HK Government's Draconian Response to Uber

Why does the government want Uber to operate like Hong Kong taxis?

Uber is trying to prove to the government that it has the support of Hong Kong people, and in its online campaign, "IChooseUber", it has garnered some 12,000 submissions praising the car-hailing app service.

Kenneth She, Uber Hong Kong's general manager, said he was "blown away" by the support.

"This means riders are looking for the choice to move around the city the way they want, and driver-partners are hoping for the choice to earn extra income on their own terms," he said, adding that Uber was ready to meet the government to find a way to legalize and regulate the trade.

Uber Hong Kong general manager Kenneth She

The government's response to this car hailing app where people can conveniently book cars online, pay immediately by credit card, and can rate their driver too?

Uber must operate just like how taxis do.

HUH?

Transport minister Anthony Cheung Bing-leung said Uber needs to adjust its business model and operate like taxis, while he continued to push the idea of premium taxis, that would essentially operate like Uber.

It doesn't seem like he has even tried Uber before or understands how it works.

Is he in the 21st century? And has he tried to hail an ordinary taxi before? The drivers pick and choose who they want to take, even though that is completely illegal, and they all aren't available around 4pm when they change drivers. And then there are the personal hygiene habits of many of them...

Taxi drivers really need to step up their game, and Cheung thinks premium taxis are the way to go?

Democratic Party lawmaker Wu Chi-wai, who sits on the Legislative Council's transport panel, said the government's lack of finding legal and regulatory solutions to allow Uber to operate in Hong Kong showed it was not ready to deal with the "shared economy".

Taxis here need to be seriously revamped with better service

Information technology sector lawmaker Charles Mok said the city had become "the laughing stock of the whole world" because the government decided to "stay in the Stone Age" and not embrace new technology.

Uber is filling a gap in the market -- a choice for people who can't hail a taxi, or would rather pay via credit card, and get a clean, quiet service, and stimulates the economy because drivers are earning extra money whenever they want.

Isn't Hong Kong supposed to be about fair competition? The government dragging its heels on this one, revealing how closely linked it is with the taxi industry. Cheung is and the bureaucracy are twisting themselves into pretzels to try to persuade the public not to use Uber.

This latest development will only spur Uber customers to use the service even more and perhaps get a few more converts.

Getting Uber to be like Hong Kong taxis must be the joke of the week.

Closing Loopholes Too Late?

A potential buyer checks out the models for Harbour Glory in the showroom

The Leung Chun-ying administration thought it was clever when it announced Tuesday evening that first-time home buyers could not purchase multiple flats without paying the 15 percent stamp duty.

Starting midnight on Wednesday morning, it has changed to one flat per person, but now buyers are skirting the issue by having entire families show up and buying a flat in each of their names.

On Wednesday, a family bought three flats at Harbour Glory, Cheung Kong's latest project in North Point. The three units together totaled HK$170 million (US$21.8 million), and to avoid paying the 15 percent stamp duty, the purchases were put under three individual names.

"It's not illegal, but it's creative," said Sammy Po, chief executive of Midland Realty's residential department. "Whenever there's a new policy, buyers and sellers always come up with a new way to minimize the impact."

A show flat demonstrating one of the bedrooms

His firm brokered two groups of customers each buying two units of three-bedroom apartments at Harbour Glory.

One group was a father and son, they had never bought HK flats before, and each bought 1,062 sq-ft flats at Harbour Glory for a total of HK$60 million, after a 34 percent discount from the developer.

"As the two flats were bought in two separate contracts, and neither of them owned properties under their names, they are not subject to the 15 percent stamp duty," said Po. Each buyer had to pay 4.25 percent duty, or HK$1.27 million.

The Hong Kong government had hoped that this latest measure would curb the number of flats being sold, which some critics said was too little too late.

Secretary for Transport and Housing Professor Anthony Cheung Bing-leung said the introduction of the 15 percent stamp duty was an attempt to curb the rise of housing prices, but they soon realized some buyers took advantage of buying multiple flats under one purchase.

