How about the local assemblers?
Will the "Jeepney Modernisation" program
revive and promote them?
By Kat Ulrike
It’s been weeks passed as jeepney drivers and operators welcomed the new year with continued calls for the junking of the “modernisation program”, those who support the program, especially big businesses, are already taking advantage of the loss of traditional jeepney units by importing new “modern jeepneys” to that of investing in electric vehicle companies in the country.
The modernization program for jeepneys aims to swap out outdated vehicles with safer, more eco-friendly models. While it's true that a large number of conventional jeepneys emit smoke, others are already unsafe for the road, in disrepair, and frequently the reason for accidents.
But to put these jeepney drivers' livelihoods in jeopardy? That isn't modernization since the absence of inclusion demonstrates that the program serves the interests of the wealthy at the expense of passengers, drivers, operators, and assemblers. It's true that the government has to modernize the jeepney fleet; however, this needs to happen in a fair, inclusive manner that benefits all the sectors impacted by the program, and that includes helping local automakers produce better, safer, and more effective vehicles.
Speaking of the program, how about the local assemblers?
Ever since the program has been approved, it became an object of discussion, if not debate whether the program should prioritise local assemblers over that of importers. There were many models offered by local assemblers ranging from locally-assembled minibuses to that of modernised jeepneys. The latter, which most drivers find it well-maintained, find it affordable as opposed to the imported minibuses promoted by the authorities. However, this modernisation program prioritises much of downsizing public utility transport using “consolidation” through corporations and “cooperatives” in order for them to gain modern public utility vehicles courtesy of- importers and supported by bureaucrats.
But how about the local assemblers who offered sound alternatives to expensive, imported vehicles promoted by bureaucrats? According to the Collegian article, PISTON Women's Mira Molino said that there are local manufacturers capable of creating modern vehicles, but these are controlled by foreign owned companies- that according to the Philippine Economic Zone Authority, two Chinese, one American, and one Indonesian-owned enterprise are interested in selling contemporary jeeps in support of the modernisation program.
Some local businesses, though, have made the decision to support the majority. As jeepney modernisation continues to be debated, it becomes an issue for local assemblers to assert their role in improving that said transport system. Especially in a state wherein favours the importers or foreign makers than that of the local assemblers, it is obvious for the current order in having a particular way of "using" or "restricting" them with definite reasons to justify. But, regardless of the order’s skeptical replies, these establishments are open to participating in a transition toward modernizing public transit networks that is equitable, inclusive, and sustainable- for as drivers and operators sought to maintain their means of support and commuters sought reasonably priced transportation, these jeepney assemblers sought to safeguard their businesses even it requires adhering to government regulations regarding the installation of modern engines, and better interiors, to that of air conditioning and surveillance cameras.
In an instance, Francisco Motors created an electric, updated jeepney that adheres to modern standards while maintaining the exterior design of a conventional jeepney. Furthermore, the company also offered a budget-friendly alternative to the government’s “modernisation program” that meant more debts to drivers and operators.
As according to an article in the Philippine Star, Elmer Francisco assured jeepney drivers of financing options with his company's TsuperHero Program.
"With the TsuperHero Program of Francisco Motors, jeepney operators no longer need to borrow money from banks to buy our jeepneys because we have a much better program for them of which they will even earn more than what they are already earning," he said, adding that as of the moment, they are prioritizing their "own jeepney operators who have already consolidated with Francisco Motors before the December 31, 2023 deadline." Francisco said.
"Other than these, we have already received Letters of Intent to purchase of over 37,500 units from various transport cooperatives and corporations of which we have already received over 1,300 units of purchase orders out of the 37,500 to date," Francisco shared.
For compared to the existing modern jeepneys that costs P1.6 million to P2.4 million, Francisco's jeepney costs approximately P1.8 million less for the first 1,000 units ($985,000). The decreased price provides jeepney operators, drivers, and cooperatives with an inexpensive opportunity to participate in the government's Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP) without incurring debt.
Francisco also sells his e-jeepneys for a P50,000 down payment per unit, with flexible monthly payments of roughly P20,000 per month for only 32 months, as the government already gives an equity subsidy of P280,000 per unit under the PUVMP.
Will bureaucrats change minds for this?
Even some bureaucrats expressed the need to support local assemblers like Francisco if the government is serious in its attempt for modernisation. For as the government urges drivers and operators to update their jeepneys, Albay 2nd District Joey Salceda proposed in 2023 that first enough support be provided to local jeepney producers, stating that Filipino-made vehicles may be efficient and environmentally friendly.
In an article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the congressman explained his suggestion on the needs of jeepney modernisation:
“I would summarize my proposal in three points: First, support domestic manufacturing of more modern and more efficient, but similarly stylish jeepneys. Second, increase the subsidy per unit to meet the financial viability gap. Third, buy out old jeepneys for cash,” Salceda said.
“If we can bring the cost of the unit to P600,000 to P1 million, that becomes more realistic for both the jeepney operator, and on a cost-benefit basis. I think the domestic manufacturing sector can do it. But we need to support them,” he added.
Senator Tulfo also expressed support in encouraging local assemblers for the modernisation program as he criticises imported minibuses from China. In an article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the senator questioned the decision to import the vehicles from China at a high cost, claiming that the PUVMP "reeks of corruption" because a local jeepney manufacturer could produce the identical units for much less.
