Solving safety problems for transport companies

THE Transport Ministry through the Land Public Transport Agency (Apad) has notified 84 transport companies of proposed enforcement actions, most of which are expected to result in the suspension of their operator licences and vehicle permits. This move signals a stronger government commitment to road safety.

That said, enforcement alone has limits. Based on conservative estimates, the proposed suspensions could directly affect the livelihoods of around 2,000 drivers and their families in the first month alone, with ripple effects continuing for many months.

Three fundamental areas deserve attention alongside enforcement: drivers’ pay, transport pricing, and integration of safety policies into contracts and daily operations.

1. Drivers’ pay: Many commercial drivers receive a basic salary plus payment per trip or per kilometre travelled. Tying pay mainly to mileage or delivery volume puts safety and driver well-being in conflict with earning a living. A more effective approach would be to raise the minimum wage for commercial drivers above the national minimum wage. Operating heavy vehicles on public roads carries significant responsibilities, and fair compensation should recognise that added burden. It could also help address the industry’s difficulty in finding enough drivers, as the job would become more attractive.

2. Transport pricing: Higher pay for drivers and better safety systems cannot happen unless transport companies remain profitable. Yet, transport rates today are under intense downward pressure due to market competition.

Rates need to support better pay, training, vehicle maintenance and safer operations. A minimum transport rate deserves consideration.

The government regulates employee wages, which often comprise the largest single operating cost for transport companies. However, companies are still expected to survive purely through market competition.

Controlling costs while leaving revenue entirely to market forces may not be socially or economically sustainable, particularly in a sector like transport that directly affects public safety and the wider economy. The government could consider either setting minimum transport rates or creating a regulated system that allows the industry to coordinate pricing under proper oversight.

The liner shipping industry already enjoys certain block exemptions under the Competition Act 2010 for operational coordination and efficiency purposes.

While that exemption is strictly limited to operational efficiency and explicitly prohibits discussions on pricing, it demonstrates that a legal pathway for limited industry coordination under regulatory oversight already exists.

The transport sector may require a different framework, potentially involving pricing mechanisms to support safer operations and sustainability.

The broader legal principle remains that exemptions may be considered where there are clear public or economic benefits.

As the transport industry affects public road safety every day, it deserves similar policy consideration.

The current transport ecosystem is structured such that even a few rogue employees, a momentary lapse in judgment or honest negligence can seriously damage a legitimate transport company, its employees and the policymakers themselves. This places company owners and their drivers at risk of suspension and lost livelihoods.

Unlike many other industries, transport companies operate on public roads under constant public scrutiny. Poor management and rogue employee behaviour occur in every industry, but the transport industry is exposed far more visibly.

This is not simply about blaming drivers or operators. Rather, the industry’s operating environment systematically makes unsafe behaviour more likely.

It is hoped that Apad can manage gross negligence by companies and drivers separately without blanket punishment of one or the other.

CHANDRA MOHAN SINNANDAVAR

Logistics and Supply Chain Professional

Klang