[Vnbiz] Competition -- Formerly "Future Leaders for Vietnam"

[Tran Dinh Hoanh]

Dear CACC,

Here is an example of illegal competion among taxi companies on
VNExpress.  When taxi drivers harrass each other, police seems to give
them some kind of administrative warning or punishment.

But, why not punishing the companies themselves?  Every company has to
be responsible for its employees' on-the-job behavior.  The company
should be punished administratively (by fine or suspension of license)
or in repetitive cases, criminal prosecution.

Have a great day!

Hoanh
___________

Chủ nhật, 23/7/2006, 09:00 GMT+7

Luật ngầm taxi

Tại TP HCM, không ai có thể thống kê được có bao nhiêu bến taxi. Nhưng
ở bất kỳ đâu, từ nhà hàng, vũ trường, quán bar đến khách sạn, bệnh
viện, đâu đâu cũng thấy được cuộc chiến ngầm trong việc tranh giành
"lãnh địa" giữa các hãng taxi.


Xe của Saigontourist chiếm đường, chiếc taxi vàng cũng không dám đón
khách. Ảnh: SGTT
Một chiếc F. taxi, sau khi trả khách xong tại khu vực trước cổng Bệnh
viện Pháp - Việt, loay hoay tìm chỗ đậu sau một chuỗi dài những chiếc
taxi thuộc hãng Mai Linh. Tài xế chưa kịp kéo thắng tay, thì một thanh
niên mặc đồng phục thuộc hãng xe trên tiến đến vỗ vào thùng xe ra
hiệu: "Đây là bến của tụi tôi, muốn chờ gì thì qua bên kia...". Gương
mặt ấm ức, anh tài của hãng F. phải chạy ra xa qua bên kia đường đứng
đợi khách.

Dân Sài Gòn không lạ gì với những kiểu thanh toán mang đậm tính xã hội
đen giữa các tài xế với nhau. Có lần một xe taxi hãng V. va chạm với
một xe của hãng khác khu vực bùng binh nhà thờ Đức Bà. Anh chàng tài
xế hãng V. nóng tính, xuống xe chửi bới và tặng cho tài xế taxi kia
một bạt tai. Chẳng thèm đôi co, anh tài xế nhẹ nhàng chui vào xe và
alô... chưa đầy 5 phút sau, có đến gần chục chiếc taxi lao đến chi
viện. Cuộc ẩu đả diễn ra chỉ vài phút, công an đến thì tài xế hãng V.
đã kịp bầm mặt, sưng trán.

Giới tài xế bây giờ tránh tối đa chuyện đập lộn nhau vì ngại công an;
chỉ cần xâm phạm lãnh địa không đúng "luật", phương cách mới hiện nay
là đánh thẳng vào bao tử - chỉ cần móp xe bể kiếng là tài xế coi
như... đói, cách này ít ngại công an mà hiệu quả thì vô cùng.

Rất nhiều hãng taxi đang khai thác vô cùng hiệu quả các bến bãi giành
được. Chẳng hạn Bệnh viện Từ Dũ, chỉ có xe của hãng M. được phép lập
bến bãi, đón khách trực tiếp ngay trong sân bệnh viện, còn những hãng
xe khác chỉ được phép đưa khách đến rồi về, gắng ở lại không bị bảo vệ
thì cũng nhân viên hãng M. đến nhắc nhở. Tương tự, khu vực trước khách
sạn Caravelle thì toàn xe đỏ của ST, hoặc như Bệnh viện An Bình, Bình
Dân, chỉ có xe VS được vào khu vực bệnh viện đón khách…

Luật… xe mù

Xe mù là cách mà người dân Sài Gòn ví von, ám chỉ những chiếc xe taxi
thuộc các hợp tác xã. Gọi là mù vì những chiếc xe này không có bộ đàm,
không được hướng dẫn điểm đón khách. Họ nhờ vào những nhóm giang hồ
địa phương để tồn tại.

