Recently, a group of transport leaders—friends of mine—came out strongly to endorse a presidential candidate, calling him the most suitable candidate to represent the interests of the road transport sector. Not that it should matter, as that is their opinion. We have just started our political fiesta, where all sectors of society are either wooed or are already out there campaigning for their chosen candidates, especially the presidentiables. Even candidates for local positions have it in their playbook to court the local tricycle communities or TODAs into their fold. This just goes to show how road public transport is very much integral in our lives and therefore a necessary sector to be enticed by the candidates come election time.
At the start of this year, I called out to my colleagues in this sector to present to them an alternative approach that we can take in this election by turning it the other way around. Instead of being courted and given importance during this period, and then once the candidates win it would be difficult to secure an appointment with them, why not band together, discuss, agree and come out with a transport agenda—a sort of wish list. We would then ask these candidates to pledge that once elected they would carry out such a program as agreed upon. We envisioned asking all presidential candidates to sign a common written agreement embodying our wish list. Well represented were the various segments of road transport—from the jeepney, taxi, bus, trucks, UV express and the tricycle communities. We knew it would be difficult to come out with a perfect wish list, as varied interests of the sector are involved. But there are common grounds that we needed find to tie us together. Finally, a list would be completed for us to show to the candidates.
Our agreed points centered on the following: 1) A consultative relationship between the government and the road transport sector wherein all decisions and policies that would come out from the new government that would affect the transport sector will go through prior consultations; 2) Assistance and/or subsidy from the Government Financial Institutions, given that most operators were defaulting on the loans they took out due to the required transport modernization. Given the pandemic, most of them have defaulted on their loans; and 3) A just but humane enforcement of traffic laws. It is understood that enforcement is necessary but it should be combined with compassion; 4) A review of certain programs and procedures by the new administration to include the transport rationalization and modernization program that were deemed problematic for the transport sector.
It was in a way exhilarating to know that we were together in this as one group and that there would be a chance for change in this election period. Everyone agreed that this time it just might work and our voices will be heard. We were united and we will finally have that strong bond to extract from the candidates the needed pledge. We agreed that no one would cave in and we would stick together. Whoever wins as president, we now would have a written agreement with his administration.
Then a few weeks ago, the election season started. Expectedly, the candidates started wooing the transport leaders, and I thought my companions would stick to our game plan. Unfortunately, some of them caved in when a candidate tried to woo them. There goes the plan to bring everyone together for this common cause. There is no one to blame here. I fully understand the actions of my colleagues. Besides, only they, in the end, can claim to do what is best for their constituents, even if their newfound candidate has yet to show his plan for a more sustainable transport program.
I am still hoping though that our transport agenda will be presented to all presidentiables and the pledge will be eventually signed by all of them, including the one that my colleagues already sided with. Otherwise, we will have another six years of public road transport uncertainty. By then, the next election—in 2028—might be too late for us to implement our plan.
The author may be reached at: thomas_orbos@sloan.mit.edu