“Our waters in the West Philippine Sea are already being claimed by China. Are we even going to allow them to take over our roads as well?!” Tulfo said, criticising China’s involvement.
The senator also observed that imported jeepneys from China cost P2.6 to P2.9 million per unit, which is far more expensive than brand new units from local manufacturers, who can produce modernized jeepneys for only P900,000 to P985,000 each.
He went on to say that choosing a local manufacturer over a Chinese company will save the government around P1.7 million per unit.
Not surprising that there are those who are patriotic enough to encourage local assemblers to engage in the venture. Salceda's suggestion of letting the government buy old jeepneys may sound enticing for drivers in order to buy new locally-made jeepneys, while Tulfo's call for prioritising local assemblers provide opportunities in locally-made transport systems but also to revisit the local manufacturing program that's stalled thanks to neoliberalism and cheap infux of secondhand vehicles and spare parts.
To some would say the attempt by local assemblers as costly in comparison to importing. After all, "importing is cheaper" as what they perceive if not importing vehicles will compel local assemblers to “compete” despite having less support from the state nor having no national efforts in industrialising the country. But if one may ask, when was the time the country was serious in undertaking a goal of domestic based development particularly through industrialisation? PUV modernisation is more than just promoting and encouraging local assemblers to create modern transport, but rather as part of the will to pursue industrialisation in order to foster further innovation as to support local needs and effect economic emancipation. Oligarchs and banksters beg to disagree on this given their contentment in commerce and trade- and that includes keeping the country agricultural, resource-extracting, services, and even remittances.
Honestly speaking, these bureaucrats stated in this note and its concern can also be part rhetoric as the entire establishment chose to continue with that controversial program with or without heeding from the affected sectors- for industrialisation was and is, still seen as a stumbling block into their view of development as succeeding administrations failed to harness further industry for the growing country.
This note may talked about modernising public transport and the role of a still small local "industry" that's willing to engage in that venture, what more the desire to go even further?
Still, the need for modernisation should be just and inclusive
Once more, transportation groups are not opposed to the plan to "modernize" public utility vehicles, rather, they are opposed to the "questionable" schemes that initially justified the plan as "anti-poor," such as mandating the replacement of all traditional jeepneys with the justification that "these are no longer working" and the new models—mostly imported or made by large corporations—that bureaucrats are pushing are too costly for these low-income driver-operators. These parties are willing to improve the current jeepneys in order to make them more environmentally friendly and fuel-efficient, if not actively pushing local assemblers to offer more reasonably priced, superior local options to the pricy imports that officials supported. While Francisco, Sarao, and others are prepared to offer their own versions, the real question is whether the government would back local efforts in keeping with its election-year pledge to advance national development at the local level?
In addition, the government's idea of "cooperatives" may seem like a good way to justify consolidation by offering promises of higher pay and benefits, but as was mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, some drivers are dissatisfied with the program, seeing their enrollment result in nothing but losses in terms of money and meager earnings. These operators and drivers who pooled their funds to purchase these pricey "modern jeepneys" won't even be the proprietors of the vehicles. They therefore see no benefit from a phony "cooperative," but that plan, as insisted by the authorities compels single-unit operators to give up their means of subsistence since it takes away their route franchises, which go to large corporations and "transport cooperatives" as they risk having their franchises revoked for being "colorum" or unregistered.
How about the local assemblers like Francisco, Sarao, and others who offered just alternatives to the exorbitantly-priced imported “modern jeepneys”? The government may’ve heed their responses, however, this doesn’t mean they affirm, let alone treated as an “option” as bureaucrats chose to side with the importers/or foreign companies (in cahoots wit local bigwigs) that able to “set up shop” with their expensive modern public utility vehicles. Furthermore, local assemblers are willing to create sound developments as they themselves able to to build, refurbish, and run vehicles- so is the capability to dismantle, recycle, and recreate according to the country’s needs. Remember- the country remains stagnant in its quest for industrialisation and it becomes necessary for these small and medium scale industries to be supported by the state in order to harness further creativity and growth. True what Brian James Lu said in an article from the Philippine News Agency that he presumes “the jeepneys shall be considered scrap and junk and we have hundreds of thousands of jeepneys.” The question is, will the modern jeepneys manufactured locally be affordable for the drivers who should replace their “scrap-level” ones? At what price will the government to buy these old jeepneys for the drivers to buy new ones? And, will these scrap/recycling facilities provide jobs and support efforts in developing new and modern transport systems or creating sustainable use of materials for various purposes? Scrap metal is still metal anyway.
Overall, these worried sectors would remark that, despite articulating simple desires such as preserving their right to livelihood, they sought an alternative to something imposed rather than negotiated and agreed. They wished to improve public transportation, but for the sake of truth, why should they insist on the question "at what cost?" For despite the demonstrators' valid requests, advocates of the program continue to believe that everyone who disagrees should be labeled as anti-environment, anti-commuter, or even subversive and seditious. To these supporters, the government's program is merely an order to follow, by force if necessarily, regardless of the desires of those who oppose it for a fair, inclusive program and the switch to contemporary public transportation. They would even go so far as to call all traditional jeepney drivers and operators "smoke belchers," and others "already decrepit and not roadworthy and are frequently the causes of accidents."
But will the establishment’s view prevail over those who are affected and concerned? Which is which?