Recently, Transport Minister Ong Tee Keat selected two companies to be proposed to the cabinet to be awarded the contract to run the Automated Enforcement System’s (AES) Digital Speed Cameras.

It appears that the cabinet was convinced by Ong and awarded the contract worth hundreds of millions ringgit per year to these two companies for a period of five years. Why for five years? Please read on.

Before this, the transport ministry invited companies (Request for Proposal) for a live demo of their ‘Red Light’ and ‘Speed Enforcement’ systems. Six companies participated of which two were selected by Ong.

However sadly, both the systems selected have failed overseas and the parent companies have had to compensate innocent motorists to the tune of millions causing governmental embarrassment and a negative public image.

Below is some information I found about these two systems:

  • These speed cameras in Cyprus were so unreliable that after just 11 months, the government considered canceling the contract. ( Cyprus Mail , 2007)

  • These faulty digital speed cameras in Adelaide, Australia, were recalled. ( The Advertiser , 2006)

  • In Arizona, 589 innocent drivers were sent photo tickets by these cameras ( Thenewspaper.com , 2008)

    • On top of this, the two local companies will not own the intellectual property rights for these security systems. This will result in an outflow of revenue besides the fact that Malaysia may be left in the lurch due to non-performance of foreign third parties.

    Dependence on the foreign providers who own the technologies is too dangerous as in the long term, there is no provision for even a gradual transfer of technology to the two local companies.

    The nature of this service (red light traffic cameras) should not be privatised at all. The predominant purpose of this exercise is to promote road safety, not revenue making. Whereas the main aim of private companies is to maximise profits.

    There is no incentive for these two companies to ensure the effective implementation of AES. If the awareness campaigns run by the ministry and these two companies are successful, resulting in a reduction of the number of motorists going through red lights and speeding, then the revenue for these companies will drop.

    In other words, the two companies are in a clear conflict of interest position. Their main aim is to maximise profit but if they were to do their job properly (that is, if the road safety campaigns are successful), then their profit margin will be reduced.

    Therefore, this type of service is not suitable to be privatised. In addition, in order to maximise income, these companies may resort to unfair means such as placing speed cameras at the bottom of a hill slope to catch even more offenders.

    And why was the contract awarded for five years? Is it to circumvent the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) which is under a different ministry, namely the finance ministry, over which Ong has no control?

    On a related matter, Ong Tee Keat recently appointed Kuan Peng Ching @Kuan Peng Soon who is a director and a substantial shareholder in Hirotako Holdings Bhd to the treasurer’s post in MCA Perak.

    Hirotako is the sole supplier of seat belts for all Proton cars.

    Is it a mere coincidence that the treasurer of Perak MCA happens to be a director and substantial shareholder of Hirotako? Or is there more to it than appears on the surface?

    What was the real reason for Ong to enforce the rear passenger seatbelt ruling early this year? And what about the proposal that all helmets used by motorcyclists are to have a Sirim endorsement? What is the hidden agenda there?