Facebook Twitter Google Plus Vimeo Youtube Feed Feedburner

ROS LBoard 1

Govt cannot omit taxi and e-hailing drivers’ tribunal

July 27, 2017

Serdang MP says minister in charge of SPAD has to answer to drivers if a Drivers’ Tribunal is not established under the Land Public Transport Act (Amendment) 2010.

COMMENT

Ong-Kian-Ming-spad-driver-malaysia-1By Ong Kian Ming

Earlier this month, in a dialogue session organised by the DAP with e-hailing drivers, one of the main complaints we heard was that there was no independent body or a third party which the drivers can appeal to if they disagreed with a decision by the e-hailing company they are driving for.

For example, we heard complaints from a number of drivers who claimed to have been banned or suspended from an e-hailing company for no apparent reason.

Many taxi drivers also have complaints against the companies they are driving for.

They also have no independent body or third body which can hear their complaints and make a ruling.

The Land Public Transport Act (Amendment) 2010, which is currently being debated in parliament, does not address this problem at all.

As such, I proposed a motion to introduce a new section in this act to establish a “Taxi Drivers’ and E-hailing Drivers’ Tribunal”.

This tribunal is similar to the Consumers’ Tribunal which was established in Section 85 to Section 122 of the Consumers’ Protection Act 1999.

Sadly, my motion to introduce this tribunal was rejected by the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat.

In her reply in parliament, the Minister in charge of tabling this bill, Dato’ Sri Nancy Shukri rejected the need for a tribunal because she said that SPAD can currently handle the complaints of the taxi drivers and later on, of the e-hailing drivers when e-hailing is legalised after the gazetting of this bill and the e-hailing licenses have been approved.

The problem with this suggestion is that SPAD may not have the legal jurisdiction to compel the e-hailing companies to follow its decisions on disputes between drivers and their companies.

For example, SPAD may find that an e-hailing company owes a driver thousands of ringgit in unpaid fares that is subject to a dispute.

Can SPAD compel the e-hailing company to pay this driver his unpaid fares? Or will the driver have to go to court to seek his unpaid fares? The advantage of a tribunal is that it is a cost-effective way for drivers to have their complaints heard without the need to pay expensive legal and court fees.

There is also the question of whether SPAD has the capacity to investigate and hear all the cases involving e-hailing drivers after this act is passed and gazetted.

This tribunal is not just for e-hailing drivers.

It can also be used by taxi drivers who have complaints against their companies.

Since this tribunal is not likely to be established under this act, I call upon all e-hailing and taxi drivers who have complaints against their companies to call the SPAD complaint hotline (1800-88-7723), SMS SPAD at 15888 or email SPAD at [email protected] to lodge their complaints, if they have any, against their respective companies, to show SPAD that there is an urgent need for a Drivers’ Tribunal to hear and to rule on these complaints.

Ong Kian Ming is Serdang MP.

With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s (or organisation’s) personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.

DAP: Law on e-hailing services must protect driver, passenger


Comments

Readers are required to have a valid Facebook account to comment on this story. We welcome your opinions to allow a healthy debate. We want our readers to be responsible while commenting and to consider how their views could be received by others. Please be polite and do not use swear words or crude or sexual language or defamatory words. FMT also holds the right to remove comments that violate the letter or spirit of the general commenting rules.

The views expressed in the contents are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of FMT.

Comments