Comments on: The Govt’s new environmental initiatives: yet more cases of form over substance http://www.hongkongcan.org/eng/2010/02/the-govts-new-environmental-initiatives-yet-more-cases-of-form-over-substance/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-govts-new-environmental-initiatives-yet-more-cases-of-form-over-substance Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:43:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: A.N Other http://www.hongkongcan.org/eng/2010/02/the-govts-new-environmental-initiatives-yet-more-cases-of-form-over-substance/comment-page-1/#comment-267 A.N Other Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:37:52 +0000 http://www.hongkongcan.org/eng/?p=5316#comment-267 In 2008 I was involved in a business for which we needed to buy a 5.5 tonne refrigerated truck. We visited the showrooms of 3 major truck manufacturers to see what they had to offer. Without our asking, as we had no idea it existed, each of the showrooms were very quick to point out that they could get us the government’s old diesel vehicle replacement subsidy. When we pointed out that we were not replacing a vehicle, again each one said that this was not a problem. They could provide the ownership document for an old vehicle which we could have for free, that we could then transfer to our business name and immediately “replace” with the new one that we wanted to buy. Each showroom said that they would expect HK$10,000 of the government’s HK$29,000 (from memory I think it was for a 5.5 tonne truck) subsidy for arranging this for us, suggesting there is an understanding between the showrooms and a market rate for this service. Whether this still goes on I have no idea, but knowing how the government works I would say it probably does. There are to me a couple of interesting points here. It’s a typical example of potentially a good government idea badly executed. It would be so simple to stop this – off the top of my head to benefit from the subsidy an owner would have had to have owned the old vehicle for at least one year and have to hold the new vehicle for one year (or have to rebate). There are probably other ways. It’s impossible to say how much is being wasted here, but as each of the 3 showrooms immediately offered this loophole, we can assume that in most cases where a new truck is being purchased. If that loophole was plugged and the money went instead to real cases how much could the subsidy be – 2 or 3 times as much? That would start to be very, very attractive to drivers of old vehicles. If CAN require further details with which to take action please feel free to get in touch with me. In 2008 I was involved in a business for which we needed to buy a 5.5 tonne refrigerated truck. We visited the showrooms of 3 major truck manufacturers to see what they had to offer. Without our asking, as we had no idea it existed, each of the showrooms were very quick to point out that they could get us the government’s old diesel vehicle replacement subsidy. When we pointed out that we were not replacing a vehicle, again each one said that this was not a problem. They could provide the ownership document for an old vehicle which we could have for free, that we could then transfer to our business name and immediately “replace” with the new one that we wanted to buy. Each showroom said that they would expect HK$10,000 of the government’s HK$29,000 (from memory I think it was for a 5.5 tonne truck) subsidy for arranging this for us, suggesting there is an understanding between the showrooms and a market rate for this service. Whether this still goes on I have no idea, but knowing how the government works I would say it probably does.

There are to me a couple of interesting points here. It’s a typical example of potentially a good government idea badly executed. It would be so simple to stop this – off the top of my head to benefit from the subsidy an owner would have had to have owned the old vehicle for at least one year and have to hold the new vehicle for one year (or have to rebate). There are probably other ways.

It’s impossible to say how much is being wasted here, but as each of the 3 showrooms immediately offered this loophole, we can assume that in most cases where a new truck is being purchased. If that loophole was plugged and the money went instead to real cases how much could the subsidy be – 2 or 3 times as much? That would start to be very, very attractive to drivers of old vehicles.

If CAN require further details with which to take action please feel free to get in touch with me.

]]>