\"\"

The title is one new focus of my columns. Every so often I come across an issue or concern, and then choose to write about that issue to seek clarification and policy guidance from powers that be. MyQ issue for the first of the series is entitled ‘The Taxi Grab’.

Of late, there has been an on-going concern or ‘noise’ against the recent innovations in public transportation called ‘Grab Taxi’ or ‘Uber’. Both these are innovations in public transportation, especially in cities or crowded towns and urban centres.

The innovation was only possible because ‘multiple media is converging’ to produce new and multiple technologies that allow ‘connectivity in different directions and dimensions’. Therefore two of the most recent innovations being applied in Malaysia has enabled citizens to ‘grab a taxi’ only using smartphones and enhanced connectivity and deploying electronic payment system.

Not only does the taxi or cab come to one’s house or wherever the location of the request is, it also tells you how long the cab would take to reach one’s location of request. What this means is that information technology is in fact creating not just information but knowledge to bring solutions to the real issue or concern of any urban citizen.

The citizen now knows when, where, how the cab will arrive and how long it takes to the service. Now, who would complain against this? Who in their right mind or heart would complain or protest against such an innovative service towards excellent public transportation?

What is economics 101?

America has 12 million illegal workers; Malaysia is reputed to have 6 million, I am told. Yet, the government of Malaysia almost agreed to bring in 1.5 million of Bangladeshi so-called legal immigrant workers. I hear their agents already signed a contract for the same; and it was confirmed by the Bangladeshi high commissioner. But why would anyone do this?

Malaysia has only 8 million legally employed workers in the manufacturing, agricultural, and related services industries. Therefore, can I say that there is almost a one to one ratio of foreign workers to Malaysians. Maybe Donald Trump understands the same issue, and that is why he reacts with such hatred for all foreigners and therefore posturing and positioning in immoral and unethical ways talking about building a wall.

Now, our taxi operators in Malaysia caused multiple gridlocks in KL because of the headlines in the Sun entitled, ‘Cabbies protesting against Uber, Grab cause three-hour standstill’. Their protest is against all formal authorities responsible for so-called ‘taxi-permits’. They argue that these two-technology powered innovations with from knowledge based companies should be banned because they are affecting their customer sources for almost one year.

What Economics 101 means to demand and supply of taxi services?

All supply and demand functions are specified by customer selections or choices made in the marketplace of ideas and by the communication or marketing of these purchase options. The above question helps me to focus on why we may have evolved an immoral economics of supply versus demand policy practiced in Malaysia.

We have gone overboard with the misapplied New Economic Policy (NEP) and are currently practising and promoting corruption of crony economics.

All taxi licences are controlled, monitored, and given out by the Land Transport Commission (Spad). My problem is with this ‘false theology’. Does the former Umno minister not understand basic economics?

Does Umno understand basic economics any more? Is that why Dr Mahathir Mohamad feels the imperative to “stop all the abuses related to basic corrupt practices which have now become a culture from the top downwards”. The current distribution policy of taxi permits is the root source of the problem.

The current system ignores real demand and supply for services in the marketplace. Spad and their related Umno agencies apply ‘corrupt economics’ to dish out these new licences and permits which are supply driven and not demand driven.

The real corruption – the absentee owner

Talk to any taxi driver and you will become aware of the current corrupt system of distribution and disbursement of taxi permits. Simply ask the right questions and you will find all the answers. The owners are allegedly Umno warlords who get multiple permits and then create business models based entirely upon rent-seeking models; for no real work done.

An average taxi driver in KL or PJ has to pay about RM80.00 per day for their taxi rental, even if they finally own the car. They will never own the taxi permit. Therefore, they need to make more than this RM80.00 to break even and take home some money to feed their families.

In the case of Uber, these are volunteers who choose to make some extra money by providing taxi services for some period of their free days. Therefore their overhead costs are minimal and therefore can half the costs of normal taxi cab drivers; because they, in all likelihood are owners of their vehicle and the Uber system actually ‘disinter-mediates’ the need for taxi permits.

If one understands economics and hates corrupt earnings related to my personal theory of corruption (as per earlier column on the definition of corruption) through crony economics; there is a simple and real solution to this supply and demand issue for basic and good quality knowledge-driven services for public transportation.

I am less familiar with Grab Taxi business model and therefore will not comment but will say that it cannot be far wrong when it is able to service the needs of citizens and others who want a reliable transportation service without inefficiencies built into it.

Mr Dear Speaker of the Parliament, therefore MyQ time – can you please get the transport minister to explain what is the current corrupt business model for taxi permits which makes the Uber and Grab Taxi look so good because we have a non-competitive model of supply and demand?