Hello everyone, today's meeting officially begins. First, let me explain the rules for using the microphones. To avoid feedback, please remember to turn off your microphone after speaking. As for our friends at the middle round table, please take turns passing the microphone around. This is also a concept of shared microphones.
I am very glad to see many friends in the same physical space who were previously exchanging remarks back and forth online.
If you have any thoughts or feelings here, since the topics we will discuss later are also netizen sentiments (all starting with "I feel..."), so it doesn't necessarily have to be on this topic—maybe you have some expectations coming here today, please take a dozen seconds or so to introduce yourselves to us.
If that's OK, we will go in turn starting from the left.
Sorry for being a bit late.
I am Tun-Chi Chen (陳敦基) from the College of Management at National Taiwan Normal University, currently teaching in the Department of Business Administration. However, my main expertise is in transportation, and I am especially concerned with policies related to transportation.
I'll keep this brief introduction for now. Since we haven't settled down yet, we can talk properly later.
Hello everyone, I am Chin-Yuan Wang (王晉元) from the Department of Transportation and Logistics Management at National Chiao Tung University. I am very happy to be here today.
In the past, I conducted research related to taxis for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. In recent years, I have worked on taxi dispatch operations, and recently I became interested in Uber.
I came here today probably because I said a few things on certain occasions. I am also very glad to have this opportunity to share some of my thoughts with you all.
Hello everyone, I am Wen-Sheng Chou (周文生) from the Department of Transportation at Central Police University. I think I am here today because I happen to be executing a taxi-related project for the Transportation Institute of the MOTC, which naturally includes the Uber issue we are discussing today. That is my main purpose for attending today's meeting.
Hello everyone, I am Pen-Chiao Chai (翟本喬). I have criticized Uber before, and Uber is here today to respond.
Hello everyone, I am Mu-Heng Wang (王穆衡) from the Department of Railways and Highways, Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Because I come from the MOTC, you probably know that I will represent the official position in giving some remarks later.
However, I feel the true purpose of coming today is not limited to stating official views. In fact, I think coming here allows us to listen as well. Especially under the concept of the "sharing economy," I also want to learn from everyone.
Under the trend of this wave, a certain conflict may arise between our government regulations and the direction of new technology. I feel that in this process, conflict is not something to evade. Instead, we can exchange experiences with one another in the process, allowing us to grow further.
Hello everyone, I am Ti-Chi Hu (胡迪琦) from the Department of Railways and Highways, MOTC. Coming here today is also my first time participating in a meeting like this.
I'm looking forward to this, and I hope to win everyone's agreement.
Hello everyone, I am Hui-Mei Hsieh (謝慧美) from the Taxation Administration, Ministry of Finance. Today is also my first time attending such a meeting.
I am very glad to have this opportunity to understand the sharing economy, and I hope to gain a deeper understanding of operations like Uber's.
Hello everyone, I am Hua-Jung Lin (林華容) from the Taxation Administration, Ministry of Finance. This is also my first time participating in this meeting.
I am very glad to have this opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of Uber.
Chair, distinguished guests, hello everyone. I am Mei-Chen Hu (胡美蓁) from the Department of Commerce, Ministry of Economic Affairs. I am very glad to be here to attend the meeting.
Hello everyone, I am Pi-Yun Tseng (曾碧雲) from the Department of Commerce. I am also very happy to have this opportunity today to participate in such a discussion meeting for the first time.
Hello everyone, I am Chi-Tsung Lu (呂繼宗) from the Taxation Administration. I am very happy to attend today.
Hello everyone, I am Shih-Yang Chin (金世仰) from the National Taxation Bureau of Taipei, Ministry of Finance. I am very glad to have this opportunity today to exchange views with everyone.
Good evening everyone, I am Sheng-Hui Lin (林聖慧) from the National Taxation Bureau of Taipei, Ministry of Finance. Today I am very glad to participate and reflect on the impact of this emerging industry on our income tax. Thank you everyone.
The feelings here right now are mostly "very happy" and "looking forward to this." Now let's look at the feelings around the shared microphone table...
Hello everyone, I am AppWorks co-founder IC, and also a member of the Youth Advisory Council.
I am very interested in the sharing economy, as well as the process of disintermediation and channel reduction created by the Internet, and I hope we can explore such topics together.
Hello everyone, I am Shih-Lung Chao (趙式隆) from the Youth Advisory Council, and I am also the co-founder of Zuvio.
I have always had a great interest in the sharing economy, and I look forward to the sparks of discussion with everyone today.
Hello everyone, I am Yen-Han Peng (彭彥翰) from the Youth Advisory Council. I am currently the associate conductor of the Chinese Orchestra, and also a PhD student at NTNU's Graduate Institute of Social Education.
This is my first time participating in this meeting. Seeing so many stakeholders present on site, I hope we can clarify our many contradictions and doubts.
Since we mentioned stakeholders... let's first invite the two stakeholders at the inner table to introduce themselves.
Hello everyone, I am Wei-Chun Huang (黃維俊) from Taiwan Taxi. I am very glad to have this opportunity today to participate in the sharing economy topic discussion. I also hope to take this opportunity so that views from both supporting and opposing sides can be fully exchanged.
Hello everyone, I am Chin-Chia Hsu (許錦嘉) from Taiwan Taxi. I am very honored to participate in this meeting today, and later I will be happy to share some views from our own fleet.
Good evening everyone. I am an industry representative, the Chairman of the Taipei Taxi Commercial Association. My name is Ming-Hsiung Wang (王明雄).
I feel very warm coming in here, but I also feel quite nervous. (laughter)
We know that what we are talking about today is Share, which is a concept. Since it's about sharing economy, my coming here today is also to "share experience," to hold a dialogue with everyone's experience, starting from here.
Hello everyone, I am Chiung-Shu Lee (李瓊淑), General Manager of Taiwan Taxi. I am very glad to participate in such a meeting today, and I hope through this meeting to understand the views of the government, fellow industry operators, and scholars present on this matter.
Hello everyone, I am Vicky, Public Policy Manager for Asia Pacific at Uber. You can probably hear that I'm not from Taiwan...
I just got off the plane and came straight here. I hope today I can share and exchange with you our concepts regarding the sharing economy, and our company's commitment in this regard.
Hello everyone, I am Li-Kai Ku (顧立楷), General Manager of Uber Taipei. Likewise, I am very glad and honored to be invited here to discuss the topic of the sharing economy with everyone.
I am also very excited to see the attention and discussion on the sharing economy from academia, industry, and government officials.
Hello everyone, I am Shu-Yi Hsieh (謝樹藝). My profession is attorney, and I am a senior advisor to Uber.
Coming here today is not to share legal clauses and regulatory matters with everyone. I hope that through my period of cooperation with Uber, I can serve as a lubricant and a bridge for communication and exchanging views.
This is also an unshakeable responsibility for us who study law, and I hope I can play this role well today.
Hello everyone, I am community participant 雨蒼. Coming here today is mainly to express some views on behalf of Yang Hsiao-hsien.
On the sign-in sheet, please just record my name as "雨蒼".
Hello everyone, I am Chia-Lin Wu (吳家林) from the Center for Legal Coordination of the National Development Council. Welcome everyone. This is my sixth time participating in this meeting.
