Ever since the birth of Grab (formerly known as "Mytaxi") and Uber in Malaysia, taxi drivers ranging from sole breadwinners of the family, family men and single individuals, have found it increasingly hard to make a living by providing transportation services.
As a consequence, taxi drivers protested against Grab and Uber drivers as we saw in KLCC.
To understand why taxi drivers protest, we need to understand how the transportation industry, specifically those involved in the taxi business, is regulated by the government.
First of all, taxi drivers must obtain permits from the relevant ministry. In the event that the drivers are unable to obtain or secure the taxi licences, it is illegal for the taxi drivers to provide such service to the passengers. Secondly, the drivers must pay certain costs such as to obtain taxi permits, road tax and insurance (commercial type). Thirdly, taxi must go for regular inspection.
As for Grab and Uber drivers, no cost is paid to the government, insurance obtained by the drivers is mostly not comprehensive and commercial, and inspection is not strict enough to ensure the safety of the passengers.
Most important of all, Section 16 of the Land Public Transport Act 2010 clearly states that only drivers with licences issued by the relevant authorities are allowed to provide transportation services to passengers.
Private vehicles (for example, five-, six- or eight-seaters) used by private vehicle drivers actually fall within the definition of First Schedule, that is "taxi cab", "airport taxi cab" and "limousine taxi cab" while "hire and drive cars" is applied to drivers renting cars from others to offer such transportation services.
Based on this section and schedule alone, clearly drivers are running against the law enacted by Parliament which is the aspiration of society.
In my humble opinion, the most fundamental right taken away by Grabcar and Uber drivers was actually the right to a livehood. The right to livelihood is enshrined under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.
Under Tan Teck Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 261, the Court of Appeal gave broad and liberal meaning to the word "life" which includes the right to livelihood.
The point is, do Grab and Uber drivers have a legitimate right to take away the right of livelihood of the taxi driver community?
Commercially yes, the passengers may prefer Grab and Uber. Nevertheless, the law is not meant to fit commercial reality. Rather, the law is to protect public interest.
Another question is, does this sufficiently warrant Grab and Uber drivers taking away taxi drivers' right to livelihood when they are law-abiding citizens and pious followers of the law?
The government should protect those who follow the law accordingly and punish those taking taxi drivers' right to livelihood.
Nevertheless, the biggest winners of all are not taxi or Grab or Uber drivers. The biggest winners of all are the shareholders of the Uber and Grab companies. – February 27, 2016.
* Mr Anonymous BG reads The Malaysian Insider.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
Comments
Please refrain from nicknames or comments of a racist, sexist, personal, vulgar or derogatory nature, or you may risk being blocked from commenting in our website. We encourage commenters to use their real names as their username. As comments are moderated, they may not appear immediately or even on the same day you posted them. We also reserve the right to delete off-topic comments