The news that two hundred and fifty minibus drivers and conductors from five coastal routes (Regions 3,4,5,6 and 7) “have recently benefitted from training in the areas of hospitality, first aid, tyre & fire safety, life & vehicle insurance, and defensive driving” would have come as a surprise to sizeable sections of the commuting population, though any initiative that seeks to retrieve this sector from the dire state in which it finds itself is welcome. Accordingly, the Stabroek Business wishes first, to congratulate the organisers of the exercise; the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Guyana Police Force, the Guyana National Road Safety Council, and the United Minibus Union.
Our particular concern, however, has to do with whether, what presumably is an effort to raise service standards, targets the right issues. Did the training exercise target for example, the critical importance of breaking the shackles of the relationship between bribe-taking policemen and minibus crews who have, on account of their connections, immunised themselves from penalty, whatever their traffic-related offence might be? And did the exercise, moreover, discuss the dire need to set requirements for working in the sector that include verifiable and impeccable character references, special identity cards to be produced on demand and the requirement of periodic checks to ensure that members of minibus crews are indeed honest, hard-working individuals whose only interest is in earning a legal living? And except all and sundry, including the upper echelons of the Guyana Police Force can accept the irrefutable reality of bribe-offering and bribe-taking as part of the minibus ‘culture’, the problems it engenders is likely to persist.
Part of the dilemma, and sometimes the trainers neglect to face this reality, is that the training is frequently delivered on the basis of a pre-set curriculum culled from manuals of one sort or another rather than being based on an understanding of the particular problems that gave rise to the need for training in the first place. In the context of the public transport service, the reality is that the standard of service-provision offered by minibus crews is unlikely to improve markedly, however much training there is, unless the trainers are prepared to tackle and seek to eradicate the scourge of corruption involving some policemen and minibus crews.
It really makes no sense in us railing against law breakers in circumstances where those responsible for enforcement are largely ineffective.
We are told that the training exercise is linked to efforts to effectively implement the provisions of the Mini Bus Code of Conduct promulgated earlier this year. The Code, it will be recalled, came on the back of a seemingly unstoppable downward spiral in service quality in the sector and several months after its implementation there is no persuasive evidence that the situation has improved. In fact, while some minibus crews do run disciplined operations, there are others, many others, who do not appear to be, either by personal disposition or social orientation, disposed to good order in any way, shape or fashion. From that perspective, while one naturally hopes that we get the best possible results from training initiatives like the recent one, the sense of cynicism that may well be part of the public response is, unfortunately, well-merited.
Here again, we believe that our Business Support Organisations (BSO’s) ought to be vocal in their support for commuters by addressing this issue publicly and in all of its dimensions. As we have asserted on quite a few occasions, it really makes no sense in us railing against law breakers in circumstances where some of those responsible for enforcement are themselves part of the problem.
There are other equally important considerations here. For example, one may well wonder, whether, given their role as service providers in a sector that saddles them with a high degree of responsibility for the safety and well-being of ‘consumers,’ character-related credentials (including verifiable recommendations from persons generally known to be mindful of their own reputations) accompanied by diligent background checks ought not to be among the criteria for working in the sector. After all, is it not a fact that members of minibus crews have been linked to a range of crimes, serious crimes, even in the course of the delivery of their substantive services and is it not, therefore, worth the trouble, to seek to determine as far as possible, the extent to which the service providers in the sector can be trusted with that level of responsibility?
All of this, it would seem, is eminently possible, given the fact that public transport, and particularly minibuses, benefit from constant monitoring by the Police Traffic Department, a circumstance that positions the police to run regular checks on the bona fides of crews through documentation which they should be required to have on their persons once they are on duty.
In its release on the training exercise, the Ministry of Business asserted that the purpose of the initiative was to bolster the high quality of service which is expected to be provided by minibus operators… as outlined in the Minibus Code of Conduct which was annunciated earlier this year. Frankly, while that is all well and good, the fact is that the ‘high quality of service’ in the sector to which the Ministry of Business aspires is, in large measure, non-existent. Beyond that, there exists no persuasive evidence up to this time that the provisions of the Minibus Code of Conduct pertaining to service quality are being implemented to any discernable extent. Here, we believe that collusion between service providers and law enforcement functionaries coupled with the inherent structural weaknesses of the Minibus Association may well be among the factors that militate against effective implementation of the Code. Beyond that, as has already been mentioned, there is a need to continue to search for ways of ensuring that, as far as possible, service in the public transport sector is provided by operators who, by disposition and training that has to begin long before they sit behind the wheel of a minibus or engage commuters, are possessed of a sense of their responsibility to the public that they serve. This means that reasonable criteria for serving in the sector must be set and, equally important, enforced.
There is no good reason why the relevant state and other suitably equipped entities should not design an intensive course (lasting about a week) and for which participants should pay, that covers those areas that are critical to effective service delivery. The outcomes of these should form part of the criteria for aspirants providing service in the public transport sector. Whatever else is done, to continue to provide an open and largely unmonitored door through which anyone wishing to work in the public transport sector can pass without hindrance, is to continue to entertain the lawlessness that prevails in the sector.