He claimed the government was aware of the issue all along, but needed time to gather more data and monitor the situation.

Harbour Glory is Cheung Kong's project in North Point

"We have adopted the most cautious approach to handling [the issue]. We did not leave the loopholes unattended," Cheung added.

The percentage of such cases increased to 4.7 percent between December last year and March this year, up from 3.4 percent in 2013 and 2014.

Just last month alone there were 184 cases of multiple flats bought under one transaction, involving a total of 435 flats.

"Before November, such trends were not something to be concerned about," Cheung said.

But pan-democrat lawmaker James To Kun-sun, who first warned of the need for cooling measures back in 2013, said the latest measures were "too late".

It's funny how the Hong Kong government doesn't question where people get gobs of cash to buy multiple flats, and thinks it needs to monitor the situation for a while? Meanwhile the prices of flats continue to rise, effectively making the government's measures seem half-hearted, at worse a joke.

This is an indication of how government officials have no idea how the average Hong Kong person lives, or don't have the ordinary resident's best interests at heart.

How is chief executive-elect Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor going to deal with the issue? Judging from her toilet paper buying fiasco, one thinks she also has her head up in the clouds...

HK Govt Needs to Walk This Way

Hong Kong is walkable to a degree and then it gets frustrating and dangerous

It's odd that transport minister Anthony Cheung Bing-leung says if Hong Kong people want a more walkable city then they should walk more.

Shouldn't the government take the lead? How can we walk more if there are impediments in the way or paths that are not developed yet?

He said this during the Walk21 Conference hosted by think tank Civic Exchange. While he acknowledged some people are keen on more walking and cycling for a health lifestyle, he noted there were others "less ready to change their commuting habits and patterns".

During Occupy pedestrians enjoyed walking along freeways

Cheung said there were many cases where communities were opposed to the re-routing or frequency of a bus network that would result in commuters having to walk an extra 10 or 15 minutes.

There is also the ongoing issue of car owners wanting to have more car parks in all 18 districts in the city.

"For many people, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We need actionable change and even a paradigm shift on how our city life is to be organized," he said.

"Are we willing to endure more congested trains and buses and to walk more so that we do not have to go for continuous expansion of the infrastructure? Tough questions and a tough trade-off indeed."

Part of the problem is that some offices are too far away to walk. In my case walking or taking the bus from Kennedy Town to Taipo is completely unfeasible.

I think I am like most commuters, always taking public transport and walking wherever I can.

The red path is a nice walk from Central to Wan Chai

But the government should be making more public land more accessible, particularly the harbourfront for people to exercise and have leisurely walks. There also needs to be more safe areas for people to cycle other than the bike paths in the New Territories.

Currently one can walk from Wan Chai all the way to Sai Ying Pun where the Western wholesale market is, but then one has to do a major detour before getting back to the harbourfront again towards Kennedy Town. If that was one wide, safe, continuous path, more people would use it for sure, including myself.

And by the way has he seen what it's like in the MTR during rush hour? He really should experience it himself to understand people's frustrations of having to wait for several trains before they can squeeze on?

Don't get us wrong -- we appreciate the MTR, but is it ready for a greater onslaught of people once the south line opens?

What are the alternatives?

More Questions than Answers

What do you see here? Leung speaks to the media, Tsang looks on

This afternoon Hong Kong media descended on the Central Government Complex in Tamar, where everyone waited with baited breath to hear what Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah had to say about the disputed number of flats to be built in Wang Chau in Yuen Long.

While Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung Bing-leung and acting Secretary for Development Eric Ma Siu-cheung were also there, everyone was watching the body language between Leung and Tsang, but not much happened.

Leung had said there were plans for 17,000 flats for public rental and home ownership schemes, but that somehow got severely scaled down to 4,000. Why?

