What drives Malaysians to Uber?

It did not take long for the Malaysian authorities to pick up on Uber. This follows in a global trend where the majority of governments, municipal authorities and transport regulators worldwide are either deciding how exactly they would like to regulate Uber or have decided to clamp down on it entirely.

This should not be surprising – the very word taxi has its roots in the word “tax”. A portion of the taxi fare, of course, goes to the government.
In some countries, like Malaysia, the taxi industry keeps not only the taxi driver employed, but a complex and somewhat unnecessary system of regulation on everything from the maintenance of tyres of the taxi to the giving out of rent-and-hire loans have given birth to a mini-ecosystem surrounding what really should be, a straightforward business of installing a taximeter and “For Hire” light and start picking up fares.

Taxi licences have also traditionally been a way to keep segments of society that would find it difficult to find employment otherwise… employed. These groups include former military employees, former drivers of larger vehicles who can no longer operate them due to health reasons, people with minor criminal records, displaced blue collar workers and so on.

The granting of these licences, therefore, while can be seen as a way the government discharges its social responsibility, can also be viewed through a sceptic’s lenses as a means by which that same government keeps those segments of society beholden to them, politically.

But to the public, much of this does not matter. Why? The public are consumers, and as consumers, they have a right to demand better value for their already highly devalued ringgit.

Much of public opinion seems for Uber. And why wouldn’t it be? Compared with local taxis, it’s cheaper, more punctual and they offer better rides in tune with technology – users will be able to track their ride, they are billed directly by the service provider, leaving little room for cheating and overcharging that taxis have been accused of.
Cars are usually much more comfortable (really, it’s not that hard to get more comfortable than the ubiquitous, generic 20-year-old Proton Saga Iswara Aeroback ) and the drivers are generally more courteous (and not known to turn down passengers, scold them or tell them the meter is broken).

While the government’s concerns on safety and security are legitimate, their track record at keeping taxis safe and taxi drivers civilised, have not exactly inspired much confidence, and actually drives more people to support Uber – cases of theft, rape, even the odd murder once in a few years. Feel-good stories about taxis – like the one cabbie who hunted through the crowds of Bersih to look for his passenger just to return her purse – are too few and far in between. While there have been similar reports against Uber drivers abroad, there does not seem to be any publicised ones in Malaysia, yet.

Instead of attempting to win back their customers, the taxi associations and their drivers took to “arresting” Uber and GrabCar drivers in the hopes of scaring them off. Perhaps if they admitted their own weaknesses, or took their case to the government, whose policies in no small part caused the hardships of these taxi drivers in the first place, public sentiment would be far more sympathetic to them, and they actually really do deserve our sympathy. They are, after all, in more ways than one, victims of circumstance.

Uber are by no means saints either. In many countries, they are accused of refusing to cooperate with authorities. In some, they are accused of unethical business practises such as getting their employees to continuously call their competitors to book rides, just to cancel them later to throw them off their game. They have also been accused of using bully tactics – one senior transport authority head in the US was harassed after Uber published his personal details, while a senior Uber exec has been recorded as suggesting Uber engage investigators to “dig up dirt” on journalists critical of Uber.

Competitors to Uber actually came up with an “anti-Uber alliance” as according to them, Uber wasn’t competing on a level playing field. Some actually agree with their governments in that Uber is too disruptive to the “system”.

But perhaps a disruption is exactly what we need.

The proliferation of new innovations such as Uber and Airbnb , CoachSurfer and the like, and their rapid growth, are not just indicators of strong business models – they feed off the limitations of the current system to fulfil the needs of the consumers.

There were gaping weaknesses that were addressed by these new businesses –  issues such as costs, unwillingness to change, business monopoly, and stubborn reluctance to yield to consumer demands. An arrogance built by legacy brick-and-mortar businesses, who have yet to learn their lesson, even after Amazon.com revolutionised the way we bought books so many years ago.

And perhaps instead of taking sides and clamping down on alternatives to taxis, the government could engage them to see if these services can be regulated, while simultaneously perhaps, finally working on addressing the age old litany of complaints against our taxi drivers. – October 13, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.