Press Statement 
by DAP MP for Kota Melaka, Kerk Kim Hock
 in Petaling Jaya 
on Monday, July 01, 2002



Legality of Police 's action in imposing double penalty on motorists: Call on the Attorney General Datuk Abdul Ghani to clarify and act 


On 19.6.2002, I had, in my parliamentary adjournment speech, questioned the legality of the Police's action in imposing an additional RM 300 fine on motorists under Section 115(1) (a) of the 1987 Road Transport Act on the ground that these motorists have not provided the drivers' particulars to the Police within 7 days from the date of receiving the traffic offence notification (POL 170A notices).

I had argued that in the POL170 A traffic offence notifications sent to motorists, it has been clearly stated that registered owners of the motor vehicle who did not commit the offence as stated are REQUESTED to furnish the drivers' particulars to the Police in compliance with section 115 (1) (a) of the 1987 Road Transport Act. This therefore automatically means that registered owners who admit that they are offenders at the time of the offence are not required to furnish particulars of drivers to the Police within 7 days after receiving the notices. Hence, the Police 's action in penalizing these motorists for failing to furnish the driver's particulars is without basis, unreasonable and illegal.

I had said that if the Police could impose an additional RM 300 fine on motorists in this manner, then nearly all the several million motorists who have settled their compound, even promptly, will have to pay the additional penalty because of their failure to provide the drivers" particulars, which in effect are their own particulars, to the Police within 7 days after receiving the notices.

The deputy Home Minister, Datuk Chor Chee Heong in reply to my speech, said:

" Untuk makluman Yang Berhormat, dalam Borang "A' yang dikepilkan bersama bersama dengan Borang "B', Notis Polis 170 yang di hantar kepada pesalah sebagai tawaran kompaun jelas menunjukkan perkatan " tuan punya" atau " pemandu".

Perkataan tuan punya atau pemandu boleh juga di takrifkan sebagai pemilik berdaftar ataupun sesiapa yang memandu kenderaan pada masa kesalahan berlaku. Ini adalah persoalan tafsiran dan interpretasi undang undang. Maka demi kebaikan dan keselesaan rakyat, persoalan tafsiran dan interpretasi adalah di rujuk terlebih dahulu oleh pihak polis kepada Jabatan Peguam Negara. Ini adalah untuk mendapatkan jawapan yang tepat keatas persoalan berkaitan interpretasi dan tafsiran mengikut undang undang."

Since Datuk Chor has said in the august House that the Police have to obtain a clear interpretation of the words " tuan punya and pemandu " from the Attorney General's office, I call on the Attorney General, Datuk Abdul Ghani to come out with a public statement as soon as possible.

As Police's statistics have shown that more than 10,000 motorists have been slapped with the additional RM 300 summonses, the Attorney General should also immediately direct the Police to:

1.. suspend all summon processes so that those who fail to pay the RM 300 compound offer will not face court action until the Attorney General has given his view on the matter 
2.. stop issuing new summonses under section 115 (1) (a) of the 1987 Road Transport Act since the legality of such Police's action has been questioned and the Attorney General's views are being sought. 

I maintain my view that part B of the POL 170 A traffic offence notification has clearly stated that registered owners of the motor vehicle who have admitted that they are the offenders don't have to furnish the drivers' particulars, that is, their own particulars. As such, it is wrong and illegal for the Police to impose on them an additional RM 300 compound on the ground that they have not complied with section 115 (1) (a) of the 1987 Road Transport Act.

If the purpose of part B of POL170 A notices is to ensure that all offenders, whether registered owners or drivers, need to furnish their particulars, then the authorities will certainly and simply word it in such a way which clearly say that offenders will have to provide the particulars.