Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [email protected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words.

While ride-hailing regulation may not be dominating headlines, I feel compelled to offer my perspective before these rules are finalised – especially as the government’s transport blueprint emphasises people-first transport. I have been a ride-hailing driver for three years. As a parent managing school schedules, I faced barriers finding traditional employment. Ride-hailing gave me genuine flexibility to earn income while being there for my children.

When Covid-19 hit and my husband’s construction work nearly disappeared, I started driving to support our family. That income became critical to keeping us afloat during an incredibly difficult period. Now, as we wait for more detail on the ride-hailing legislation, there are two critical aspects that warrant serious attention: proposed driver quotas and licensing implementation.

Regarding quotas, there appears to be a disconnect between policy direction and public sentiment. Proponents argue limits ensure market stability, yet I observe no grass-roots demand for such restrictions. In three years, no passenger has ever told me there are too many ride-hailing cars. What they do tell me is how grateful they are to get home safely – whether it’s after a late night in Central when the MTR has closed or during heavy rainstorms. That sense of safety and reliability is what they value most.

On licensing implementation, the details matter. If the government proceeds with limitations, establishing fair and transparent eligibility processes becomes critical. An estimated 30,000 drivers operate, many for years with clean records. These existing drivers, who have built livelihoods around this work, deserve prioritisation in any transition framework.

Moreover, in the current economic climate where employment uncertainty remains high and many families struggle with rising costs, it seems counterintuitive for the government to restrict opportunities that allow people to earn flexible income. If procedures become administratively complex or fees prohibitively high, regulations risk excluding the populations this service has empowered.