Offhand, I can think of the so-called preventive (or punitive?) measure of introducing service charge of Rm50 (for principal cardholder) and Rm25 (for subsidiary cardholder)which would add revenue to the government but outlay to the cardholders. A more appropriate way should exempt the first and only card, making additional ones a luxury.
The proposal to have vehicles over 15 years old to have compulsory vehicle inspection by Puspakom should be greatly resisted. Most people can understand the rationale behind it, but past experience had shown the unreliability of Puspakom in preventing corruption, making it a routine Rm200-250 payment for hassle-free inspection of commercial vehicles which is required every half year. Just imagine the goldmine to Puspakom and its under the counter dealers if this was extended to all vehicles over 15 years! And who are those who had to put up with old vehicles but those who are not well off, as explained by a writer to Malaysiakini.
In Britain, many local repairers are allowed to issue MoT certificates required for vehicles more than 3 years old (if not mistaken) and the system works well because of the trust placed in reputable repairers and the genuine need for replacement or repairs of certain parts vital for proper road use. No monopoly of one.
Most people would agree that major accidents were due to badly maintained commercial vehicles (which escaped the inspection of Puspakom) and drivers who were reckless (those who escaped the test of driving testers) and speed maniacs (poor enforcement)and even those who had too much of alcoholic drinks or drugs or just simply those who did not have sufficient sleep. Education plays an important part as logically, who would wish injuries or even death on oneself by deliberately not maintaining a vehicle?
Link
No comments:
Post a Comment