Many lawmakers in the opposition-free legislature have expressed opposition to the bill, calling it 'an attack' on the institution of marriage. They have also said that the proposal could pave the way for legalising same-sex marriage in Hong Kong. The LegCo no longer has any pro-democracy members after an overhaul in 2021 required lawmakers to be 'patriots' to take office. Meanwhile, LGBTQ groups have said that the proposal falls short of giving same-sex couples full recognition and protection. The bill requires couples to have their partnerships registered abroad and does not address issues such as childcare and inheritance. NGOs including Hong Kong Marriage Equality have also cited high public support in Hong Kong for LGBTQ rights, pointing to a 2023 survey that found around 60 per cent of respondents agreed with same-sex marriage. 'Legally binding' The government's proposal comes as Hong Kong has around three months left to establish a framework for recognising same-sex partnerships, following a top court ruling in 2023 that found the lack of such a mechanism unconstitutional. The Court of Final Appeal gave the government two years to put such a mechanism in place. However, no known public consultations have been held despite attempts by LGBTQ groups to share their views with the government. Speaking to lawmakers on Wednesday, Tsang said the government has a responsibility to abide by the top court's ruling. Otherwise, he added, that would undermine the city's rule of law. 'The Court of Final Appeal's ruling is absolutely legally binding… the government cannot defy the court's decision,' he said. Lawmakers will debate the bill at a House Committee meeting on Friday. According to HK01, 45 lawmakers – more than half of the 89-strong Legislative Council – have said they are inclined to vote against the bill or abstain from voting. Members of pro-establishment parties, including the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, and the Liberal Party – are expected to vote down the proposal. Only one party – the New People's Party – has said it would support the bill. Independent lawmaker Doreen Kong, and some members of the Executive Council, including Stanley Ng and Gary Chan, have indicated they would vote in favour, Ming Pao reported. Chief Executive John Lee said on Tuesday that substantial research and consideration of legal advice went into the authorities' formulation of the proposal. He said the city's marriage system would remain 'monogamous and heterosexual,' apparently seeking to assuage lawmakers' opposition to the proposal.
