Lame Excuses Given To Justify Another Monopoly - Is this Government So Dense?

As you are well aware, I have deep trepidation when it comes to monopoly. I don't believe in monopoly of power, what more when it comes to business?

So when I hear the Transport Minister excuse for allowing Puspakom to retain its vehicle inspection monopoly for at least another 15 years post 2009, it makes little sense. Apparently, the Puspakom role is so crucial that it cannot take any competition at all as it is highly susceptible to business risk. My question is, why let a wholly owned subsidiary of a profit concern public limited entity i.e. DRB-Hicom run it? Don't DRB-Hicom also run other businesses that are susceptible to business risk? So why is this business specially exempted? And why DRB-Hicom? Why is the Government providing them such protection?

Source: http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/derby/photos/adult1994400.html

If commercial vehicles are required to be inspected every 6 months, inspections done private cars financed by banks and mandatory inspection of vehicles prior to ownership transfers, isn't there a huge demand for such a service considering the amount of vehicles on the road? Interestingly, according to the Star Online article dated 16 May 2007, in 2005, there were 579,520 car ownership transfer transactions conducted. At RM30, that would translate to RM17,385,600 annual revenue earned assuming no change in number of car ownership per annum.

And what about the number of commercial vehicles required for semi-annual compulsory inspection? One can safely assume there are at least 354,412 (total number of new commercial vehicles registered between 2003 to 2007 per AAM). At RM 25 per vehicle undergo inspection every six months, that would easily be another RM17,720,600 revenue being earned per annum. In total, one can safely assume Puspakom makes at least RM35 million revenue per year.

How many individuals and/or companies do we know make this kind of revenue? What more they will be in business as a monopoly for another 17 years (including 2008)? For 17 years, Puspakom is assured of earning guaranteed revenue of at least RM595 million!

Also, the Minister claimed that it is a social responsibility on the part of Puspakom. Again, how is it a social responsibility when the Government forgoes RM595 million income and passing this to a profit driven private concern?

If the Government is serious about regulation, it can regulate the industry by forcing operators of this nature to maintain an acceptable level of standards. Let customers decide which one can serve well and naturally, those that loves to receive complaints and do nothing will definitely go bankrupt. Slapping Puspakom's hands once every two months when you ended up begging them to do your work is not exactly my kind incentive to improve on the quality of services.

I don't know but is it only me who thinks this way?