I was disappointed to read that the state government of Terengganu is having trouble deciding about what to do with the proposed Rapid Terengganu service. Sadly, this is another example of how the government, while meaning well, may end up making serious mistakes in public transportation, often because they do not consult other stakeholders (operators and users) in the industry.

The state government of Terengganu, like many governments, has failed to clearly state what kind of public transport industry it wishes to have. The government wants to provide better public transport services but the proposed Rapid Terengganu (government-owned and operated) would compete with existing privately-operated bus services. The state government could keep the operators happy by focusing on the social routes - but then the government ends up operating money-losing routes while the private operators are allowed to profit.

Is that a fair situation? Why should the privately-owned corporations get the opportunity to profit while the government-owned (public-owned) corporations are making losses?

Malaysia needs to find a system of public transport that benefits all sides - government, operator and consumer.

The sate government made the mistake of going ahead with the purchase of the buses without going through detailed consultation with operators and the public. Now they are stuck with buses that they have paid for, and no opportunity for them to profit or recover the cost of purchasing the buses.

They can lease the buses out to their own government departments but the buses might not have the appropriate design. Since the public was not consulted in the purchase of the buses, we do not know if they are appropriately designed, urban-friendly, and most of all, universally accessible.

There is a solution that can be applied. The state government can set up a local public transport authority and take over control of all of the bus routes in the state, then offer them to private operators on contract for a period of three to five years. Since the routes would be on contract, the state government would retain control over routes.

With a limited contract period there could be a guarantee of service for that time. If the operator successfully meets expectations, they might get the contract again. If they do not meet expectations they face the loss of the contract to a competing operator. This system would allow the government and the operator and the consumer to benefit.

Since the buses would be owned by the state, there would be security for all stakeholders as well. It would create a stable and reliable public transport service which would benefit consumers, reduce congestion, and increase economic growth.

The operator would not have to worry about the capital costs of purchasing the buses, they would only need to worry about operating and maintaining them. The state would own the buses and they could be re-used under future contracts. If one operator is found to be in breach of contract, the state government can take back the buses and offer a contract to another bus operator.

It is a win, win, win situation. Unfortunately, this effective regulatory structure would not be allowed because the federal government views public transport operators as a business for private operators only.

That is why TRANSIT (the Association for the Improvement of Mass-Transit, Klang Valley) calls upon the commercial vehicle licensing board and the state government of Terengganu to implement a local public transport authority in the state, re-organise bus services and allow everyone to win.