HELPING THE PEOPLE OR THE CRONIES? Why make car inspection mandatory?

The authority has been mulling over the feasibility of introducing the "end of life vehicle (ELV) policy" and it would be included in the latest revision of National Automotive Policy (NAP) to be announced by year end if found feasible.

Once the ELV is implemented, the government might make it mandatory for vehicles aged five years and above to undergo inspection annually or biennially. It is actually old wine in a new bottle and questionable.

The government has long been trying to seek solutions for the vehicle inspection and old vehicle scrapping issues. The government proposed to scrap vehicles aged 15 years and above in 2006, giving the reasons to revitalise domestic cars and reduce road accident rates, but the proposal was rejected by the people.

Later, the NAP that took effect on 1 January 2010 mandated that vehicles aged 15 years or above to undergo inspection before renewing road tax, paving the way for the implementation of old vehicle scrapping policy. The proposal to mandate vehicles aged 15 years or above to undergo inspection or be scrapped was shelved due to the strong opposition from the public and an even stronger wave of opposition is expected if they really want to impose the mandate on vehicles aged five years this time.

As an official said, the ELV only mandates vehicles aged five years and above to undergo inspection and they would not be scrapped even if vehicles aged 10 years or above fail the inspection.

If it is really the case, then what is the purpose or significant for the government to implement the ELV? If it is meant to ensure road safety, the performance and condition of vehicles aged five years are generally still good and most vehicles do undergo regular maintenance. Wouldn't it be superfluous to impose the mandate?

There are about 11 million vehicles, including commercial vehicles, in the country, implementing the mandate could affect as many as 10 million vehicles. Does the government has sufficient corresponding measures for it?

Consider the people's interests

The government must consider the interests of the general public before implementing any policies. It is understandable to make old vehicle inspection a mandate to ensure road safety but they should set the vehicle age at 20 years or above, and those pass the inspection can be allowed on road while those failing the inspection should be scrapped, or the mandate will be meaningless. Imposing the mandate on vehicles aged five years will inevitably lead to speculations like benefiting some particular parties.

The PUSPAKOM is the only vehicle inspection centre in the country and has completely monopolised the market. All commercial vehicles are currently required to undergo inspections every six months and if 10 million vehicles aged five years and above are required to undergo inspections, are there enough inspection centres to meet the demand? In fact, there have been complaints about the PUSPAKOM, including efficiency, fraud and abuse of power. The government should consider setting up more inspection centres to avoid corruption practices.

The government must take into account the feasibility, efficiency and possible impacts of a policy before it is implemented. The NAP has been amended for several times over the years, causing not only the involved parties difficult to adapt to it, but have also been greatly affecting vehicle owners.

The original intention of the vehicle inspection policy is good, but if it is not executed properly, it will increase the burden of the people.

Vehicles are necessary means of transport for everyday life and most vehicles are aged 10 years and above. In rural areas, particularly in villages of Sabah and Sarawak, vehicles aged 15 years and above can be found everywhere.

If the policy is implemented, the middle and lower classes are bond to bear the brunt.

mysinchew