Regarding the sharing economy, we hope to consolidate and listen to everyone's opinions to serve as a reference for formulating future sharing economy policies.
Hello everyone, I am Meng-Shan Hsieh (Stella, 謝孟珊) from the Science and Technology Law Institute.
Hello everyone, I am the stenographer. My name is Ya-Ting Hsueh (薛雅婷); you can call me Wendy.
Today is my first time participating in a sharing economy meeting. I will do my best to summarize the views expressed by everyone later.
Of course, let's also invite the chief convener of our consultation meeting to say a few words to us.
Hello everyone, I am Minister without Portfolio Jaclyn Tsai (蔡玉玲) of the Executive Yuan. It is a great honor today. In fact, today is our Virtual World Regulatory Adjustment Version 2 (vTaiwan 2.0) meeting. We have also made changes in form. We conducted some opinion surveys earlier, and Audrey Tang will share the survey results later.
In the first stage, we tried using new methods to quickly build consensus among everyone, and we gained some insights. Therefore, in 2.0, these methods also have an advanced version. We hope this advanced version can allow everyone's different views to be quickly integrated on a single platform to find the direction for our policies.
I think today will certainly be very exciting, so I'll reserve the time to let everyone speak more.
Let me first introduce today's time structure. After everyone's self-introductions just now, I am also very glad that online there are almost a hundred friends joining us for this live broadcast.
Next, I will spend about ten minutes sharing the experience of our "opinion collection" that the Minister mentioned earlier.
The Science and Technology Law Institute of III has presented an analytical report on the results of this opinion collection, which will also be explained by me. I will try to be as quick as possible without compressing other people's time.
Next, our friends from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications will respond to this report. However many minutes the MOTC uses, I think we will also give Uber the same number of minutes to explain their response. We will also try to give Taiwan Taxi the same amount of time. After these three presentations, we will invite everyone to fully express your views, and ask relevant ministries to make the first round of responses.
After the responses, it will be time for interactive discussion. We will include comments left by netizens on Livehouse.in online, all opinions seen on screen, and even further responses to ministry replies, cross-questioning each other, and so on... let's not call it a free-for-all, let's call it "interactive discussion."
That is today's arrangement. Before I start, however, there is a friend who arrived a bit late just now—would you like to introduce yourself?
Hello everyone, I am TonyQ, my real name is Ching-Hung Wang (王景弘). I am a web development engineer myself, representing the IT industry I suppose.
I am very happy to have this opportunity today to interact with everyone.
(opening slides)
Everyone feels that technology and law should advance with the times, and safety is the most important.
On the screen, Irvin says taxis should also upgrade, enabling taxis to use similar methods to obtain better service quality.
Some people think every effort should be made to suspend its business without investigation, but later more and more people opposed that.
Everyone can see the joint recommendations, so I won't read them one by one. Broadly, they say regulation should be fair and should not protect vested interests.
I want to clarify in particular: "vested interests" does not necessarily refer to taxis.
Compared to unmetered illegal taxis in various counties and cities, uberX also has many resources and is also a type of vested interest.
Regardless of how we discuss it, the sense on pol.is is that private cars existing in tourist areas should also be treated equally.
In addition, Uber's tax payment should have a method that is convincing to the Taiwanese people.
As well as "I feel it should be similar to food and pharmaceuticals, with stricter controls compared to general service types."
As you can see, among these six joint recommendations, some are contradictory and some are in conflict, but regardless, these are people's thoughts. Targeting these thoughts, STLI compiled a slide.
The United States summarizes these things into three points: regulatory authorities must oversee, taxes must be paid, and registration must be done (insurance/public disclosure).
Next, we invite the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to respond.
(Ministry of Transportation briefing)
Due to time arrangements, I from the MOTC will go first and make a response.
Thank you to vTaiwan for disclosing the opinions. Department colleagues have also organized their views on the content of these issues.
We will discuss this in a comparative manner.
Let's first talk about the taxi industry. It is an ancient industry; similar services have existed since the days of rickshaws. For human society, this has existed for a very long time, and naturally has its history and evolution.
In our country, it is a regulated industry. Total quantity is regulated, prices must be regulated, total volume must be regulated. From another angle, two strangers coming together in a small space means there are safety considerations. The identity of people engaged in this profession must be vetted; not anyone can do it.
However, the law protects everyone's right to employment, so there is a trend toward relaxation.
In addition, both the vehicle and the person must have clear markings. If an unfortunate incident occurs, these things can be used to find the location and place. This is roughly the background of explicit markings for drivers in various countries.
To tell everyone, as long as this industry exists, unmetered illegal taxis exist. At major airport terminals and stations, there will be people touting and soliciting passengers.
Why do conflicts arise? The government feels that to maintain market order, it needs to have certain regulations for people and vehicles.
Because unmetered illegal taxis operate spontaneously, nobody constrains them. When disputes arise, prices are unreasonable, or people have emotional conflicts, it cannot be handled. Therefore, people report being harmed, and various countries manage it based on this. When someone gets hurt because of it, it must be addressed.
Uber says it has high-grade cars, so it wants to provide better service rather than taxis. But from the system I just mentioned, it becomes high-grade unmetered illegal taxis. Let me clarify this point here.
We won't say much here about which countries have opened up and which haven't; my data might not be as clear as yours (STLI's).
Looking inside, one sentence is very important. I study transportation. Among those that have passed, the vast majority of countries are in a state where supply is less than demand. Taxi income and standards in these countries are relatively above middle-to-high, because with advantages and strong market protection, these people's income will be relatively higher, and supply during peak hours will be relatively insufficient. Uber attempts to adjust to that.
Is there a way, while doing these things as we just mentioned, to elevate our service? These countries allowed them to enter service because of this.
Our country has recorded income statistics over the years. What we know about the taxi-driver community is that they belong to our country's low-income group, averaging around NT$20,000-plus. Although it could be underreported, at least according to current surveys, they belong to low income.
In urban areas, taxis in Taiwan have experienced over-saturation, where supply exceeds demand. So under this background, it's not a matter of a single regulation accepting or not accepting it; there is also the broader macro-environment there. This is something everyone should reference during discussions.
Let's discuss from three aspects. First, sharing economy: what is carpooling?
The concept of carpooling is that I originally intended to go to a certain location and had this space, and through matching we travel together, sharing expenses and splitting costs mutually. We know that Uber right now is not like this. It's not that the driver personally wants to go there, but rather specially assigned to a driver for someone else's need. From our perspective, this is taxi demand.
No research has yet proven that this group of Uber passengers is distinctly different from taxi passengers, but looking from the demand side, we consider it to be a similar demand to taxis.
The reason Uber finds it difficult to enter other countries is strong labor groups—when they feel damage is caused, they will jump out and shout about damage. Our country has relatively less of this situation. Regulations like those in California are currently under trial; they consider themselves—I am not a legal expert and won't debate this. But the key is whether the platform bears joint legal liability. Currently, such a state seems to have no joint connection in Uber. This is very crude, because sharing economy is not my specialty; this is my attempt to interpret the sharing economy using my professional background.
