Make Uber part of the solution

A few days ago, around 100 taxi drivers protested against Uber and GrabCar and handed a memorandum to the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) to stop these two services.

They alleged that Uber and GrabCar provide illegal service and unfair competition, causing taxi drivers to lose as much as 50% of their earnings.

This phenomenon is not unique to Malaysia.

In many countries, taxi drivers and other competitors are grumbling about how Uber is depriving them of consumers and earnings.

Uber and GrabCar are private vehicle hire companies. Ordinary drivers just need to register, provide some background information, possess a smartphone and a vehicle to drive, and there you go!

It’s easy to become an Uber driver and more and more people, especially in Kuala Lumpur and Penang, are turning into Uber drivers to earn extra income.

Consumers like Uber too. The fare is usually at least 20-30% cheaper than a normal taxi fare (assuming that they use meter at all!).

Uber drivers tend to be friendlier, sensitive, and somewhat enthusiastic. I think this may be due to the fact that most of them are new Uber drivers, hence they are still in the initial phase of experiencing a new venture.

I also like the ease of using the Uber app. I don’t have to key in the destination when I book an Uber and also, I can use the same app, the same account, and the same payment method when I travel outside the country. I don’t have to download or change anything because the Uber app is usable in 58 countries.

I frequently use both Uber and taxi whenever I am in Kuala Lumpur. To date, my experience is that it is always the better option to book an Uber or a taxi through smartphone app (Uber/MyTeksi) rather than flagging down a taxi. Chances are, they won’t use a meter and will charge exorbitant price for a short journey.

Uber is good when we have the luxury of time.

On two occasions, my Uber drivers, being new to this venture, took the wrong turns and we ended up 10-20 minutes later than the estimated time of arrival.

At any given time of the day, especially during odd hours like early in the morning or late at night, there are fewer Uber vehicles than taxis, obviously.

Taxis are always there, so that’s the convenient bit. Uber cars also tend to concentrate in popular areas in the urban cities, thus if you are outside of those places, you are better off taking a taxi.

Regarding safety, if we book an Uber or a taxi through smartphone app, we have the peace of mind of knowing the name, phone number, and car registration details of our driver. I heard the Uber app allows us to share trip route and estimated time of arrival with friends and families, though I have yet to try this feature.

Generally, when I book Uber or taxi through an app, I feel safe compared to when I flag down a taxi driven by a stranger, who is usually not the same person as the displayed picture of the registered vehicle owner.

From a consumer’s perspective, I think it is beneficial to let Uber and taxi compete with each other. Let them compete and we will reward those with the best service and fares!

Monopoly is, more often than not, bad for consumers. Competition enables us to choose, and thus punish lackluster service. Surely, in a competitive scene, each player has to “up their game” instead of enjoying their monopoly.

But there’s something else that needs to be addressed. The contention has been that Uber drivers do not have to go through the tedious process of getting a license and permit. With their minimum requirements and less hierarchical structure, Uber drivers can cut cost and offer a lower fare, thus causing unfair competition to the taxi drivers.

This is where we might have a philosophical dilemma. The union of taxi drivers has the right to protest, and even the right to strike, in the face of unfair competition or exploitation.

On the other hand, Uber is a brilliant entrepreneurial idea to “do more with less”. Should we welcome that spirit of innovative and competitive entrepreneurship or should we side with the union of workers to protect their interests?

I would very much like to hear both the liberal and socialist responses to this.

As of September 30, 2015, SPAD has seized 43 Uber and 89 GrabCar vehicles. This is unfortunate. Though I do understand the taxi drivers’ grievances, we should not close or clamp down on Uber if we seriously want to become a hub of innovative entrepreneurship and start-ups.

Ideally, we should have a fair competition. Make Uber drivers legal; laws and licensing can be changed.

Malaysia is a country with one of the brightest start-ups scene in Southeast Asia, thus we should be making it easier to do business and innovate. If our rules and systems are rigid, in addition to monopoly of certain services and industries, innovation cannot take off!

Think about it. Uber is an international transportation network company which provides services in more than 58 countries and 300 cities worldwide. They don’t own the vehicles. The drivers do. Their business model is such a success that there is a term invented for it: “Uberification”, the rise of user-to-user services.

Think of Airbnb, a website for people to list, find and rent lodging. It has over 1.5 million listings in 34,000 cities and 190 countries, making it one of the biggest “hotels” in the world.

Only that Airbnb doesn’t own any of those houses and rooms. They simply channel those who can provide a service (a lodging) to those who need that service, i.e., the simple and important task of matching demand and supply.

I hope SPAD and all the parties can come to a reasonable resolution, maybe some sort of compromise and regulation. Avoid knee-jerk reaction. There is a huge potential that can be harnessed to create a bustling scene for innovative ideas and entrepreneurship.

Just imagine, if we clamp down on Uber, what message are we sending to those who have innovative ideas that could change the way a certain service or industry in our society?

Uber-like services can also help us to encourage use of public transport and ridesharing, combat congestion, and parking problem. At the very least, the flourishing of Uber-like services would almost certainly mean the end for those dubious “kereta sapu”, which is totally unregulated, driven by unfiltered and unchecked strangers, and has been around for as long as I can remember.

Point is, Uber-like services can be part of the solution to the problems we’re facing rather than part of the problem.

Uber is an inevitable outcome of technological innovations. Even if we do not have Uber, sooner or later someone is going to have the idea and execute it. Gone were the days when the Luddites thought they could stop the tide of labour-economising technologies.

As the theory of evolution stipulates, you either swim or sink, adapt or perish. – October 3, 2015.

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