The blanket and unyielding ban on the new Uber taxi service is disappointing and ill-advised. Without warning, the Department of Land Transport director-general declared that smartphone-savvy Uber was not established by existing rules. Teerapong Rodprasert's ruling is technically correct. It also is vastly out of touch with everything that is happening in society today, from social media to public demand. That includes the government's own ambition to move to a digital economy.
Uber, for the few still out of touch, provides taxis summoned by smartphone apps. The driver's ID, time and place, pickup and fare all are established. Payment is by card only. Uber's own rules mandate the use of clean, well maintained cars of recent age. Drivers have dress and manners codes.
Mr Teerapong says the new service uses improperly licensed cars and fare structures. What he means, however, is that the licensing and fares of this brand new service are not in line with the department's 20th century regulations. He is technically right. But he is wrong to try to ban Uber instead of adapting to this highly significant change in the public's demand and expectation of taxis.
The futurists and social scientists have invented a term for fast-moving change driven by technology. They call it "creative destruction". There are books on the subject, but in essence, the phrase is simple. Change creates new opportunities, new industries, new ways of thinking. It also destroys and replaces existing businesses, models and even jobs.
Uber is an extreme but prime example of creative destruction. It brings new, unimagined benefits to public transport which almost everyone finds attractive. Getting a taxi involves going out to the street and hoping. Getting an Uber ride involves less time, spent on a smartphone app in the comfort of home, office or coffee shop.
While Uber gives, it also destroys. On the positive side, Uber takes away the sometimes dangerous anonymity of the taxi driver, and the uncertainty of whether a taxi driver will even agree to take you where you want to go.
But Uber also destroys many part-time job opportunities. If Uber prevails, the days of the taxi garage and monopoly owners are numbered, costing more jobs. If Uber and similar services triumph, the days of seeing numerous taxis plying the streets seeking customers will become nostalgia.
None of the negative results justify the ruling by the Department of Land Transport. Director-general Teerapong acted hastily, without consultation. The emergence of this service for Bangkokians requires serious input, not offhand opinions. The public reaction to Mr Teerapong's ruling proves he should have proceeded at a more serious pace.
The ultimate goal of the public and Mr Teerapong should be to bring Uber into public service. Otherwise, the impression forms of an old-style "dinosaur" resisting technology.
There is plenty of evidence that the public sees Uber as a positive development. Since that is the case, the new taxi service will either survive as an underground industry, or as a bright new development, merging taxi rides and social media in a new, attractive manner.
The Ministry of Transport, currently under Air Chief Marshal Prajin Juntong, has a brief opportunity to both get the Uber decision right, and set bright, imaginative and helpful precedents. There is no doubt Uber and similar services must be under regulation. But because nothing like Uber ever has existed, the minister and the Department of Land Transport have to consider new ways to help the country adopt the new services it overwhelmingly demands.