This is the situation we see now: prices are uniformly determined by Uber. Educational requirements are conducted by Uber, dispatching is conducted by Uber. We feel this is substantive business operations. From driver to payment, it is an organized system; we consider this to be business operations. It's not like housing rental sites, which are just platforms for free listing. Uber might have a different view later, but I am speaking about this matter from what I know.
I have also heard about flexible employment. To attend the meeting, I also searched sharing economy. Our corresponding industry behaviors are all consistent: this is an industry. Looking around the world, this is a fixed industry operating with licenses. Into this concept of fixed jobs come part-time people under over-saturated conditions. Everyone can imagine: in a fixed consumer market, when excessive competitors enter, demand becomes dispersed.
On the other hand, it harms opportunities for fixed-employment workers. In a so-called blue ocean or red ocean market, if one day everyone feels they are working part-time, things will move toward a cheaper perspective. It will allow full-time industries to be eaten away by part-time industries.
Reducing waste of social resources: I believe this exists. But the corresponding other side is full-time professions; full-time utilization rates will become lower. Although individual utilization rates increase, in the market it harms long-term professional utilization rates. This cannot be viewed in isolation.
This is a discussion across countries globally. Many countries attach great importance to the sharing economy, the Executive Yuan also attaches great importance, and many regulations are being learned. The EU, various countries, and Mainland China also classify this item as competition violating current regulations.
We do not believe this is protecting vested interests. We cannot generically call the taxi industry vested interests; this industry is currently still open. Vehicles are regulated, but you can join. Anyone can still join this industry at any time; we should not view this confrontationally.
We very much welcome interested people coming in to tune and refine this group of participants, elevating their quality and management—we welcome that very much. But we hope they operate under orderly conditions.
Just as netizens mentioned, what Uber brings is not necessarily bad, and taxis also have points that are not good, which we admit. We need to find ways to let those willing to contribute receive better and more reasonable rewards. This is also the direction of high-grade taxis currently being discussed. It's not a one-size-fits-all, everyone-eats-from-the-same-pot concept; the government is currently doing this.
Regarding so-called conservative regulations and technology, Singapore also revised its regulations in this process, drawing heavily upon them as well. Look closely, everyone: the wording appearing in these regulations is precisely the environment of taxi passenger transport services that already exists in Taiwan. Taiwan has already designed a set of laws for this industry within an established environment, and it is an open field; it is a platform, and the people it manages have restrictions—namely, professional licenses. It's not that our regulations are falling behind; these are the regulations that countries around the world are now moving toward.
We won't use safety issues as a talking point. We want to address what we haven't improved, rather than talk about what others haven't done well.
However, to address why we have different conditions for people versus vehicles: although dangerous events can still occur even with these, if we didn't even have these, how many more events would occur?
Without taking up more time, I will stop here for now.
The MOTC just used 15 minutes. I think we will also give Uber 15 minutes, and switch directly to their presentation.
(Uber briefing)
Hello everyone. First, thank you to friends at the Executive Yuan and g0v for bringing us such a great vTaiwan platform. We are very glad to exchange views with everyone and collect various opinions from the public. This part has an open and transparent platform, which is rarely seen anywhere in the world.
We hope to provide users with excellent service, and also hope to make contact and communicate with competent authorities.
We did our basic homework and looked at some conclusions on vTaiwan. Earlier Audrey Tang talked about the gap in opinions between Group 1 and Group 2, but in some places where we see clear aspects, there are consistent opinions. Let me share this with you.
Regarding everyone's concept of the sharing economy, in Taiwan it is quite well understood and deep. People believe the sharing economy can reduce resource waste and create additional economic effects, increasing job opportunities. Most people agree on these two topics. Why the sharing economy has begun to develop more technically is because technology platforms can ensure both sides have trust and feel guaranteed. The role of the Uber platform is to play the matchmaker and supplier, rather than employer and employee. We believe the Taiwanese public has a deep understanding of this.
These last few questions were also selected by us. In addition, the next point lies in regulations: similarly, regarding regulations, whether Group 1 or Group 2 citizens, regarding regulations, they all believe that because there are new trends, a new regulation is needed to govern it. The concept of the sharing economy is using idle resources for easy sharing. It is not an industry competing traditionally with taxis. About 80-90% agree on hoping for new regulations.
One point that gives us confidence is that consumers recognize Uber's overall quality. Even in a situation where Taiwan's taxis are already highly saturated, regarding extra choices and modes of transportation for consumers, they consider this extra competition. We are very happy and hope to continue working hard to elevate overall service.
How Uber works with drivers and participants: in fact, the concept is that they currently have cars. Therefore, we don't use the term "carpooling," but rather "car sharing," which is easier to understand. I have a car, and I hope to share it for everyone to use during my free time. A car sits parked 80% of the time; we might as well take that idle time and vehicle resource to share for everyone to use. This is a very flexible way. Looking at these several partners, they have cars and define it using different times.
This person's private car was originally used to drive their own children, and after school started it was used for sharing. Salespersons spend most of their time on their primary job, and additionally on weekends use it for car sharing.
Regarding the definition of a car, there will be a certain degree of fluidity. Under different modes of use, there will be different definitions. Returning to regulations, this kind of definition is not quite applicable under existing regulations.
Next, we might introduce our understanding and current state of existing regulations. According to existing regulations, becoming a commercial vehicle has certain thresholds, with thresholds and conditions for both drivers and vehicles.
Let's first discuss vehicle conditions. Taking rental cars as an example, to establish a fleet company and provide R-plate cars, one must prepare NT$5 million in capital and purchase ten brand new cars. Some affiliate with fleets, but affiliating requires signing over ownership to the fleet company, leaving no protection for either party.
Under existing regulations, it does not match the concept used by several drivers earlier of using vehicles in a more fluid manner. If we apply this kind of regulation, the concept of car sharing also contradicts the ideal of needing new conditions and regulations.
We invite Vicky (Ms. Vicky Cheng, Public Policy Manager for Asia Pacific at Uber) to introduce examples from other countries.
Other countries have seen such regulations emerge for Uber. For example, in the United States, our US business operations began in 2009, with 54 regions having carpooling regulations. In Asia, the Philippines also did this in May, as you have discussed.
We understand that some places walk at the forefront of innovation while some are more conservative, but if the government maintains a relatively open attitude, there will be relatively open breakthroughs. We hope to communicate and cooperate with the same attitude in many countries to reach our goals.
Just now we might have also mentioned the part about Singapore. Our services there are actually developing very well. Locally, the threshold for commercial vehicles is very high, whereas in Singapore it is very easy to obtain commercial vehicle plates. Our business is doing very well there too, and they are also relaxing regulations regarding apps. We hope carpooling apps will see some development after communication.
So from our experience communicating with other places, proposals must be brought forward around two main themes: new regulations and new passenger safety. Under the overarching premise of the sharing economy, we hope to use such main principles. We understand that various places have different characteristics, and ultimately I believe the MOTC and the government hope to give passengers a safe way to travel.
How to pay taxes legally? Currently, Uber is unlike large multinational corporations such as Facebook that have very large profits everywhere globally; we are actually still in a state of investing all over the world.