Hằng đêm, trước một quán bar nổi tiếng cuối đường Đông Du là bãi đậu
của những chiếc taxi mù. Bán kính 200 m, các con đường xung quanh quán
bar không thấy bóng dáng bất kỳ chiếc taxi hãng nào bén mảng đến đậu.

Không có bất kỳ tài xế xe hãng nào đủ can đảm dừng xe lại trước quán
lâu hơn 5 phút, thậm chí vừa thả khách xong, có khách khác leo lên
cũng phải mời họ xuống. Ở những bến của xe "mù" quy luật là xe nơi
khác chỉ có quyền đưa khách đến, không có quyền rước khách quay ra.

Anh Phan Văn Thức, một người dân ở Bình Thạnh, trong một lần từ miền
Tây về Sài Gòn bằng xe tốc hành của hãng K.H. (trên đường Lê Hồng
Phong) đã quá nửa đêm. Trước cửa hãng xe chỉ toàn là xe mù. Ngán cảnh
đôi co vì số tiền cước bị đội lên cao như những lần đi xe mù trước,
anh xách túi đi bộ ra xa cách đó 200 m để đón mấy chiếc xe hãng đang
đậu. Nào ngờ vừa bước lên xe, thì một nhóm 3-4 người ập đến chửi, buộc
tài xế phải thả khách xuống.

(Theo SGTT)



