One of the best things about Hong Kong is the wide choice of public transport that is available. Taxis are cheap and easy to find (unlike, say, Singapore, where there always seem to be queues of people waiting for taxis), the MTR and KCR are fast and very frequent (much better than London), and we have also have a vast number of buses and minibuses.

We also have frequent complaints from one set of transport operators or another. Earlier this year the government reduced taxi fares (as an experiment, and on a temporary basis) only to withdraw it when the taxi drivers protested against it. As usual, a government minister (this time Sarah Liao) was made to look stupid, though in this case she had apparently got agreement from the taxi owners assocaitions before introducing the change.

Now we have taxi drivers and minibus operators complaining about the growth of so-called “non-franchised bus services”. These are what are often called “shuttle buses” that run from housing estates to stations or shopping centres, and also (I think) from shopping centres to pick up customers from nearby residential or commercial areas. The complaint is that there are now more of these services and that they are taking business away from taxis and minibuses.

So, on Thursday, taxi drivers gathered at Sha Tin racecourse, painted slogans on a taxi, attacked it with a hammer (!!) and then drove in convoy to the Tamar car park in Central.

Thursday’s protest was aimed at non-franchised buses operating so-called “estate services” – running from housing estates to downtown areas.

Opponents argue that such services twist regulations that allow temporary services from new estates not yet fully served by buses and minibuses.

Mr Lam said the operators were supposed to continually move to new estates in order to provide services for residents.

“But the government keeps increasing their numbers, so there’s no chance for these operators to move on to new projects. As a result, they’re using the `grey areas’ in the law to keep their operations commercially viable,” he said.

“Their services are meant as residents’ bus services to take people to the nearest rail station or bus interchange. But once they start picking up passengers along their routes, and accepting fares or installing Octopus machines, they’re masquerading as buses and breaking the law.”

But while the non-franchised operators say the government should better regulate their numbers, they disagreed with the need for more control. Mr Yeung said: “We need flexibility to survive.”

“How can the minibuses prove that we are stealing their passengers? Our operators drive from places like Tin Shui Wai straight into Central. No minibuses operate these kinds of routes.”

Then later the same day, bus operators organized their own protest by also driving to the Tamar site, hoping to persuade the Transport department not to introduce regulations preventing them operating these services.

The odd thing here is that given Hong Kong’s reputation as a “free” economy, you wouldn’t expect there to be any restrictions. If someone wanted to operate a “shuttle bus” from a private estate to Central or Tsim Sha Tsui then you would expect that they would be allowed to do so. In fact this is not the case, and we have a huge bureaucracy processing these applications and deciding what is permitted.

Where I live, we have a good shuttle bus service with a very frequent service, except that when they were granted the licence they were not allowed to operate from 12 noon to 2 pm. Naturally they ignored this and carried on operating throughout the day. After a few years the Transport Department discovered that this was happening, and the operator was told to adhere to the licence conditions. So now between 12 and 2 we have a free service that follows a slightly different route. Sometimes they even use different buses, or the same buses but with the name of the estate covered over! What a farce!!

I have very little sympathy for taxi drivers, I’m afraid. One of the minor irritations of life in Hong Kong is that taxi drivers are sometimes very unhappy to take you relatively short distances because they were hoping for a longer journey. If you are a non-Cantonese speaker they affect not to know where you want to go, whereas for everyone else they “show you bad face” (as my wife puts it).

Posted in

4 responses to “Only in Hong Kong”

  1. mr tall avatar

    Hi Chris;
    Great post–very well analysed. I especially like the point about the free market — but then we have to remember that large sectors of the HK economy are not exactly ‘free’ (think property, utilities, etc.) and transport is certainly one of them. As you say, the government controls almost all aspects of routes, pricing, etc., and this is bound to result in animosity now and then. What always amazes me is that it all works as well as it does here.
    The other thing this story reveals, I think, is basic human nature. Minibus drivers might be all for the free market — until their turf gets stepped on. It reminds me of my dear departed grandfather, who was a farmer in the US most of his life. I remember back in the 80s he would get Christmas cards from the Reagans, but he also was a subscriber to the Wallace Farmer, a magazine named after Henry Wallace, one of FDR’s vice-presidents, who was essentially a Stalinist!

    Like

  2. Chris avatar

    You’re right about human nature, and it’s amazing how some people love the idea of competition and a free market until it has a negative impact upon them personally. Then they manage to find so many reasons why they should be protected or supported.
    Farmers are probably one of the most glaring examples of this, and have been notably successful in getting support from national governments. I don’t know that much about the US, but the European Union protects its farmers from international competition and forces all its citizens to pay higher food prices as a result.
    Transport policy in Hong Kong is something that interests me, as does the strange fact that Hong Kong is really much less free than many outsiders seem to believe.

    Like

  3. mr tall avatar

    An addendum: I was talking to Mrs Tall about this last night, and she thinks the taxi/minibus drivers do have a pretty legit point. She gave the example of one of her colleagues, who takes an ‘estate shuttle bus’, one that has nothing to do with where she lives, all the way from Central to Tuen Mun every day. This is in essence a private company running an unregulated bus route. The fact they keep running it certainly confirms there’s a market for it, but then remember that the rest of the market isn’t free at all — all minibus/bus routes have to be government approved, while this one is slipping under the radar and undercutting the highly-regulated competition. If the market were truly free, of course, this would never happen, but then of course we’d have other problems, such as remote areas not being served at all.

    Like

  4. Chris avatar

    I can understand taxi and minibus drivers being unhappy about that type of shuttle bus, but clearly there is demand for the service and it would make sense for the government to take note of this and introduce a franchised service. What concerns me is that the bureaucrats are being inflexible and ignoring demand (e.g. the decision not to allow shuttle buses from my estate to operate at lunchtime).
    I’m not convinced that a totally free market would create major problems in Hong Kong. Surely minibus operators would simply run more services if they were given the chance?

    Like

Leave a comment