Regarding our current financial status, we hope to make some contributions locally. After operating in Taiwan for two years, we have actually already begun paying taxes in Taiwan. After discussions with various countries, we also pay permit taxes where applicable.
Regarding our current income effect, this slide might be a bit blurry and hard to see, but compared to traditional 22k jobs, an Uber job can earn the same income in less time. This efficiency might be even more considerable.
Exchanging with online communities across Taiwan and interacting with Taiwanese interns, we hope to share experience from abroad. We hope to learn from one another.
Finally, regarding public welfare, during sudden unfortunate events, we can make timely contributions. We continue communicating with public welfare groups to see if there are vulnerable groups whose transportation quality can be enhanced by Uber.
Finally, what we want to talk about is safety. In every group on pol.is, we saw that safety receives the most attention.
The vast majority of passengers who have ridden with Uber trust safety very much. We can also see this situation from pol.is data.
Before the trip, we require drivers to have police clearance certificates and no traffic accident records. The app also has GPS tracking and insurance as required by law.
We demand safety guarantees during the trip, as well as after the trip, providing an additional NT$20 million protection for passengers and third parties.
Therefore, looking at how to cooperate with the government: we hope to establish unified standards with the government. After elevating carpooling standards, government databases can be utilized to coordinate and ensure safety.
We have 50 colleagues in the United States looking at how to use such technology to put safety features into the app.
So finally, this is our company's commitment. Right now we operate in over 300 cities, with over 1 million trips every day. Safety is the most important consideration for us.
Thank you, very punctual.
Please have Uber hand the presentation clicker directly to Taiwan Taxi.
Please begin directly.
(Taiwan Taxi briefing)
Chair, Commissioners, distinguished officials from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, hello everyone.
Just now the MOTC official explained very clearly and completely; I will make a brief explanation here.
Uber in the whole world, when talking about its only innovative service, is the App.
Regarding this App thing, Taiwan Taxi has built such a platform since 2011, providing driver location tracking and safety services. Passengers can let friends and relatives know which vehicle they are in during the ride. Its safety is even more real-time; this is on the App.
What if taking a ride from the roadside? When the passenger gets in the car, a screen behind us displays relevant information about this driver, which can avoid what problem? Avoid the problem of mismatch between vehicle and driver. This is part of passenger safety protection.
Similarly on the media display machine, we also provide passenger feedback on service attitude and vehicle condition during the ride. Reports can be made through this mechanism, allowing us to see whether passenger needs are met during the driving process at that point in time.
Similarly for women returning late at night, we provide safety SMS text messages. By entering and sending their friends' and relatives' phone numbers, their family will receive a text message showing who boarded this vehicle at what point in time.
Earlier there was much discussion about taking care of the passenger end; Taiwan Taxi does not only do this. On this part we know very clearly that Taiwanese passengers are very diverse and foreign passengers are also numerous, so in addition to allowing passengers to choose cash payment, there is also traditional credit card payment, which not everyone has nor is everyone willing to choose. Besides letting them choose credit cards and cash, we also have EasyCard. On innovative services we are very diversified.
Furthermore, mentioned earlier was taking care of passengers, but do drivers need care? In fact, to a certain extent, especially at night when drivers encounter drunk customers or robberies, how should they call for help at that moment? Every vehicle has an emergency distress system where pressing a pedal button with a foot sends a notification for immediate assistance; this belongs to innovative services.
Earlier there was much discussion about the sharing economy. Of course, MOTC officials also gave some explanations on this part. For example from point A to point B, charging NT$200 or different payment methods per passenger: in the past, unmetered illegal taxis on highways weren't necessarily worse vehicles or worse service, but due to road rights and safety factors, we must establish relevant normative definitions.
Therefore, speaking of the sharing economy, it has actually existed in Taiwan for a long time; but that does not mean it can be legalized this way—it must still be regulated.
Let's discuss a hypothetical topic. Marijuana is a drug. Everyone might find it strange why I would talk about this here.
We clearly know marijuana cannot be consumed. But in countries like the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, and Switzerland, it is legal.
If conducted in Taiwan through App transactions, is this an innovative service? Can it be legalized?
Uber currently has operating rights in only a few US states. In terms of recognition, Uber is still inferior to marijuana.
To give another example, looking from domestic doctors: not everyone graduating from medical school can practice and see patients; one must pass and obtain a medical license. Applying this model, can past quack doctors be legalized just by using an App?
Today Chairman Wang from the association is also present. We absolutely welcome innovative services very much; as long as it's from a legal perspective, we are happy to compete.
However, we absolutely do not want illegal practices performed in the name of false innovation.
I think vTaiwan is a multi-stakeholder dialogue platform.
Next, we open the floor for open discussion. But before opening for free speeches, there is actually a fourth stakeholder, our friend from the general association—please speak first.
Both co-hosts and distinguished attendees, it is truly a pleasure to meet everyone tonight.
I am Ming-Hsiung Wang, Chairman of the Taipei Taxi Commercial Association. I was invited to participate in this meeting. I asked the MOTC if I needed to prepare materials. They said I didn't need to.
However, I prepared a very simple comparison of similarities and differences between taxis and Uber.
Uber caused a stir globally. It drove straight in, acted first, with the attitude "I like it, you have to cooperate with me." Many people were tempted.
There must be comparison; Taiwanese law must compare laws of various countries. Just now our MOTC spoke very well, and industry operators also raised things we can achieve.
Regarding people and vehicles, we state very clearly: what I have in the car is the actual police clearance certificate (holds up taxi driver license).
Before obtaining this license, one must obtain a professional driver's license. Uber says theirs are all police clearance certificates, so what proof do I use? I use this.
But when I just drove a taxi in earlier, the Executive Yuan wouldn't let me in.
You see how our society views taxis like this. But I don't want to talk more about this part...
My point is, since many things are already being done, why is there no way to construct them within our order?
If it is not constructed upon legal order, that is a lofty hat nobody dares to knock off.
I have said a lot about my views on Uber, and I really am sick of Uber, because the pressure on me is quite heavy. But I tell my members that Uber cannot be stopped. What cannot be stopped? That is to say, the technology you talk about cannot be stopped. But technology has a considerable relationship with our citizens' consumption habits.
Many drivers are unwilling to use credit cards; they want cash. Young friends often like credit cards and are unwilling to use cash. Uber can use credit cards, but using credit cards is quite dangerous and exposes much personal data, even more dangerous than EasyCard.
This full end-to-end chain is pulled up; it says it is an IT industry, but what is its behavior? Has everyone thought about it?
Uber has a good side, but it also has a side that makes our nation's friends and colleagues uneasy—and it's not just these two sides. We must view it holistically. Holistically includes many people with different standpoints; the facets they view will all be different. That's why I say we must view it holistically.
Not just these two sides; it needs to be viewed holistically.
I can also tell everyone, "My taxis are all very safe." I must also demand how our driver friends' vehicles should be, and these are all regulated. Let's not raise it to a grand tone saying "everyone is very safe."
Including Taiwan Taxi, which is still in litigation; sometimes it's also unsafe. One needs to think about what I am doing myself right now. You came in and registered a company; this company has only NT$1 million, registered with seven items, and that last item is a special clause.