Here is a summary of what was basically said during the press conference in chronological order:

Cheung revealed for the first time that the housing department met with the rural leaders four times -- in July and September 2013, and twice in March 2014.

Anthony Cheung speaks to the media in the press conference

In the first two meetings, the rural strongmen strongly opposed the 17,000 flats, and only on March 12, 2014 was the plan of building 4,000 flats discussed.

[So what happened here? How did it get from 17,000 to 4,000? What was exactly said in those meetings, particularly on the March 12, 2014?]

Leung denied caving into the rural leaders, stressing that housing was a top priority for his administration. He added that Hong Kong's social problems stemmed from land shortages and his government would not stop finding land to develop.

[We don't need to find more land, we need to redevelop more brownfield sites, and the one in Wang Chau has a parking lot run by one of the rural strongmen who has refused to concede it to the government.]

Then both Leung and Cheung denied taking part in lobbying for the Wang Chau project, that it was the job of technocrats. Cheung also said that feasibility studies would be done on the second and third phases of Wang Chau (following the theory that the 4,000 flats were the first phase), and that the flats would be completed would be 2026-27.

[So we are still going ahead with kicking out residents from the three villages to make way for the 4,000 flats? Why can't we use that brownfield site for 17,000 flats instead?]

Pan-democrats and localists aren't impressed

When Cheung was asked by the media why district councillors did not know Wang Chau would be developed in stages, he just replied that documents already mentioned that they were discussing the first phase and that the remaining parts were an ongoing study.

[Officials seem to use the phrase "ongoing study" alot...]

Meanwhile Director of Housing Stanley Ying Yiu-hong (who is under Cheung) dismissed the suggestion that the public were not consulted before relocating the residents of three villages where the 4,000 flats will be built.

"We value public opinion, but it cannot replace our professional analysis," Ying said. "To implement stage one, we went through [four] procedures: consulting rural leaders, consulting Yuen Long District Council and publicizing the relevant documents, consulting the town planning board where people submitted their petition and we discussed them and the project was gazetted."

[Did Ying really say that? So you the public can tell us your opinion, but we won't listen to it anyway. What kind of attitude is that?]

Whenever Tsang spoke, it was to deny there were any tensions between him and his boss and that he had minimal involvement in the discussions...

By the end of the hour-long press conference, Leung got teary eyed saying, "I have to thank my colleagues because it was a toiling task for them, to every little achievement." He said the Wang Chau plan "is a good opportunity to show the government's determination, and the difficulties faced by it in boosting housing supply".

Then he abruptly got up and left to go to the airport to greet Hong Kong's Paralympic team.

So where does this leave us? The government is trying to give united answers to questions, but we have even more queries, with the crucial ones not even addressed, particularly why 17,000 flats dropped to 4,000 and what was said during these meetings with the rural leaders.

The pan-democrats and localists weren't impressed either and plan to grill the government soon after they are sworn in on October 1.

Is this the issue that will break the camel's back?

More importantly how does Beijing see how Leung is handling the situation? Are Chinese officials shaking their heads and wondering what their alternatives are, or do they think Leung's tearing up was a nice ending to get some sympathy points?

Stay tuned.

CY Leung's Arrogant Administration

These people refuse to take further responsibility for the lead-in-water scandal

The Hong Kong government -- doesn't matter if it was under the leadership of Tung Chee-hwa, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen or incumbent Leung Chun-ying -- has become oblivious to the needs of ordinary people.

An independent investigation this past week revealed the government kept "passing the buck" when it came to the lead-in water scandal that left hundreds of people in public housing estates, including children, babies and pregnant woman ingesting water with more than 10 micrograms of lead per litre, the maximum recommended by the World Health Organization.

For months residents had to get water for basic needs

The Water Supplies Department claims it didn't understand WHO guidelines adopted in 1994. How can people in this department not understand the guidelines? We are not expecting senior officials to know them, but surely there are specialists in the department who do? Or has the government hired completely incompetent people with no knowledge or experience in dealing with water quality?

