Many foreign tourists cite riding taxis as one of the most unpleasant experiences in Korea. Even for many Koreans, tax drivers here are notorious for being unkind, choosing passengers and overcharging all too frequently.
Part of the displeasure turns into an understanding nod to know the cabbies receive one of the lowest pays, about $1,300 to $1,600 a month for daily 12-hour labor.
But that’s hardly the reason the political community agreed to convert taxi business into public transport, like buses and railways, which will require more than 2 trillion won a year in government subsidies.
First, it doesn’t meet the definition of public transport, which operate according to specific routes and schedules. Second, no other country in the world has recognized taxis as public transport. Foreigners might think Korea’s per capita income may be over $50,000 to use taxis as public transport.
Taxi operators say there are 300,000 of them engaged in the business, compared to the 100,000 in bus business, and taxis account for a considerable share of transport demand. If so, the right remedy is to reduce the oversupplied taxis and cabbies, not increase subsidies with taxpayers’ money, as government officials claim. The politicians must admit their promise to the industry was just a vote-gathering tactic not to lose about 300,000 ― more exactly 150,000 ― ballots to the rival party.
The transportation authorities are right to push for a support law, which includes raising taxi fares, lowering fuel prices through taxation, and increasing one-time subsidies for voluntary reduction of supply glut instead of enacting a law to perpetuate budget spending.
For taxi operators themselves, degrading of taxis to levels of buses and metros is not good in the long run, as it should remain a quality-service, high-paying sector.
The strange bill could become law through bipartisan agreement as early as today. The politicians should drop their plan, or the bill, along with its six cosponsors in both ruling and opposition parties, will go down in parliamentary history as one of the most egregious cases of pork-barrel politics.