Can a taxi business be run by simply applying for any company?
Of course not. This card of mine (holds up police clearance certificate) also has to undergo layers of assessment, with regulatory aspects to comply with.
Because everyone doesn't have much time, I will only state the conclusion.
I hope to cooperate with Uber, and I also hope it returns to our taxi contract. I can assist in providing these vehicles to them; whatever they want, we absolutely have.
But if you say 20% must be taken from every trip, that only happens with unmetered illegal taxis. And when problems occur, it has nothing to do with you?
Our automotive transportation industry is one of the nine major industries, bearing obligations and responsibilities toward transport users. Because Uber says it is an information platform industry, not a transportation industry, everyone can think about it: if a problem occurs with Uber, how do you bear this obligation and responsibility?
I hope everyone can cooperate and not confront each other; everyone can hold dialogue and not argue.
Thank you everyone for listening.
I see a sense of trying to win each other over, or "you do it, we do it too," as well as other voices of dialogue.
I feel it's not really a dispute; I am very glad to hear many overlapping arguments.
Next we still have nearly an hour. We open it up to everyone present—whoever wants to speak, please raise your hand.
Raising two questions on behalf of Yang Hsiao-hsien (nchild).
The MOTC stated in its press release on July 4, 2014, and in responses and explanations on July 25, 2014, regarding Uber's entry into the market, that it would review Uber. However, it seems that around late July, an administrative order was issued directly bringing Uber under taxi jurisdiction. Could the MOTC please provide its July 2014 report on Uber for everyone to see? I also want to raise a question regarding the MOTC's timeline, because the MOTC's timeframe was quite short. New York also conducted a similar investigation into Uber, and their investigation took four months, whereas our Taiwan finished in less than a month... I think this place might raise some doubts for people.
Second, what I want to understand more is that the MOTC gave many reasons just now, but only mentioned Uber and the taxi industry. In fact, Uber can also be viewed as an online transaction platform, similar to 591 Housing Rental or Yahoo Auctions, which also charge certain amounts from both transacting parties. Uber is in a similar situation. Why treat Uber as an unmetered illegal taxi service, rather than treating Uber like Yahoo?
The first reason I thought of is that I am accustomed to taking Uber abroad. Looking back at our fleets, this might be one of the reasons for tourists to choose it.
Second, the so-called legality of a matter actually has different timeliness. Earlier marijuana was mentioned, but coffee was also once a drug. Right now there might be no law to govern it, which is why we need to hold this meeting. So using "illegal" to refer to a new business model that is still growing might not be so appropriate; this is my suggestion.
Third, places like Silicon Valley or more innovative regions accept or are willing to try Uber. I view this from a perspective of market flexibility. Of course, taxis in the past from a transportation or public perspective—I feel today is more like an issue of balancing personal and public interests. For people choosing Uber, like those of us willing to try, if doing simple market surveys or based on my personal family experience, the choice of Uber is actually slightly higher among women. I feel one aspect is an intergenerational issue regarding public safety and trust levels. For instance, the current generation has different trust in the Internet, causing fundamentally structural differences. I feel this is space open for discussion.
Fourth, from the perspective of Taiwan's legislation, we hope to choose a part that is more conservative, or open, or forward-looking. These are several dimensions everyone can think about.
Fifth, for instance our company is Venture Capital 2.0. Venture capital used to be relatively closed and low-profile. After having accelerators, it was actually because the value of money decreased, and knowledge instead became an important currency. But later another newer model, crowdfunding, began disrupting funding channels for startups or projects. So public participation and a new business model—I feel this is a transformation faced by many industries right now. I feel Uber is also a new face. These are some thoughts I offer, not necessarily any conclusion.
Crowdfunding was discussed on vTaiwan previously.
Issues on vTaiwan require that most stakeholders are online.
So "marijuana legalization" will definitely not be a topic for vTaiwan 2.0, 3.0, or 4.0. (laughter)
The MOTC said earlier that calling Uber leaves taxis idle, and you are merely moving money from taxis to Uber. Sometimes there are better cars, like Mercedes-Benz. For someone with the spare means to leave a Mercedes sitting at home, does our country need to worry about their employment problem? I think that's unnecessary.
Uber sometimes reduces idle resources, sometimes helps employment, sometimes offers better cars, but we need to know what happens when. These don't all happen simultaneously. We must look at the macro picture and quantify it to know whether it benefits the country in the end. If something provides no overall benefit to the country, why should the country help it?
Regarding what online friends mentioned earlier, it might be faster for me to answer. Many people feel civil servants don't do anything, but I feel MOTC officials have done a tremendous amount.
To the MOTC official here, would you consider being the Executive Yuan spokesperson next time? (laughter)
New York has already finished its investigation, so we cited their report directly, saving us four months—what's bad about that? Of course, we hope the MOTC will make this investigation report public.
Some people say Uber is a platform matchmaking service, but we know it differs from matchmaking platforms. On housing rental sites, both sides sign contracts themselves and bear legal liability themselves. Taxi fleets bear joint liability without cap, whereas Uber does not.
Earlier Uber mentioned NT$20 million protection. May I ask which insurance company and which insurance policy it is, so that we know under what circumstances Uber passengers can enjoy this protection?
Earlier Uber's tax payments were mentioned—how much income is there, how much money did all Taiwan Uber passengers pay, and what proportion of that money... You were referring to business tax. Any small shop also has to pay income tax and business tax. If Uber is willing to state it, saying most stays in Taiwan: if I spend NT$1,000, is NT$990 staying in Taiwan, or NT$1,000 staying in Taiwan? I hope Uber can provide this figure.
In fact, it is already clear what behavior is legal and what behavior is illegal. Part is legal and part is illegal; even put on a intermediary platform, it is still illegal.
Finally, many people cite satisfaction surveys. We can see that MOTC and Uber's satisfaction surveys have many different interpretations. According to my own experience, 90% of people drawn into pyramid schemes are very satisfied. What we need to look at is whether the public has a genuine need for this matter. Before the Formosa Fun Coast dust explosion, people participating in road runs were also very satisfied.
On defining employees, although 80% of people think they are not employees, this is not decided by public opinion, but by law. So I think everyone needs to see this clearly.
Since everyone is willing to come here today to make things clear, I hope these few questions can receive complete answers. Thank you.
...Of course, multi-level marketing is not a topic for vTaiwan discussion either. XD
Just now Uber mentioned the single mother smiling very happily. I feel that's only seeing the new bride smile, without seeing the ex-wife cry.
In today's taxi industry, as mentioned earlier, if Uber is introduced, will it cause existing ecosystems and existing operators to collapse?
Is the taxi industry today ultimately a specially licensed and regulated industry?
Like highway coach transport, it definitely is. I can buy cars or set up a company, but can I run the Taipei-Kaohsiung route? No, I must submit an application, stating how much demand there is between Taipei and Kaohsiung, and whether this demand is already saturated. If saturated, I cannot enter.
Are taxis currently regulated or not? Fleets must be regulated. We now open individual taxi operator permits—like if you have a driving license for six years and no violation record for three years, individual taxi operator permits seem never to have been blocked, seemingly defenseless.