It also turns out no one was inspecting the contractors to inspect the licensed plumbers to check that they were using non-lead solder for fresh water pipes. Is it me, or is it not obvious that if one is working on water pipes that non-lead solder should be used? Sounds pretty obvious to me.

Never mind. But the fact that no one checked -- not even the government -- is shocking. Again -- are there not qualified people in the department following up on these things?

Then to cap it all off, while four senior officials apologized for not preventing the scandal -- Secretary for Development Paul Chan Mo-po, Housing and Transport Secretary Anthony Cheung Bing-leung, director of housing Stanley Ying Yiu-hong, and director of Water Supplies Enoch Lam Tin-sing.

Carrie Lam responds to results of the investigation

But Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor did not.

She insisted that no single government official committed a serious mistake that led to the incident.

How can she say that? How can she say that no one in the Leung administration needs to take responsibility for people ingesting high levels of lead in the water? We will see children with developmental problems in the next few years because they drank that water. Who will assist these families who did nothing wrong except drink the water coming from their tap because they thought the government was monitoring the water quality?

For Lam to not even apologize is appalling. That shows the government doesn't care about the average Hong Kong person at all. We are nothing to them. There's lead in your water? Not my problem.

What does the government do for us then?

Probably the worst part is that there is no way of kicking these incompetent people out of office -- there is no opposition party. We have no chance of recall at all.

How has the government degenerated into a bunch of bureaucrats who have no regard for us?

Clean water is a basic right. That was violated by the government, the contractors and plumbers. But really it was the government who should have been checking all along.

We pay our taxes. Is it too much to ask for people to run our city properly and efficiently with a good dose common sense?

Growing Chorus Around Luggage Saga

Can we get to the bottom of the luggage saga to find out what really happened?

Momentum is growing, with more voices calling for the truth to be revealed around Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying's daughter's luggage being brought to her in a restricted area of the airport.

The Hong Kong Cabin Crew Federation is calling all pilots, flight attendants and the public to take part in a protest march on Sunday in the arrivals area from 3pm to 6pm.

The group is "extremely disappointed and angry" that Civil Aviation Director-General Norman Lo Shung-man has so far refused to fully explain the matter.

There are plans for protests in the arrivals hall on Sunday

This comes a day after the union and Jeremy Tam Man-ho of Civic Party, filed a complaint and more than 30,000 signatures to three international aviation regulatory bodies to demand a full investigation.

Meanwhile Transport and Housing Secretary Anthony Cheung Bing-leung said airport security was not breached at all. While he acknowledged public concern over the incident, he said the government would take up any necessary action, based on the results of a report from the Civil Aviation Department.

Cheung insisted that everyone and their items must be checked by security before going into restricted areas.

No one disagrees with this but are wondering in which circumstances would passengers be able to get aviation staff to collect their luggage for them, instead of having it with them when going through security.

This is the real crux of the matter.

How did Leung Chung-yan (right) forget her bag?

Leung's daughter, Chung-yan, should have gone back through security herself to pick up the bag like anyone else. Her father can plead innocence, that he didn't know about the incident until she told him about it when he called her to say good bye, but rules are rules.

And the stipulations are, one must be with their personal items at all times. She is not a five-year-old child who has never flown on an airplane before. How can she forget her own bag?

While Leung's people are trying hard to spin the story to deflect it from him as much as possible, the optics are working against him.

He may be trying to hard to show he is not taking advantage of his position, but it looks like his other family members are...

The MTR Needs Money -- Again

An illustration of what the West Kowloon-Guangzhou station will look like

Earlier this week Hong Kong people found out that the MTR Corporation is HK$19 billion over budget in building the 26km high-speed link from West Kowloon to Guangzhou. It is also three years behind schedule.

And who's going to pay for this massive shortfall?

