Consistency in enforcement — Chandra Mohan Sinnandavar

JUNE 22 — The recent LRT derailment in Kuala Lumpur was a reminder of how quickly public transport incidents can escalate. Fortunately, no passengers were injured, unlike the 2021 crash near KLCC that left around 200 people hurt.

The Ministry of Transport quickly promised stern action. In due course, procedures will lead to recommendations and possible penalties. The focus so far has been on recommendations and penalties. This differs from the approach often taken against smaller transport companies. A recent notice from APAD showed that 84 transport companies were notified of proposed enforcement actions, most expected to receive licence suspensions of one to two months. A licence suspension means the entire company is completely barred from operating.

If implemented, around 2,000 drivers and their families would have their livelihoods affected for months. Company owners face cancelled orders, unfulfilled contracts and reputational losses. Even after suspension is lifted, customers may have shifted elsewhere, leaving lasting damage.

One might reasonably ask whether the same standard would be applied to LRT operators as to SME transport companies. Historically, it has not. Suspending a rail service would disrupt hundreds of thousands of commuters, affect the Klang Valley economy and risk political backlash. The government recognises these wider costs and acts accordingly. The question is whether smaller transport companies might deserve similarly balanced consideration.

Road transport receives no such consideration. The companies now facing suspension move goods that stock our shops and transport us. Their drivers perform an essential function, just as rail operators do. Yet the disruption from suspending road transport is dispersed across many businesses, making it less visible and more politically tolerable. Regulators may therefore impose severe penalties on smaller operators without facing the same public consequences as major transport systems.

This is not a call for rail operators to be suspended. Rather, it is an appeal for consistency. If suspension is considered too blunt for rail operators due to wider economic costs, the same consideration should reasonably be extended to road transport.

APAD's role

If safety is the objective, enforcement alone is insufficient. APAD must also help the industry improve. Prevention is often more effective than punishment. Improving safety requires sustained engagement with operators, sector expertise and a genuine understanding of commercial pressures such as narrow margins and intense competition.

When regulation focuses primarily on punishment, a gap emerges. After an operator fails, the regulator can rightly say the law was enforced. The harder question is whether sufficient guidance was provided to prevent that failure in the first place.

Perhaps what is needed is an expansion of APAD's role beyond enforcement. Alongside its existing mandate, APAD could also be tasked with guiding and nurturing the transport industry. This would not weaken its authority to act when necessary. Rather, it would give operators a clearer path towards compliance before penalties become unavoidable. A regulator that both sets standards and helps the industry meet them is ultimately more effective at protecting public safety.

The limitations of blanket suspension

A blanket suspension, once implemented, would create three problems.

First, it would affect livelihoods without addressing root causes. Drivers paid per trip would still face pressure to speed, and struggling companies would continue cutting maintenance because the underlying economics would remain unchanged.

Second, it would fall hardest on those least able to absorb the impact. Large customers would shift loads to other operators, many of whom face the same pressures. The result would not be a safer industry, but one that fears enforcement while the original problems persist.

Third, it would allow the system itself to escape scrutiny. Focusing solely on punishment avoids the harder work of reform: raising driver wages above the national minimum, establishing transport rates that support safe operations, and ensuring safety takes precedence over delivery penalties.

Unlike many industries, transport companies operate on public roads under constant scrutiny. The actions of a few rogue employees, a momentary lapse or even unintended negligence can have serious consequences for an otherwise legitimate company, its employees and the policymakers tasked with responding.

This issue is not about blaming drivers, operators or policymakers. Sustainable safety improvements require a broader approach that addresses not just non-compliance but the economic and operational conditions behind it. Effective regulations must protect public safety without letting enforcement become a substitute for meaningful industry development and prevention.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.