Therefore, if the MOTC feels this is a regulated industry, the MOTC should regulate it properly. It shouldn't be that anyone satisfying all passive conditions can enter this industry, because it is already over-saturated. This over-saturation is caused by policy, and I feel our analysis of each other needs to be clarified.
Second, I've been thinking: why don't rental car operators and taxi operators direct their target at rental cars? Rental cars have R-plates and also require professional driving licenses. If taxis all open up individual taxi operator permits, if so, to what stage must this market saturate? I think we can still find ways to regulate.
Third, I won't hide it either: I have also contacted Uber and made suggestions. Today Uber under Taiwan's current regulations is simply illegal. Just as mentioned earlier, today in some remote areas of Taiwan public transport is insufficient. Seeing in the news that the government wants to spend NT$2 million in subsidies to serve three people, why not ask them to take taxis? They don't even have taxis; taxi fleets are 20 or 30 kilometers away, and calling a cab to run 20 or 30 kilometers is impossible.
If today some remote rural areas and Indigenous townships opened up using Uber first, perhaps it could fill the last mile of Taiwan's public transport.
Perhaps everyone can run in first and see if we can give it a try. The above are my thoughts.
Just heard a new concept, like a "sharing economy demonstration zone."
Next, we invite the MOTC to respond to questions.
First, the judgment made by the MOTC is targeted at the "clearly illegal" part—that is, operating without a business license, soliciting passengers, or setting prices independently. This point is very explicit. With clear facts and existing laws, I have no authority to say I will not handle this matter.
Second, after Uber entered Taiwan, we maintained an open attitude. We said that Taiwan has different licenses among various countries—namely, the taxi passenger service industry—but the object of management and guidance is the taxi-driver community. But from open contact until now, indeed partner friends on the opposite side have contacted me many times, but not once has there been a formal application action with us. I haven't even received an investigation request or application, yet we have tried our best to make requests for these matters.
For example, whether tax has been paid on these things? For example, when we asked about legal items registered with the Ministry of Economic Affairs, whether there was a single item for transportation services? These things were our investigation, but the response we received was "none."
Therefore, regarding the investigation into this matter, based on the status of applying for permits at the time and the social relationships existing in fact, we performed clear verification. We did not conduct so-called logical or legal theory debates. "Whether this is sharing economy" was not within the scope, but we investigated the credit card portion first to see whether it complies with domestic safety guarantees.
For example, personal privacy protection: credit cards must enter membership and complete data must be provided, yet this falls outside jurisdictional scope. I say this is a virtual competent authority, so under this scenario, we believe there is no explicit guarantee for our citizens. I think we have no room for ambiguity, so I answer this part first.
Of course, let me emphasize: perhaps we are learning many things. From the consumer's perspective, what they care about should be service quality and image, which is Uber's strength: screening members, requiring members to abide by rules, or consistent standards—but these standards do not lie in personal identity.
If these are transferred to taxi friends: we first have 86,000 taxi friends. Not all of these people wish to be managed, but some hope to be guided properly toward joint entrepreneurship; this also exists.
Therefore, we say we hope to maintain an open and welcoming attitude, hoping they can enter this industry. From the government's perspective, we will not protect a specific company's TITLE; we absolutely respect market order.
So revising the "Regulations Governing the Approval and Operations of Taxi Passenger Services" was not holding discussions or investigations with Uber, but asking about an "actual current legal status," and defining it using that method?
Meaning it was more of a "determination" rather than an "investigation"?
Yes.
Okay. Earlier there was another question, which is what insurance company issued the so-called "NT$20 million insurance" and how claims are paid, etc. Please have Uber answer.
What we hope to do is an innovative business model. Uber does not only use Mercedes-Benz or high-end cars. What we see now, for instance, are single mothers; it's impossible for everyone to have a Mercedes-Benz at home.
In fact, the insurance procedure is that when a driver first joins our platform, an insurance review is conducted to ensure they have legal insurance. If an accident actually occurs, regarding the responsibility part mentioned earlier—how to distinguish platform responsibility versus supplier responsibility—our platform calculation determination and responsibility is: if an accident occurs and the insurance policy balance is insufficient, we have an international policy that can provide additional protection for them. This is an extra benefit we offer to drivers.
The international policy is global secondary protection. This part provides additional international protection—including for passengers and third parties—if Taiwan's current insurance portion is insufficient to cover the accident amount.
If the driver's policy is insufficient to cover, the international policy portion can cover it.
Saying it like that doesn't answer my question.
So if an accident occurs in Taiwan, does one go to the United States or the Netherlands to claim?
Based on our role as a platform, we initially assist in coordinating the local insurance part, which is also our initial duty.
If there is an actual need or additional dispute, it becomes our overseas protection.
For the overseas protection part, we will assist them in making claims.
How many such claims have occurred so far?
None so far.
I think it's a very simple question: which insurance company are you using, and can you show me the policy?
I'll answer for him: "Didn't bring it today." (laughter)
I don't normally carry that insurance policy around with me. (laughter)
Then can you tell Taiwan's public, and when can you tell us, which insurance company covers this NT$20 million limit?
Because on your presentation, it says "Everyone can receive NT$20 million protection."
Then tell me which insurance company it is, and please show me the policy.
Today is not a debate, so they have no obligation to answer your question immediately...
I am just extremely dissatisfied with this behavior of treating me like an idiot.
...and we also don't want personal attacks to occur, whether passive or...
In short, I hope both sides won't take it personally right away.
I know the two of you have been firing at each other online over this matter for a very long time.
In person, however, we still hope to let the two who raised their hands earlier speak first.
Today I speak in the capacity of someone with higher IT literacy and better financial capability who frequently takes taxis. On Uber, I hold an opposing stance; I personally prefer taking Taiwan Taxi over Uber.
I don't feel Uber is truly playing a sharing economy role. I think passengers themselves will still take arriving quickly from point A to point B as their main consideration.
Currently, I feel Taiwan Taxi's service is already among the top in IT adoption within Taiwan's taxi circle, but it must still be admitted that Uber does better than Taiwan Taxi in some areas.
Regarding paying taxi fares with credit cards or other non-cash payment tools, it is actually very widespread now and we shouldn't hold a reserved attitude.
In addition, considering the safety service mentioned earlier, as a passenger I would never use it. With the driver right in front, would you really press that button? I personally wouldn't, not to mention my attention would only be influenced by that "gift pack"—that is, advertisements.
Driver coverage is also an issue, but where I am located, there is no Uber service, so that point can be set aside for now.
In addition, driver service quality indeed needs to be considered. What's important is that we absorb each other's strengths and weaknesses to provide better service. That is the most important thing.
In addition, Taiwan Taxi said they would provide EasyCard and other payment tool options by late August, but we haven't seen it yet. When exactly is it opening up?
We invite Taiwan Taxi to respond quickly.
Expected by October, all cars will accept credit cards and EasyCard for payment, and third-party tools will all be launched.
In fact, in the taxi service industry, we also comply with government regulations: every vehicle must carry passenger liability insurance. It's not something I personally choose to insure or not, but passenger liability insurance, which is extremely important.
