IF you take a drive along Jalan Pemaju in Shah Alam, one certainly cannot miss seeing a “heap” of taxis left to rot along the road, and one can only assume that this has been brought about by the loss of business that e-hailing services have caused traditional taxis. This may also have affected the livelihood of many families.

Before the dawn of e-hailing rides, I cannot remember when the last time I took a taxi around the city was. The put-off was when a taxi driver once demanded RM30 for a journey of not more than 1.5km.

These days, I do not hesitate to use an e-hailing app to get to a meeting in the city, where it is difficult to find parking or too expensive. It is convenient, efficient and dependable (most times, at least).

What I like most is that the cars are clean, there’s no need to haggle with the driver over the price and, most of all, there is some level of safety.

I am sure that many people would agree that the dawn of e-hailing apps has impacted the lives of many people but yet, more and more restrictions are being talked about for e-hailing rides because of the pressure from taxi drivers.

This discussion might be stale to many but the recent debacle in Langkawi between taxi drivers and Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad seem to indicate something much deeper. We may have a new Malaysia but the old Malaysia where privileges and special treatment were accorded remain at the fore for the ordinary person. For many years, it has been “privileges” rather than “competitiveness” that has prevented progress in more ways than one.

It would seem that taxi drivers would like to have the monopoly over such rides and, therefore, consider it their right to be protected by the government and regulatory bodies. How does this make sense?

Does placing more restrictions make taxi drivers more diligent in the public service they offer?

A 2016 survey conducted by the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) showed that 80% of the public preferred to use e-hailing services, with accessibility as the main reason why they would rather use these services compared with taxis. Most people I have spoken to are quite satisfied with e-hailing services.

So, why throw the baby out with the bath water?

Rather than placing restrictions on e-hailing services, why not uplift taxi drivers so they are able to compete with what already exists? If Malaysians generally prefer e-hailing rides, why not make conventional taxis just as good, or better even? Many of us who use such rides would certainly welcome “competition”, which is lacking since the merger of two major players in Malaysia. Ask anyone and they’ll agree that the current monopoly has caused a price hike.

I would most willingly use conventional taxis if they were at the same level of e-hailing rides… clean, efficient, no haggling and security. I believe this is a much simpler solution than placing restrictions just because some people are not willing to upgrade themselves. Even the Lonely Planet website warns tourists planning to come to Malaysia about dishonest taxi drivers and encourage e-hailing services. In the words of Thomas Edison, “there is no substitute for hard work” and, if there was any on thing that the government could do to help them and generations to come, stop spoon-feeding them!

So, rather than stifling what seems to be working and the preferred choice of 80% of Malaysians, why not bring taxi drivers up to mark? They have to realise that staging protests and demanding the transport minister resign is not getting them anywhere with the public. 

Using mobile apps has become an integral part of urban life and is no longer a novelty. Shopping for clothes and household products, ordering food and procuring many other services from a mobile device is not the future but the present, and they need to rethink their business model. – October 29, 2018.

* Dr Clarence Devadass is a Catholic priest and director of the Catholic Research Centre in Kuala Lumpur. Moral education is an issue close to his heart. He focuses on paving resourceful ways to promote virtues for living in a multireligious society, for a significant life together.