Talk about spinning a new narrative.

Amidst the recent furore over oBike's sudden closure in Singapore, one foreign newspaper has thought it savvy to frame the issue in a very different manner.

Hong Kong English newspaper of record

On June 30, Hong Kong's English newspaper of record, the South China Morning Post, published an article titled, "Singapore's oBike gets on its bike: Proof you can 'Kill your innovators'?"

Beginning with a declarative statement that oBike's closure in Singapore is "prompting some analysts to claim the Lion City is choking off innovation", the article proceeds to synthesise details on how the licensing regulations by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) laid the basis for oBike's eventual closure.

It was the regulations' fault

A Grab spokesperson was quoted as saying: "We understand that oBike has decided to cease operations in Singapore due to their difficulties in meeting regulatory guidelines." 

SCMP then proceeded to follow up with this paragraph:

"Under the new rules, operators would need to apply for a licence from the transport authority. Not only would this regulate fleet sizes, it would require operators to remove illegally parked bicycles within a stipulated amount of time and install QR code geofencing technology that would require operators to continuously charge users who do not park their bike in designated areas. oBike deemed the move would be too costly."

This posits oBike's closure as ultimately an issue of cost passed onto them by LTA's new regulations.

The article goes on to take note of another bike-sharing company -- local company GBikes -- ceasing operation on July 7.

This date is the deadline for bike-sharing firms to apply for a bike-sharing licence under LTA's new regulatory framework.

The punitive aspect of non-compliance with the new LTA regulations are also cited for good measure:

"Operators that do not comply with LTA’s standards and conditions will face regulatory sanctions such as financial penalties of up to S$100,000, reductions in fleet size, suspension or even cancellation of their licences."

With the examples of these two companies and the penalty established, a professor of investment at Peking University Guanghua School of Management, Jeffrey Towson, is cited with the following statement:

“Asian cities should take note of Singapore and Melbourne as how not to behave. Innovators and risk-takers are rare...Singapore has perhaps just shown that you can in fact kill off your innovators. They should have been trying to help oBike stabilise. In contrast, China was tolerant with its native bike-sharing companies and Mobike and ofo have thrived.”

Essentially, Singapore is to blame for the closure of these bike-sharing companies because the regulations made it impossible for them to survive.

Completely missing the point

Needless to say, this is a narrative that is skewed away from the facts.

SCMP ignores the fact that such bike-sharing companies privatise gains and socialise costs.

Issues that the regulations are aimed at addressing, such as the working condition of shared bicycles and more importantly, the indiscriminate manner in which they are parked, are about not passing on intangible costs to the public.

Moreover, the problem of flooding a market with too many bicycles is a real one -- it takes resources to organise assets. China, which allowed the messy problem to fester, had to clean up the mess later.

What's more, it is important to note that oBike was already a money-losing proposition even before the advent of new regulations.

It lost S$4.25 million in a year, to be exact.

On top of that, oBike's founder, Shi Yi has also come under fire with a slew of accusations about the operations of the company, with the biggest accusation being that running oBike was never meant to be a viable business.

In any case, the issues facing oBike extend far beyond the increased operating costs imposed by LTA's new regulations.

Not the first time SCMP has taken a jibe

SCMP reporting on issues without considerable nuance is just the tip of the iceberg.

Prior to the Trump-Kim summit, SCMP ran an article on the event with this embellished headline:

And prior to that, there was an article trumpeting the benefits of Hong Kong's charm over Singapore:

What's more, given that Hong Kong's own bike-sharing industry is facing difficulties of its own, with up to six bicycle-sharing companies burning through their money and having all-around negative images in the public, it is curious the same critical lens touching on innovation going extinct is not similarly applied to Hong Kong.

[related_story]

Of course, it should be noted that Hong Kong's lawmakers have mooted the idea of imitating Singapore's legislation in addressing their own problems with the bike-sharing industry.

Top image via screenshot from SCMP