On 7/22/06, Tran Dinh Hoanh <tdhoanh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sister Thu Huong, Brother Binh & CACC,
>
> In this message I will discuss a little on competition as Thu Huong
> has asked.  But before that let me clarify some point in my previous
> postings on the leadership subject.
>
> In the previous postings, some of my statements are generalization,
> such as " It is impossible to produce good leaders without
> competition."   Of course, we all know that every rule has exceptions.
>  Meaning, even without competition there will still be good leaders
> here and there.  I am just talking about a general principle.  Without
> competition, most leaders are not good, and some leaders are good.
> With competition, most leaders are good and some leaders and not good.
>  I hope that everyone understands the rule of talking in generalities,
> and will not get so nitpicking or confused.
>
> And Brother Binh, of course, every society has its own way for
> producing its leaders.  Leadership building happens in familly,
> school, office, group activities on a daily basis.  We are talking
> about whether the current leadership building in Vietnam is good
> enough to produce good leaders, or just to produce more leaders of the
> yes-man model.  That is the essence of this discussion.
>
> Brother Binh, you can do this simple check:  Among all government
> leaders of Vietnam of all ranks (from village leaders, to national
> leaders) what is the percentage of leaders that you would consider
> acceptable (not even good, just acceptable)?  50 percent?  30 percent?
>  (Hint:  I think a good system should have 90 percent of its leaders
> considered "acceptable," just like a good education system should
> product at least 90 percent of high school graduates that deseved to
> be called "high school graduates").
>
> My position so far is that (1) the Vietnamese culture of focusing on
> producing conformist and yes-men in family, school, and everywhere
> else in our society does not help produce good leaders, and (2) the
> VCP, focusing on political monopoly, enhances that tradition of
> producing yes-men and no good leaders.  (3)  However, the economic
> competition in the country helps produce good leaders.
>
> That means in order to create a good environment to raise good leaders
> we need (1) to change our attitude (to change our culture) about
> producing yes-men, and instead producing independent, critical and
> analytical thinkers and explorers, and (2) to inject political
> competition into the system.
>
> Another practical thing at the individual level is that we should
> encourage each other to be leader.  If someone tries to push for some
> project, let's support him/her, instead of dragging him/her down.
>
> Now let's go the competition.  To simplify the discussion, I will
> focus solely on economic competition.  But please keep in mind that
> political competition is governed by the same principles, with only
> some minor exceptions here and there.
>
> Thu Huong mentions that in a free market competition is governed by
> natural market forces.  Well, that is theory.  Adam Smith (in The
> Wealth of Nations) talked about "the invisible hand" of the market,
> which will automatically adjust price, quality and quantity of any
> product to the optimal level (i.e., the best level).  If some
> producers raise prices, customers buy less, which will in turn depress
> the price down.  If a producer raises the price, customers will simply
> go to other producers and thus force this producer to readjust his
> price down again.
>
> That theory of "perfect competition" assumes a lot.  It assumes that
> producers will compete vigorously with each other, no one do anything
> illegal and crazy, and consumers know everything there is to know
> about product's quality and price.
>
> We know that life is not like that.  Some producer compete by shooting
> his competitors or burning down their houses, or producers may not
> compete but collude to manipulate the market.  And many consumers are
> clueless about the product's price and quality.  So perfect
> competition doesn't exist, and the invisible hand of the market can't
> do the job by itself.
>
> But at the early time of capitalism (18th, 19th centuries) everyone
> believed in the invisible hand so much that producers were left free
> to do whatever they wanted.  So they did all the horrible things like
> colluding to manipulate the market, monopolizing the market, cutting
> throat of consumers, and exploiting the miserable mass of poor
> workers.   The result was the rise of international socialism to fight
> against capitalist abuses.  (So Socialism had an idealistic and heroic
> beginning.  Philosophical Question:  How didi it become so arrogant
> and, therefore, stupid until it dropped dead?)
>
> Today, we know that the market cannot function by itself.  It needs a
> set of rules and a rule enforcer.  Just like in soccer we need a set
> of rules to play and we need a referee to enforce the rules.
>
> In the competition field, the rules are designed to "foster
> competition," meaning, to help competition among producers become
> vigorous, because competition help lower price and increase quality of
> product, which is good for consumers and therefore the entire economy.
>
> And "competition" means "healthy competition," "fair competition."
> Generally the following activities are prohibited:
>
> -- Traditional criminal activities, such as beating up or threatening
> your competitors.
>
> -- Lying about a competitor or his product.
>
> -- Conspiracy to fix prices or to divide the market.  "Price fixing"
> is when a group of companies agree to sell a product at one single
> price, wherever the consumers go, they see the same price price.  No
> price competition among sellers.  "Market division" is when producers
> agree that each one will cover a geographic location and others will
> not compete, or each one will make one kind of product, others will
> not touch the same product. (This is similar to match fixing in
> soccer).
>
> --  Monopolistic behavior such as "selling below cost" (to kill off
> your competitors, and then raise prices skyhigh after your competitors
> are all dead), or "tying" (Forcing your customers to buy an additional
> product when they buy another product from you.  Microsoft, with an
> almost monopoly position in operating systems for PCs, used  to force
> everyone to buy its Internet browser if they buy its operating system,
> until the US government sued it for anti-trust violation)
>
> --  Deceptive consumer practices, such as deceptive advertising,
> fraud, lying to consumers, etc...
>
> In general, when companies compete without violating these rules, then
> the competition is good.  Similar to soccer teams competing by the
> rules, not beating each other up or threatening to burn each other's
> house, and not fixing matches.
>
> In addition to these above elements, anti-trust enforcers also pay
> attention to the "concentration" of the market.  A market is highly
> concentrated when it has a few dominant players with huge market
> shares (and other players are non-existent or extremely small).  A
> market is less concentrated when it has many small players and no
> dominant players.  The more concentrated a market is, the less
> competition it has (which means not very good competition).  Say, a
> market of 10 players, 2 of them has 40 percent of the market each and
> 5 other players 4 percent each, is very concentrated.  Another market
> also has 10 players but each one has 10 percent of the market is much
> less concentrated and therefore tend to have much more competition.
>
> Market concentration is measure and the Herfindahl index, which you
> can read on Wikipedia at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl_index
>
> I will stop here before I start to confuse folks with economics.  My
> point here for Thu Huong and everyone is: Competition is something we
> need to manage to prosper.  Competition cannot survive by itself
> without rules and referee, i.e., without the government's making rules
> and enforcing rules.
>
> Another question to think about:  Would the soccer game survive if the
> referee does the refereeing while playing ball at the same time?
>
> Have a great day!
>
> Hoanh
> --

-- 
Tran Dinh Hoanh, LLB, JD
Attorney of Law
Washington DC