The CCAC has completed the “Inquiry report on the intelligent terminal system for taxis”, where it believes that there was no illegality in the award of the contract for the “Supply and maintenance service of the taxi management system” by the Transport Bureau (DSAT), and the monthly service fees as well as the deposits charged to the taxi licence and permit holders by the awarded entity, New Leader Tecnologia Informatica (Macau) Lda (hereinafter referred to as “New Leader”), were also legal and reasonable. The CCAC points out that the taxi management system has two components, namely the “vehicle device” and the “taxi monitoring system”. The tender scheme makes it clear that no matter who the awarded bidder for the former would be, MOP300 would be charged per month. As for the latter, namely the “taxi monitoring system”, the monthly service fees are borne by the SAR Government. Moreover, it was not found that the DSAT failed to monitor New Leader properly. The CCAC stressed that entry into force of the Legal Regime for Transport of Passengers in Light Vehicles for Renting (hereinafter referred to as “New Taxi Law”) as well as the implementation of the supervisory mechanism for the terminal system for taxis have indeed played an important and positive role in combating the “taxi chaos” that had remained rampant in the past.

Starting from September 2020, when the relevant taxi management system was successively installed and went into operation, some people in the industry voiced their grievance and doubts via the media or organisations, which continuously sparked discussions and responses in the society. At that time, the CCAC also successively received complaints about the charges for the intelligent terminal system and the related management issues. Therefore, the Commissioner Against Corruption, according to the law, ordered that an inquiry be carried out. The CCAC successively asked the DSAT for the tender file information, industry consultation papers and explanatory documents relating to the contract for the “Supply and maintenance service of the taxi management system” and also heard the statements of different parties, including the complainants, the DSAT staff and the taxi industry representatives. By looking into and analysing the legality and rationality of the tender procedure as well as the doubts of all complainants, the CCAC decided if there were illegal acts or issues involving administrative impropriety based on the facts and law.

The CCAC points out in the report that the “New Taxi Law” introduces the terminal system for taxis in order to effectively manage the operation of taxis and combat infractions of “refusing hire”, “selecting passengers”, “not taking the most direct route to the destination”, “negotiating taxi fare”, “taxi pooling” and “overcharging taxi fare”. Such system has two important components, namely the “vehicle device” which serves for the taxis to operate and the “taxi monitoring system” which serves for the authorised department to supervise the operation of taxi services. In the report, the CCAC points out that the DSAT combined the two contracts, the public utility concessionaire contract for the service of “vehicle device” and the acquisition of public service contract for “taxi monitoring system”, into one. The DSAT then launched one combined open tender relating to the contract for the “Supply and maintenance service of the taxi management system” and signed an administrative contract with a single winning bidder. The CCAC believed that such act was not expressly prohibited by law. Also, considering that the two sets of device systems were connected to the same set of taxi terminal system technically, the CCAC believed it was inevitable that the systems be provided by the same supplier and service provider. Therefore, it was rational that one combined tender be launched. Moreover, there was a close correlation between the “vehicle device” and the “taxi monitoring system”. In order to ensure the smooth operation of the effective and stable delivery of information and the maintenance of the devices for the taxis, judging from the technical and supervisory perspectives, the CCAC did not find any illegality or irrationality in the award of the whole set of the terminal system to a single private entity by the DSAT. New Leader, being the sole service entity authorised to provide the taxis of Macao with the installation, maintenance, test and calibration of the vehicle devices, had a charge for fees, with the amounts being stipulated by the Administration by exercising the powers within the scope of law under the concessionaire contract. The law requires the taxi licence and permit holders to fulfil the obligation of maintenance of the vehicle devices and therefore they have to pay such fee which was stipulated by the Administration. It is not an obligation required for the taxi drivers. In fact, until now, the CCAC has not received any concrete information from taxi drivers about the complaint of shifting relevant obligation by taxi licence and permit holders. There is neither any concrete information proving the existence of the facts relating to some taxi licence and permit holders having shifted relevant fee expenditures onto taxi drivers.

