“In solidarity with the Jeepney drivers against sham ‘modernisation’”
Kat Ulrike
On this first day of the statewide transportation strike, this note stands with the people in support of the jeepney drivers. Drivers, operators, and even concerned commuters alike appeal to the government to heed their pleas not to take away their source of income but rather to rehabilitate their vehicles, restore their routes lost during the pandemic, and offer urgent and just support.
From the start, the “Jeepney Modernisation Program” is an object of ridicule despite its supposed “benefit”. By claiming that the program would improve road-based mass transportation, this is obviously a corporate phase-in wherein interests in the transportation sector, in connivance with banks and self-proclaimed concerned public officials trying to exploit the situation, be it reasons of the environment, safety, “traffic” control, but obviously to rake profits and control routes if necessary.
It's true that the drivers wanted a new, modern jeepney to replace that of the old ones, but given the high costs of each modernised vehicle and the fact that the drivers are primarily still recovering from the pandemic, they cannot afford these expensive vehicles, whereas commuters will pay more out of their own pocket when fares go up. Forcing to set up “cooperatives”, no matter it appears beneficial according to its supporters doesn’t suffice the problem, as drivers themselves still cannot afford 2.5-2.8 million worth of “modern jeepneys” even with measly-funded installments.
Furthermore, the expensive vehicles made available by this modernisation program, the majority of which are minibuses from China, simply benefited the profiteers stated above using "modernisation" as an excuse, while undermining the ability of local jeepney assemblers to produce vehicles that meet the standards offered by the program, whether they be new safety standards or engine requirements. Companies like Francisco Motors, Sarao offered their own local alternatives, yet authorities continue to cling to their imported “alternative” that affects not just the driver, operator, and the commuter- but also the assembler who tries to improve the Philippines’s “king of the road”.
Supporters of the program may still cling to the thought that their concept of modernisation “benefit everyone” regardless of its problems, but the realities behind the program doesn’t stop the concerned from its prevailing worriness as drivers and operators, still trying to recover from the pandemic, wanting first to regain their lost franchises for their livelihood.
And to think that this note supports the objective of giving people access to cost-effective, efficient, safe, secure, and efficient modes of transportation, this change must be open to everybody, just, and focused on people. Key stakeholders should be recognised by the government as collaborators in developing and executing programs, policies, and solutions linked to urban mobility. It is not sufficient to just confer with them on modernisation issues.