The Hong Kong government has pledged that we, the taxpayers will shore up the HK$19.6 billion, and the same amount will be eventually recouped through a special dividend the MTR will pay out.

The company pledges to pay HK$25.76 billion in dividends at the rate of HK$4.40 per share -- four times last year's payout -- in two stages.

What the site looks like now, three years behind schedule

And because the Hong Kong government owns 76 percent of MTR shares, it will get the HK$19.6 billion back, and the other shareholders will get HK$6.2 billion. Not bad if you're an MTR shareholder.

But what about the rest of us? Why should we be bailing out a publicly-listed company? It should be lending money from the banks instead like any other company. If we do shell out the money, do we get free rides on the train? Highly doubt it.

If the Legislative Council does not approve this extra funding request by the government, then the project will be further delayed. But that's fine -- do we really need this high-speed train when we can get to Guangzhou relatively comfortably in three hours currently?

Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung Bing-leung apologized yesterday for the delay and the cost of the overruns, while others called for his resignation. One should check to see if he owns any MTR shares...

Why should taxpayers bail out the MTR for cost overruns?

In the meantime, there is also the contentious issue of having mainland immigration officers stationed in Hong Kong in order to speed up the process.

The Civic Party is proposing that these mainland immigration officers could check passengers while on the train, however Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung hinted last month that the officers would be based in Hong Kong, after his chat with officials in Beijing.

"If Hong Kong people allow mainland officers to be stationed in Hong Kong, it will set a bad and irrevocable precedent to the rule of law in Hong Kong," said party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit.

The Hong Kong government is probably going to lose this round. Public sentiment for this high-speed rail link and the MTR has plunged considerably. It will be eventually built, and mainland immigration officers will probably be stationed in the West Kowloon station, but resentment for the MTR and the government will continue to simmer...

Another Blame Game Begins

Residents in five housing estates are collecting water from other sources

Over the weekend it was discovered five public housing estates in Kowloon City, Kwai Chung, Sham Shui Po, Sha Tin and Tuen Mun have excessive lead in the water samples and it is believed this came from the pipes.

The levels of lead were found to have exceeded standards set by the World Health Organization.

The Hong Kong government was quick to reveal licensed plumber Lam Tak-sum as being responsible for installing the pipes, saying it was the media that demanded to know.

This is a complete 180-degree turn from the government refusing to divulge how much it had spent on the campaign push for residents to accept the political reform package that failed last month in the Legislative Council.

Licensed plumber Lam Tak-sum surrounded by the media

But back to the story. As expected, the media swarmed the wheelchair-bound Lam today and while he admitted to taking some responsibility for the pipes connecting the water mains to the housing blocks' water supplies, not all of the blame should be shifted on him. The pipes were made from pre-cast material, so how could he know what material was in it?

The government says he should have known, and that Lam was also responsible for the pipes connecting the water tanks and households.

But who paid for the pre-cast material? Why didn't someone in the Water Supplies Department check to see if the pipes were the correct ones to be used?

But more importantly, why is the government not investigating the incident properly before assigning blame?

In the meantime, residents in these housing estates are terrified of the possible health impacts, as practically all of them use the water for cooking, bathing and drinking (boiled water).

At first the government gave out bottled water to residents, but this is not feasible in the long term. And Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung Bing-leung is suggesting that all the fresh water pipes would have to be replaced, which would impact thousands of households; and yet there should be minimal disruption for these families.

Uh yeah.

This is a major infrastructure problem in existing buildings and you are asking that there be as little disruption as possible?

Obviously Cheung has not undergone a renovation in his home before, or understands the complexity of the problem at hand.

People are going to be inconvenienced, but for how long is the main issue.

In the meantime, the way this government is handling the situation is far from ideal. It is not taking leadership on the issue and would rather blame someone for it instead.

Is Sorry Enough?

The architectural designs for the Express Rail Link station in West Kowloon

New Yorker Jay Walder was probably hoping for an easy ride when he took the job as MTR Chief Executive.

