The Association for the Improvement of Mass Transit (Transit) highly regrets the government's recent involvement in pressuring RapidKL to abolish the widely accepted all-day pass fare system for buses (which was implemented since Sept 1, 2009).

The directive, which is supposed to make RapidKL's competitors happy, is a serious drawback in overhauling our public transport system to be capable in meeting the needs of the future. One of the core criteria of an effective public transport system is the ability to maximise transit interchange possibilities of various public transport modes (bus, rail, etc) to efficiently move a large number of people to reach their intended destinations faster and easier.

We have witnessed during the pre-RapidKL era that point-to-point travelling (where one mode of public transport is expected to carry passengers from their backyards right to the fronts of their workplaces) is counterproductive to commuting convenience and creates havoc to the overall city traffic condition.

RapidKL was on the right track when it introduced the hub-and-spoke system, where bus users have the liberty to transit in between different bus routes to reach their destinations without facing hurdles such as having to pay additional fares.

It is the lack of infrastructural integration to even facilitate fast and easy transit interchanges between different RapidKL bus routes (not to mention seamless integration with other operators and with different transit modes) and the lack of proper support systems to prevent the buses from being bogged down by the existing traffic bottlenecks that cause the commuters to shun RapidKL buses despite the attractive RM2 all-day fare.

Instead of addressing these root problems, the government has chose to bow to the pressures of other operators and make RapidKL more unattractive to the masses by asking RapidKL to follow the fare structure of the other inefficient operators.

Although these bus operators do not have access to taxpayer's money as RapidKL do, the government cannot assume RapidKL has an unfair advantage with their low fare pricing structure. The other operators are guilty in delivering the same poor quality of service, and the government is guilty for failing to provide the necessary infrastructure and support systems, both of which evidently perpetuate the condition of the pre-RapidKL commuting environment.

Instead of pressuring RapidKL, the government would do justice to the commuting public if it is to provide equal funding opportunity for other operators and demand certain solid achievements of transit performance targets in return.

The High Court has set Sept 30 as the date to decide on a judicial review application by Metrobus to pressure the CVLB to enforce the same rates of fare to RapidKL.

It is hoped the government will realise that public-funded public transport is a right for every individual whose livelihood is affected by traffic congestion. To force RapidKL's fare and operational structure to streamline that of other bus operators is equal to allowing the pre-RapidKL commuting environment to persist, and hence to deny the citizens of Klang Valley of their mobility rights.

Public transport investment (which is more accurate than the term 'subsidy') is imperative to negate all negative externalities associated with lessening quality of urban life as a result of dependency on private vehicles.

Without the public sector's lead, public transport will remain unattractive to the masses as it is natural for private investors to avoid from absorbing the costs of setting up proper support systems needed to match the convenience that private transportation offers.

A single occupancy vehicle driver takes up more public-funded traveling space than a passenger in a fully-seated bus, and hence eats a much bigger portion of the government's coffers. It is time for the government to face up to the reality and decide who is the boss: the stakeholders of the resulting commuting environment or the shareholders of any particular profit-making commuting operator.