Concerning the doubts on the awarding procedures, after investigation, the CCAC did not find any signs showing that the leadership of the DSAT and relevant individuals, the shareholders of member companies of New Leader, i.e. the winning bidder, or members of the administrative management bodies were relatives or had to recuse but failed to do so. The CCAC believed that there was not any evidence proving any transfer of interests. The aforementioned doubts were mere unfounded allegations. Also, the CCAC did not see any doubts on the legitimacy of New Leader participating in the open tender. There was not any existence of significant administrative illegality or issues involving impropriety in the entire administrative procedure file by the DSAT. Moreover, in the legislation of the “New Taxi Law” and in the course of tender invitation relating to the contract for the “Supply and maintenance service of the taxi management system”, the government and the Legislative Assembly have both consulted the society and the taxi industry for their opinions. Thus, the opinions of the taxi industry have already been fully considered in the legislative procedure. Statistics also show that the total number of cases concerning overcharging taxi fares, refusing hire and selecting passengers, service attitude, intentionally not taking the most direct route to the destination, driving dangerously increased from nearly 4,000 in 2015 to nearly 8,000 in both 2017 and 2018. Thus, the legislators made a final decision to pass the “New Taxi Law”. In addition, the DSAT explained to the society about the open tender, its relevant procedures and results of tender evaluation relating to the contract for the “Supply and maintenance service of the taxi management system”, relevant introductory documents and “questions and answers”. Therefore, the CCAC indeed could not determine the DSAT was against the principle of transparency of the public administration on the issue of terminal system for taxis.

The report mentions that the charge for the taxi management system comprises two parts. In the “Explanation about the service fee and deposit for the intelligent terminal system for taxis”, which was made public, the DSAT already mentions that the main purpose of charging the monthly service fee, which is priced at MOP300 in the tender scheme, is to safeguard the interests of taxi permit holders and avoid the awarded entity setting the amount of the fee too high if it could determine the amount on its own. In addition, the amount will remain unchanged within the contractual term in order to avoid the awarded entity increasing the service fee with the excuse of inflation in the future, which will cause increase of the cost of taxi operation. In fact, all these terms have already been indicated in the tender specification. In other words, no matter which tenderer has won the contract, the amount of the service fee to be charged is the same. Therefore, there is no possibility of overcharging by the awarded company. The fee for the taxi monitoring system, which is quoted by the tenderers, is to be paid by the Macao SAR Government. Therefore, the awarded company, New Leader, receives MOP150 from the government each month. The CCAC considered that the accusation that the service fee for the intelligent terminal system was originally MOP150 was merely a confusion over the fee for the “taxi monitoring system”.

The CCAC also mentions in the report that the holders of taxi licenses or permits who failed to pay the relevant deposit or service fee by the deadline had made a request for precautionary measures to the Civil Court of the Court of First Instance because New Leader “illegally” charged them deposit and service fee and the company’s suspension of service with the excuse that they did not make the payment caused infringement on them. They requested the court to order New Leader to continue providing the relevant service even though they did not make the payment. The Court of First Instance has already decided against the plaintiffs, those holders of taxi licenses or permits. As to the accusation that New Leader’s charging of the deposit and service fee was legally groundless, the court ruled that it did not correspond with the facts.

In the conclusion of the report, the CCAC points out that the DSAT’s act of entering into an administrative contract with the qualified supplier through the relevant legal regime of public service awarding or procurement undoubtedly accords with the principle of legality. Whether the Administration made the awarding of the contract related to the meter in the “vehicle device” jointly or separately and the determination of the amounts of the service fee and the deposit should be discretionary acts it performed based on the consideration and balance of public and private interests. The report lists some statistics showing that following the entry into force of the “New Taxi Law” and the implementation of the supervisory mechanism for the terminal system for taxis in 2019, the DSAT inspectors recorded zero case of illegal taxi operation in the following year, while the Public Security Police Force recorded less than 150 cases. There were 1,900 cases of overcharging throughout 2019. However, up to December 2020, only eight were recorded throughout the year. Up to the end of 2021, the Public Security Police Force recorded less than 100 cases of illegal taxi operation throughout the year. The CCAC considered that the data has reflected that the “New Taxi Law” and the relevant supervisory mechanism for the terminal system for taxis have indeed played an important and positive role in combating the “taxi chaos” that had remained rampant in the past.

In addition, as to the doubts about the legality and rationality of the suspension of the service due to failure to pay the deposit and service fee for the “vehicle device”, the quality of the service of the terminal system for taxis and its supervision and the fact that the taxi driver licenses were changed twice within a short period, the CCAC points out in the report that there is no situation of illegality or administrative impropriety following the investigation and legal analysis. The CCAC has already submitted the report on the result of the investigation to the Chief Executive. Due to great public concern over the quality of taxi service, in order to timely clarify the doubts, the CCAC publicises the Chinese version of the report first, while the Portuguese version will be made public as soon as it is completed. The full report may be downloaded from the CCAC’s website.