His last job was at the Metropolitan Transit Authority, the transportation agency that runs the New York subway. He had to battle a $800 million budget deficit and improve the trains.

Before that Walder was in London trying to work on reliability of service and improve the state of the stations.

But here in Hong Kong, the punctuality of the MTR trains is well over 90 percent, stations are clean for the most part, give or take a few mainland children urinating in the carriages and train delays that aren't full communicated to commuters...

However Walder and MTR chairman Raymond Chien Kuo-fung, project director Chew Tai-chong and Transport Minister professor Anthony Cheung Bing-leung are in the hot seat these days.

Last week the government discovered that there will be a two-year delay on constructing the high-speed cross-border railway to Guangzhou, and now it has come out that Cheung knew about it, but didn't tell the government because Walder called him last November requesting him not to announce the delay.

MTR CEO Jay Walder published an apology today

Cheung gave a public apology on Sunday saying, "I should have told lawmakers... back" on November 22, Cheung said at a meeting of the Legco railways subcommittee. "I apologize to Legco and members of the public. I am willing to bear the criticism".

But when asked to resign, Cheung only said he was remorseful.

People are also calling for Walder to step down, but he's avoided the issue as well.

Today he and Chien took out a full page ad in the newspaper apologizing about the delay in construction. Walder's statement reads in part:

First, I want to apologize. We did not do a good job in communicating with you or with the public about XRL [Express Rail Link]. There are no excuses. We understand our responsibilities for this public project and we let you down. We should have been clearer -- not only about the challenges but also about the considerable progress that has been made.

For this meeting, we have submitted to you a full and honest account of all the events that took place up to April 15th, the day we announced that due to insurmountable challenges, the Express Rail Link opening date regrettably had to be changed to 2017.

Equally important, our report puts forth a clear plan to take this project forward for operation in 2017. It's realistic and achievable. It's a plan that all of us at MTR and our contractors stand behind.

Members have asked why we didn't tell you earlier about the implications of the delays we were experiencing. In hindsight, that's what we should have done.

Secretary for Transport Anthony Leung is in hot water too

Our belief is that all efforts should be made to address problems with a construction project before accepting that it will be delayed. I must say that I have worked in the rail industry for many years, and I have worked with many dedicated people. But I have never seen the strength of commitment and conviction that I see here at MTR to deliver projects on time and on budget.

And it was in this spirit that we approached government with a plan to provide full passenger service and essential facilities in 2015, allowing time after passenger service had started to complete the non-essential features of the project. While they had their doubts, I have to thank the Secretary [Cheung] and his team for giving us the time to try to do it.

We tried hard. We explored every possible solution and every possible alternative to achieve this deadline. Unfortunately, the obstacles were just too great and it became clear in my meeting with the team in April that 2015 was out of reach. Our imperative then was to tell everyone as soon as possible and I immediately called the MTR Chairman and the Secretary for Transport and Housing.

We didn't want to let the public down and, regrettably, it led us to wait too long in communicating. As CEO, I take responsibility for that in the same way that I take responsibility for everything that happens in the Corporation.

So in the best interests of transparency, why did Walder tell Cheung not to tell Legco? He does not say. And why did they wait so long to tell us what was going on?

Hong Kong prides itself on projects being completed in a timely manner. Did Walder think, because of his experiences in New York and London, that a two-year delay would be no big deal here?

The government is now asking for legal advice on if the MTR should pay for the extra costs incurred for the two-year delay. Doesn't that mean those costs will be shouldered on us, the passengers?

In any event, one has to wonder how much longer Walder, Cheung and Chien will last in their positions.

The gracious thing to do would be to admit wrong and resign. When Walder accepted the MTR job, he resigned from the MTA suddenly after over two years into a six-year contract. It shocked everyone in New York, though the transit worker union was pleased to see him leave.

But with Walder now making almost double his salary back in the Big Apple, he probably wants to hold onto this position as long as possible...