Over 50 years ago at the 1964 New York World’s Fair, a jeepney was exhibited at the Philippine Pavilion as a national image for the Philippines and Filipinos. It is likely that the jeepney shown in New York then would fit right in on the streets of Manila today. That is not shining proof of progress for the country during the past half-century.
While all of us have probably been moved around town on a jeepney, it is an outdated and ultimately undesirable form of transportation. Running mostly on diesel engines, they are polluting and inefficient for city transportation. Diesel engines are not the most suitable for low speed with short distance between stops. Passengers have little comfort and virtually no security or safety. While automobiles are required to have safety measures like seat belts, air bags, and protection from crashes, jeepneys are required to maybe have a working horn.
There is probably not a single jeepney plying the streets of Metro Manila can could pass even a fraction of safety necessities that every automobile must follow.
On the positive side, jeepneys are cheap to ride, convenient and, of course, ubiquitous. Probably no one ever went broke having to use a jeepney to get around but, on the other hand, no one ever got rich driving a jeepney. It is a “poor man’s” vehicle in every sense of the term.
But to even consider upgrading this form of transportation is apparently “anti-poor”. It seems that every effort and plan to modernize is anti-poor. We heard the same argument when dilapidated and broken old taxis were taken off the road. When point-to-point shuttle services were first established, these too were anti-poor, since they did not cater to the lowest economic groups. Maybe shopping malls and convenience stores are anti-poor, since they compete with sari-sari stores. Certainly, fast-food restaurants are anti-poor because they have probably put some carinderias out of business.
The argument from Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) that “to have affordable, safe and high-quality transportation, the mass-transport system should be run by the state with the support of the industrial economy” could be applied to any sector. But history shows how well that did not work with both electricity and Metro Manila’s water supply.
Bayan says that the proposed “fleet-management system” that sets a minimum of 10 units per franchise will only allow big business to operate jeepneys, and that may be partially correct. But every one of those 10 units will require a driver that will have PhilHealth, SSS, 13-month pay and all the other benefits of a regular employee that most jeepney drivers currently do not have.
Bayan also states that “the Omnibus Franchising Guidelines would only bring displacement or loss of livelihood to thousands of drivers and operators in the name of profit.” Perhaps the new jeepneys will be operated by computers and not humans. Perhaps the “thousands of operators” are not seeking profit now and only own jeepneys as a public service, not to make money.
There are legitimate complaints against the proposed jeepney phase-out program that the government needs to address. Changes to the plan are necessary. However, many of the arguments raised to justify the recent transport strike are hollow. Let’s hear a better alternative than “government should own and operate transportation.” That is truly anti-poor.
Image credits: Jimbo Albano