>We
cannot simply paint a picture base on illusion that flavor
ourselves as a Taxi drivers, we need to be realistic at time, PM
Lee do not go visit USA and
sit on a driveless car for nothing, the govt is damn interested in
it. And why so?
It was
not PM Lee's real intention to visit USA to sit in a driveless car,
it was Google's intention (they are also one of the many companies
researching on driveless cars) to make use of the opportunity for
PM Lee to see it so that they could push for it. Remeber one
of the jobs of the government is to ensure Singaporeans have jobs
and not take away jobs. PM Lee once said he allowed
foreigners in to work on jobs that Singaporeans do not want to do.
He has to be reminded again that taxi driving job is what
Singaporeans want to do and want as a backup job.
>1.
To reduce foreigner dependency
We do
not depend on foreigners for taxi driving....remember it is 100%
Singaporeans who are driving the taxis..
>2.
To catch up with the nos of taxi driver getting aged and flow
There
is not shortage of new people entering the market as indicated by
the number of people who register to take the taxi course. In
fact, another 45,000 Singaporeans who are not active taxi drivers
continue to renue their license knowing that they would need it one
day.
>3.
To cope with lesser locals taking up taxi driving (as most TD will
not ask their son to be taxi driver)
In
fact it is not there are lesser locals providing personal
transportation services. It is just some of the taxi drivers
went to drive for Uber and Grabcar. So there are actually
more cars on the roads providing taxi and no-street hail kind of
taxi services.
>4.
To be the first, beside japan, in asia with an advance transport
system so as to put ourselves in pole position
Also what is the
advantage of being one of the first few countries to implement
driverless taxis? I
see no advantage. On the
contrary, there are many disadvantages. If we are smart, we
let the cars manufacturing countries implement them in their own
countries before we decide whether to implement here.
Remember these are the real countries that are engaging in R&D
for driveless cars. There would also be social disorders and
huge unemployments factors to consider.
If we
are smart, we let the countries that manufacture cars implement
what they want in their countries first due to too expensive taxi
fares, wait for bugs to be ironed out, observe the social impacts
(strikes, crime rates increase, affecting of other industries due
to no family purchasing power) first before we do our own
feasibility studies. I spoke to a French once and he said
most people in France cannot afford to take taxi there as it is too
expensive (this is the reason why the car manufacturing countries
are engaging in driveless vehicle R&D).
I will
just mention some of the disadvantages here:
a)
When new vehicles are designed, there is bound to be a lot of bugs
and faults which has to be ironed out. So do we want to allow
problematic cars to go on the roads in Singapore?
b)Our
roads here are a lot more congested than countries that are
researching on driveless cars. Do we want to put Singaporeans
lives at risk?
c) It
would cause existing 55000 taxi drivers to go jobless with no
replacement jobs. No 5 MNCs could generate 55000 new jobs
for Singaporeans (remember more new jobs in Singapore goes to
foreigners as the employment ratio of 55% (Singaporeans + PR) vs
45% work permit holders ensure that Singpaporeans would be
outnumbered as PRs are actually foreigners. In fact, it could
be 100% by having 55% PRs and 45% work permit holders.
Remember it could directly affect more than 200,000
Singaporeans as taxi drivers are often the breadwinners of the
family. It also indirectly affect other industries (eg, kopi tiam,
retailshops, supermarkets, electronic stores) and their sales would
be down when taxi drivers have no income. Remember workfare
solution is not a solution as it does not guarantee a good job.
d)
There could be social disorders (means strikes). There
definitely could be social disorders in other countries if
implemented there.
e)
Crime rates would increase as too many Singaporeans would be
directly affected.
f) It
takes away backup jobs of Singaporeans who may be retrenched later.
These days good jobs with steady income are not easy to get.
Our existing taxi drivers' job is a self-sustaining job in
which no additional money needs to be chiped in.
g) The
government loses a huge amount of money that comes from just GST
collected for rental (not including fuel GST, ERP, parking and
others). It is approximatly $72 million from all taxi
drivers. This amount is roughly what a MNC that makes $400
milion profit pays in corporate profit tax. Even a blue-chip
like SPH does not bring in so much money for the government (which
would later be spent on more meaningful things in the country).
>5.
And most important, out of record, with driveless, they will not
have to deal with this grab, uber or taxi drivers problem…people
like me gives them many problem hor.
I
suspect the only reason why Grab and uber are allowed to operate in
Singapore is to ensure more Singaporeans have jobs.