So regarding the question brought up earlier, what we carry is passenger liability insurance. This is very clear: every car, every month must have insurance.
Let me respond again regarding the safety service: I'm not speaking groundlessly. In fact, our emergency pedal has saved many drivers during sudden conditions like heart attacks; our 24-hour call center personnel can immediately call our vehicles to arrive at the scene right away.
When I arrived earlier, I said my expertise was in transportation policy. In fact, my specialty is "transportation economics."
Listening up to now today has been truly exciting, and I personally agree with many viewpoints.
Technology changes the future. Problems of today will still be encountered in the future. Because of ICT technological progress, the banking sector is also talking about Bank 3.0. Next, our discussion of the sharing economy is understandable.
Uber is actually a type of underground economy. Transportation used to be a highly regulated industry because it involved public interest.
Furthermore, so-called micro-economics is actually public economics, or composite economics, because it involves the interests of many people, which is quite positive from an economic viewpoint.
In fact, what do we regulate? The MOTC regulates no more than three points: price, quantity, quality.
If even Uber is opened up, in the future large passenger coaches could also be opened for ordinary people to drive...
In short, regulation is done from three sides: quantity, quality, and price.
Safety issues, market order, regulatory relaxation, and e-commerce issues are all problems that must be faced now, whether Uber is defined as a transaction platform or an information platform.
There are roughly several dimensions. First, if considering legalization, it must be legalized under reasonable premises, mainly considering "management" and "supervision." These two things are safeguarded by the MOTC and the government. Can these two points be handed to private operators? If achievable, why not? Just open up then.
Talking about taxes or insurance earlier: those are actually operating-level issues. Uber doesn't bear many costs; when put into your operating costs, do you still have an operating advantage? If so, let's compete together!
You at Uber say you are currently mainly part-time, but in the end Uber might become the largest taxi operator.
This industry was originally open to full-time and part-time people, which is why I call it an integrated economy—that way we get the best of both worlds. Our transportation sector is naturally more conservative, so let's start with remote areas first, allowing us to see that Uber is beneficial to society.
Finally let me state one more point. For example, opening up our aviation market: at the beginning flowers bloomed everywhere, but over time it converged until in the end only a few competitive manufacturers remained. Thank you.
Thank you Professor Chen for your insightful views. Currently we are still in stage zero opinion collection.
If we reach stage one actual discussion, "impact on the market" will be a very important consideration.
After the meeting, Uber's insurance policy will first be provided to the Minister without Portfolio's office for review.
In addition, when I personally assisted PayPal in handling Taiwan's third-party payment issues back then, I also encountered many problems.
Uber in Taiwan was because at that time it was the only foreign company. Lyft hasn't said it wants to enter; seeing Taiwan's Uber like this, they are probably also worried about whether to enter.
We are not saying whether we want to become a taxi company. What we are thinking is: does Taiwan need another taxi company?
If it's just wanting another taxi company, that is a regret for us.
We proposed many ways to guide drivers to obtain professional driving licenses, but vehicles need to be bought brand new. This is difficult for us.
Some reached agreements with rental car companies to let them handle it. This part, thanks to the competent authority saying it's OK, makes us feel more reassured.
What we are evaluating today is uberX. We are not saying whether its entry is full-time or part-time. This is because he indeed has other aspects to his life.
Why is there such an excessive supply in the Greater Taipei area? In Tainan, calling a taxi depends on luck; in Taichung during peak hours, taxis can't be found either.
Taipei's individual license plate opening: people can still apply and it can still be opened. If opening individual license plates has no regulation, does Uber's service model provide a direction for relief?
This is the service model I wish to consult officials on: allowing drivers not to be locked in a car for 12 hours, with operating revenue of NT$30,000 to NT$40,000, deducting costs leaving only NT$20,000-plus.
It's not whether current laws are legal or illegal; this is a policy issue. Where exactly is policy positioned? Are we going to let this situation deteriorate further?
If there is dissatisfaction with Uber as a company, they should be questioned; but Uber's model is the core focus we should consider today. What the public cares about is this model—namely, whether this model warrants encouragement.
Let me summarize first. Your view is that guiding them to obtain professional driving licenses, obtain police clearance certificates, or even placing them in the vehicle—you think these are not such big problems. The bigger issue is the vehicle itself?
(Attorney Shu-Yi Hsieh signals agreement.)
Mr. Uber Advisor, you can go back and discuss internally.
Your model is fundamentally identical to ours, but what I know is that your technology is better than ours.
Your model is simply setting up a taxi company, just adding another company. You go back and use "Transportation Consulting Company"—that's a very good name—but operating behavior is identical. I can offer you this suggestion.
To cause such a big stir indicates that some loopholes were exploited; Uber's survival is proof.
I knew I was attending this meeting, so during my last two or three trips abroad, taking taxis in Mainland China many times was taking Uber. I must say Uber's overall image, including marketing and operating model, is indeed far superior to existing taxis in user experience. But I see Taiwan's taxi fleets are also continuously improving.
We must first face this challenge: the reason it presents these challenges is due to our shortcomings.
I feel Taiwan's environment should not block innovative new business models, but I feel the baseline of public safety must be stepped on firmly, including passenger safety and driver safety. So on this safety baseline, Uber must be able to convince everyone that this baseline has been maintained.
To remove any regulations in the future, whether at the driver gate or passenger gate, things must be very transparent and fully understood. Like during the era of mobile number portability, it had to notify you "the call you are making has been transferred to a certain telecom provider."
If taking Uber, you have no way to enjoy whatever insurance, benefits, or safety of current taxis—if passengers are still willing, I think consumers can be given freedom of choice. This is my own feeling about Uber.
Next speaking of taxes: this company cannot account clearly for taxes. I feel this matter is completely unacceptable. Therefore my personal practice regarding Uber is: I will never take Uber in Taiwan, because I cannot accept this matter; but leaving Taiwan, I will definitely ride Uber.
Therefore I think model-wise Uber is very successful and has directly convinced many consumers, but on taxation it is a moral liability.
Today is mainly to listen to everyone's views. In past meetings, I often explained the situation first, because I have over 20 years of experience in this industry.
Among sharing economy topics, I'll mention two examples. One is the Green Carpooling Network for Taipei-New Taipei-Keelung seen online, encouraging private-car carpooling. But that website sitting there is miserable because usage is very low. What people worry about is safety and strangers sharing a car. But this carpooling concept is private car owners commuting to work allowing other passengers to carpool, so owner and passengers share together.
The second experience is carpooling from the MRT to Culture University on Yangmingshan. I am a taxi with 4 or 5 seats, or Wish vehicles where 6th or 7th passengers make it even cheaper, lowering passenger burden while still using convenient transport tools.
Regarding the business sector for domestic rental cars and sedans, I think: should some innovative services be introduced? In the sharing economy mentioned earlier, due to projects, I have also discussed problems here with several groups.
I have many students who told me about their usage experiences, even though I haven't used Uber myself.
My workplace is in Linkou. If I need a ride, I call a taxi fleet. In other words, Taipei is the city with the highest taxi density: Taiwan has 80,000 taxis, and Taipei alone has 50,000. Domestic taxi supply is very high, but concentrated in urban areas. You ask whether current technology is accepted by operators? Sorry, only 1/3 of people have joined; most existing drivers are traditional spot queuing and cruising for hails.
