Coordination issues with multiple agencies

The existence of multiple, uncoordinated agencies was cited as one of the critical reasons for needing a single transport authority. Almost all the respondents highlighted the existence of multiple agencies under different ministries with divergent goals as the stumbling block for coordinated work, and they had various perspectives and ideas about how to deal with this issue. Two areas which require improvement were cited: first, the coordination between agencies needed to produce effective outputs, and

second, the integration of public transport modes to provide seamless travel for commuters.

Seven respondents from a variety of categories pointed out that there were thirteen or fourteen agencies with jurisdiction over land public transport that have different functions and interests, and that they work to achieve their own objectives with little consideration for what others are trying to achieve.

Two respondents from the government sector with research backgrounds (G2 and G14) said that the absence of an overall policy for transport was an obstacle to the development of effective transport initiatives because there were no policy statements setting priorities or directions that these agencies could use for guidance in planning their strategies and initiatives.

Stakeholders that have different needs and perceptions of the existing problems have thus come to believe that the creation of a transport authority may help ameliorate some of their difficulties. The respondents from EPU wanted a dedicated planning branch for public transport that could also evaluate proposals before forwarding recommendations to them for final approval. Although EPU has been involved in planning and coordination work for land public transport matters, one of the EPU respondents pointed out that this was not an easy process because of the presence of multiple agencies under different ministries that were difficult to bring together on a common platform. Respondents G3, G4, G16, O1 and O2 asserted that there was a lack of overall connectivity between the transport modes and that the different modes had to be brought together under one agency.

On the other hand, the operators wanted a one-stop centre to handle licensing and enforcement issues to cut down on the time they had to spend dealing with different agencies in handling land transport matters. Similar views about the time-consuming nature of interactions with other agencies were also expressed by the former INSPAK committee members (G3 and O1), who were behind the idea of the Klang Valley Urban Transport Authority in 2004. They wanted a single regulator for the newly established government-linked transport companies PRASARANA and Rapid KL, so that these companies would only need to deal with one body for operational matters. It was felt that the single regulator should have all the responsibilities and functions for regulating licenses. One INSPAK member commented:

“Meanwhile, how to make it really work more efficient and effective? Is to have this one stop authority because, even while we were doing the rail and bus integration, consolidation and operations, we had, we knew the problems – we had to go to CVLB for this and that, we had to go to DOR for other matters, then we have to go to the local authorities City Hall, MPPJ, MPSJ so, so many agencies to work with you know, at one point as I said there were twelve or thirteen agencies easily” (respondent O1).

There were two main streams of thought among respondents regarding the best way for improving coordination: that the existing institutional structure could be strengthened without having to create a new authority, and that creating a dedicated body for transport was the only way out.

Three respondents (G2, G8 and G14) did not support the creation of SPAD, and suggested that either developing coordination at the ministerial level or reforming the CVLB were the best options for improvement. One of them said that coordination issues could be improved by creating a high-level permanent committee overseen by the Prime Minister. This respondent believed that the single transport authority model that has been successfully used in developed cities may not be suitable for Malaysia where it is extremely difficult to transfer powers of existing agencies to one umbrella body. Respondent G8, representing MOT, rejected the idea of merging Department of Railway (DOR) with SPAD, arguing that the problems were only with the road transport and not rail, and thus that mergers should only focus on agencies dealing with road transport. Respondent G14 cautioned that although many parties tend to blame the presence of multiple agencies with overlapping jurisdictions for a lack of coordination and view the solution to be the creation of a single champion who could bring these agencies together, no specific studies had been commissioned to prove this claim. He suggested that this was seen as unnecessary because the answers were already known and the solutions readily available.

Those who supported the creation of a dedicated transport authority felt that it should be an authority rather than just a coordinating committee.

Respondents O3 and G16 strongly rejected the idea that a coordinating committee would be sufficient, saying that an authority with adequate power was necessary to make things happen quickly. A coordinating committee model was tried in Malaysia with INSPAK in 2004. According to the ex-members of INSPAK, this committee’s success was hindered because it did not have legislative backing or the formal authority to direct other agencies, and so had to rely on strong political backing from the Finance Minister.

Although transferring all the transport powers and responsibilities to the MOT could solve the coordination issues without the need to create a brand new agency, this was not possible under the existing political structure. An ex-member of INSPAK explained that it would not be desirable to transfer all the responsibilities of these agencies to the MOT because the MOT could then become too powerful, leading to political conflicts and power struggles for the minister’s post (also see section 6.5.2.1). Hence, creating a new agency was seen as the best solution available at that point in time.