http://dapmalaysia.org  
New traffic offence notifications: Requirement for all vehicle registered owners to furnish driver’s particulars within 7 days unnecessary and impractical 

 
Media Statement
by Kerk Kim Hock

(Petaling Jaya, Thusday): Two days ago, DAP leaders, namely, Sdr Tan Kok Wai (MP –Cheras), Sdr Fong Kui Lun, Sdr Anthony Loke (DAPSY National Secretary) and myself met the Federal Traffic Chief Senior Asst Commissioner Koh Hong Sun and his officers to discuss various matters, including the anxiety caused to the public by the new format of traffic offence notification.  

The Police have, two moths ago, introduced a new notice with a new format.  Although the part where it continues to offer lower penalty payment to the motorists does not create any controversy, the section on the requirement to furnish drivers’ particulars ahs caused anxiety to the public.

 

In the new notice, the section on the requirement to furnish drivers’ particulars read as follows:

 

“ Under paragraph 115 (1) (a) of the Road Transport Act 1987, you as the registered owner of the motor vehicle bearing the registration number……………… are hereby requested within SEVEN (7) DAYS from the date of this notice (marked *) to give information on the Space Below as to the identity, address and particulars of the driving license of the person who was driving the said motor vehicle on the date, time and place mentioned above and return the same to the address (marked **) below:”

 

Another relevant paragraph states:

 

“ Failure on your part to give the above information as required within SEVEN (7) DAYS from the date of this notice (marked *) constitutes an offence under paragraph 115 (1) (a) of the Road Transport Act 1987 and punishable under subsection 119 (2) of the same Act.”

 

Any recipient of the new notice will take it that they will have to submit the drivers’ particulars to the Police, regardless of whether they have agreed to accept the compound offer and are prepared to settle the compound amount before the deadline given.

 

This is different from the old format which has clearly specified that the vehicle registered owners “ who did not commit the offence “ will have to furnish the drivers’ particulars in accordance with the requirement of section 115 (1) (a) of the 1987 Road Transport Act. 

 

Clearly the Police has made an amendment which is unnecessary and impractical because:

 

  1. the purpose of section 115 (1) (a) is to allow the Police to know the identity of offenders, so where is the need for vehicle owners who are the drivers’ themselves to furnish their own particulars when the Police already have the same particulars (as their particulars are all contained in the traffic offence notices sent to them).
  2. after the vehicle registered owners have admitted that they are the drivers who have committed the offence and have agreed to accept and pay the compound offered, what is the purpose of furnishing the drivers’ details to the Police?
  3. as thousands, or even easily more than a million notices are being issued yearly by the Police, why should the Police create unnecessary administrative workload for themselves in handling replies which have no practical meaning?

Since the absolute majority of the vehicle owners are drivers themselves, I therefore call on the Police to discard the new format which is unnecessary and impractical and revert to the old format of the traffic offence notices where it specifies   that only vehicle owners who have not agreed that they are the offenders must furnish the drivers’ particulars.

 

Through a parliamentary adjournment speech on 19.6.2002, I had challenged the legality of the summons issued under section 115 of the 1987 Road transport Act during Ops Warta II on the ground that in the old format, it was clearly stated that vehicle registered owners who did not commit the offence as stated in the notice were required to furnish the drivers’ particulars within 7 days to the Police.

 

 I contended that this automatically meant that vehicle owners who were drivers themselves need not have to submit any particulars. As such, the Police action in issuing them an additional summon costing RM 300 was wrong.

 

The deputy Home Minister Datuk Chor Chee Heong   replied that as there was confusion with the words “ tuanpunya " and " pemandu “ in the notice, the views of the Attorney General would be sought.

 

Nevertheless, in subsequent replies to my parliamentary questions, the government confirmed that summonses issued under section 115 (1) (a) of the 1987 Road Transport Act have been cancelled or treated as No further Action.

 

On April 7 this year, the Home Minister in a parliamentary reply to me confirmed that a total of 38, 356 summonses issued under section 115 (1) (a) of the 1987 Road Transport Act and which carried a penalty of RM 300 per summon have been cancelled or treated as No Further Action.

 

I wish to state that my ground of challenge was that the Police had wrongly interpreted the legal requirement in the old format and not because the rules were wrong. Hence, the Police should not make any amendment which is totally unnecessary and impractical.


(7/8/2003)

* Kerk Kim Hock, DAP Secretary General & MP for Kota Melaka