If you go to taxi queues at Taipei Main Station, the difference is night and day. Consumer business is: the fare I pay is the same fare, but the service level received has a huge gap.
If service is another choice: sometimes I have a speaking engagement and say I want to take a taxi, but the host says they will send a rental car for you, showing more respect. But students say riding Uber is the same concept as rental cars, but rental cars are more expensive, so there is market segmentation.
Today I am not standing on Uber's or taxis' side saying what should be done. I am merely sharing practical experience of unmetered illegal car sharing with everyone. In our future sharing economy, we should consider the passenger's experience during this vehicle journey.
I am someone with quite rich experience riding Uber, Shenzhou Express, and Didi Dache. I like chatting with drivers, and found out none of it is really carpooling—they all came specially from far away to pick me up, not giving me a lift along their way. And drivers even asked me if they could drop me off early here because that way they get a subsidy.
Another point is that I feel taxes must be paid.
Although the venue has no time limit, in the end we still hope to have a summary.
Let's first invite friends on this side who raised hands for a final round of speeches, and finally ask Minister Tsai to summarize.
Many voices online mention that traditional taxi drivers are oppressed by the fleet's special licensing management system. The MOTC report just now also mentioned that taxi drivers' current income in Taiwan is considered low. Looking at the news from 3 years ago, it wrote that taxi drivers earn NT$90,000 a month, but after layer-upon-layer exploitation by fleets, they only make NT$30,000. I would like to ask: because Uber's emergence seems to allow many drivers to obtain better rights, how do Taiwan Mobile or taxi unions view this problem? Do the MOTC, Ministry of Labor, or even fleets have plans to respond to this exploitation in the future? Do taxi unions play a role in speaking up for drivers?
The emergence of Uber actually points out many functions that the taxi industry currently cannot achieve. For example, for passengers, there are also many issues—how do passengers rate drivers after taking a ride? How can they avoid drivers taking detours, or being stuck in traffic? And if a driver detours, is there a more convenient way to request a refund? When calling a car, can they choose vehicle quality and service tier? Is there coaching for drivers with poor service? Is there a way to print an invoice right after the ride?
I hope that besides examining Uber's functions, everyone will also scrutinize the existing taxi industry, to improve drivers' working conditions and also improve the passenger experience.Taxi fare meters should all be launched before the end of the year; receipts on board will be available, I think.
In addition, we are Taiwan Taxi, not Taiwan Mobile...
Let me first respond: for our Taiwan Taxi operators, I think there are three most fundamental differences. You spoke of Uber having innovative services; I think there are differences in standing.
Taxi drivers currently engaged in taxi passenger services are qualified taxis. If Taiwan Taxi could engage in behavior like Uber's, I believe everyone's service would definitely not lose to theirs. This is a company legally complying under an existing legal government and system, where all drivers must be qualified taxi drivers—this is the first thing I must state.
Second, our meter in every driver's car ticks according to government-regulated fares; it cannot flex pricing like Uber. If the government allows it, we can definitely do even better.
Third, Taiwan Taxi pays tens of millions of New Taiwan Dollars in taxes every year. This is a completely different starting line. For example driver ratings: I think you probably haven't taken our cars. If everyone takes our taxi after this ends, you can rate our driver on the spot using our screen.
So I echo once again: the government should legally guarantee operators working under regulations. If other points are unequal, I feel we should think from "how a legal operator complies."
Therefore, as long as the government considers Uber's behavior legal, Taiwan Taxi can also do it, and I believe we will do it better than any fleet.
Uber can flex pricing three or five times during certain periods; our legal drivers must charge by meter. Even for million-dollar cars, we must still comply with all MOTC regulations. I think this starting point is very unfair.
If good drivers can be encouraged to have different services and different pricing, whatever service you want can be achieved. I also urge the government to attach importance to this.
You mean if double charging is allowed, double the service quality will be provided?
Not completely like that. Uber also has so-called "surge pricing," charging more during peak hours.
On the contrary, even if we have extra services, like assisting wheelchair passengers, we still charge according to the meter.
However, if regulations are relaxed allowing higher-standard taxis to charge higher fees, we definitely won't do worse than Uber.
Uber takes 20%. If we are allowed to do it, we only need 2%.
If a driver makes NT$2,000 a day, Uber taking 20% is NT$400, while we only need NT$40.
But I know within these two hours today, it's impossible to see the whole picture.
In our industry, besides what everyone can see, there are many things you cannot see. Everyone should continue caring about unseen aspects.
I describe Uber as "letting this order be broken by it." My meaning is: it is beautiful, so many people ride it.
But I must honestly face our industry: we need change, we need improvement. Our shortcomings make citizens feel that our taxis have long lost their shine, and for a long time this color has been insufficient to satisfy everyone's needs.
Consumers love the new and loathe the old; that is human nature, and also where we usually can see. But much is unseen.
Therefore, beneath Uber's beauty lies risk; beneath a beautiful coat lies risk.
I am not blaming them; I have always wanted to cooperate with them. Why would I blame them?
So I hope everyone can be rational. I cannot tell everyone everything you can and cannot see, so we must take it slowly. Just as you are new to this topic, we must take it slowly.
If there is an opportunity, I must tell everyone what you cannot see. Due to time constraints, I don't want to waste much time either. Thank you to all managers for letting me state my views here.
Very glad to share thoughts with everyone today.
If there is an opportunity in the future, online discussion will continue for at least 30 days, and working group meetings will be held to stay concerned with this matter.
Also thanks to nearly 200 friends participating online in the live broadcast at this late hour.
Thank you everyone for viewing this problem from different angles. I think it will definitely be very helpful when considering this policy in the future.
Because one question has been raised many times, I also hope Uber can be more transparent on this matter: namely, how much is your income in the Taiwan market?
This part cannot merely be "mostly tax-paid." We hope to have completely transparent income, giving tax authorities auditing possibilities.
Next is passenger safety, or when disputes arise between passengers and drivers, is Uber Taiwan responsible? We discussed this earlier: an insurance policy was mentioned, but if claims arise, you said Uber Taiwan will assist with claims.
So what I want to ask is: if a dispute occurs, is Uber Taiwan responsible?
International policy: does it mean Taiwanese drivers or Taiwanese passengers must file cross-border complaints?
In your assistance, will you bear claim costs?
I hope to have a very clear account; I feel this part should not be blurred. I just want to know with what attitude you face operating such a business in Taiwan.
I think innovation can elevate service quality, which is what we seek. Therefore as mentioned earlier, whether our management mechanism causes our transport service quality to fail to elevate is where the MOTC needs to think.
What we do not wish to see, however, is using the name of innovation to avoid paying our taxes and not bearing due legal responsibilities.
Therefore we were also pleased to see the Taxi Association Chairman mention a strong desire to cooperate with Uber. We also hope to use innovative ways to further elevate Taiwan's transportation service quality.
I want to thank everyone very much for participating today. I believe we can definitely find the best way to make Taiwan's transport service quality a mechanism the whole world feels can be referenced. Thank you everyone.
