Why the Installation of Beidou Navigation Has Become a “Political Task”?
【Background】On January 14, China's Ministry of Transport says commercial vehicles in nine regions will have to install the homegrown Beidou Navigation Satellite System (BDS), or face not having their vehicle permits approved. Feng Zhenglin, the vice minister of the Ministry of Transport, emphasized the installation of BDS was a “political task” and should be finished as soon as possible. How does the installation of BDS become a “political task”? What is the legal basis for the forceful installation behavior?
Fu Weigang, researcher of Shanghai Institute of Finance and Law, thinks that the notice of the Ministry of Transport is very improper. It involves three issues: firstly, how the procurement of BDS terminals has been carried out? And has the open tendering been done? Secondly, who pays the money for installing the equipment? Do the actual users of the BDS need to pay additional fees? Thirdly, if those vehicles without BDS terminals cannot get permits, then the notice has set new permit conditions. Does such a change conform to legal procedures?
Fu Weigang points out that if the installation fees are paid by transport companies, the above-mentioned notice is against the relevant regulations of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law for "designated sales".
Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law regulates that “Public utility enterprises or other operators having monopolistic status according to law shall not force others to buy the goods of the operators designated by them so as to exclude other operators from competing fairly.” And Article 7 regulates that “A government and its subordinate departments shall not abuse their administrative power to force others to buy the goods of the operators designated by them so as to restrict the proper business activities of other operators.”
Fu Weigang indicates that it’s the problem of how to establish boundaries between the government and enterprises. The government should know that in what matters it may interfere and in what matters it should not interfere. For the BDS, taxpayers have born its R&D costs, and it makes little sense for such mandatory purchase to promote its use. As a product with intellectual property rights, if BDS is good, it would naturally attract buyers. Only by providing highly cost-effective services can the product occupy market.
(CAIXIN Online | Reporter: Huang Kaixi | 2013-1-16)
