Malaysia
|
|
NAP regulations open for review, says Muhyiddin |
|
KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 4 — The government is prepared to review the new regulations under the National Automotive Policy (NAP) if it impacts negatively on Malaysians, said Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.
He wanted the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (Miti) to prepare a report if there was dissatisfaction caused by the new regulation requiring passenger cars older than 15 years to undergo annual inspection at Puspakom before the road tax renewals, effective Jan 1, next year.
|
“I want the agency responsible on the matter to submit a report to the government, probably there are people who are not happy because their vehicles would be tested after a certain period, but the move is not to cause hardship but for safety reasons,” he told reporters at a media conference, here today.
He said the government was always willing to listen to reasons why the new regulation could impose hardship on the people.
“They must submit cases why they will face hardship in fulfilling the requirement... what hardship, we will listen if there is any basis for us to grant an exemption, that we have to scrutinise, possibly there are people who have owned cars for a long time and cannot afford to pay for the cost of inspection and so on,” Muhyiddin said.
The new regulation will involve about one million passenger vehicles and is reported to cause hardship to the lower income group and will affect the used car industry.
It is among the 18 new measures in the review of the NAP to improve the competitiveness of the local automotive industry and offer vehicles that are more safe, environment friendly and with high technology. — Bernama
|
|
Comments (6) |
|
|
written by Gene, November 07, 2009 |
If it is true that the revised NAP is done with the rakyat's interest at heart, why are our cars price still among one of the highest in the world ? Why do we still need the AP to be around for another miserable 10 years ? Why do we have to issue AP to those 98 corporation knowing that they could make up to RM30,000 selling it in the open market ? What have these 98 corporation done for the rakyat/country ? PM, DPM enact whatever unpopular policies that MCC wants but please don't insult the intelligence of the poor rakyat. Don't proclaim that those ridicules policies are enacted in the interest of the poor rakyat. It will only harden rakyat view that you fellas are out of touch with the rakyat or are bunch of liars. The truth is NAP was formulated to keep Proton alive and to please MCC. |
|
|
written by tony, November 06, 2009 |
Dear Mr DPM, you better scrap this new policy if BN wants to win the next General Elections because you may lose more than a million votes,mostly rural votes that have been sustaining the BN all these years.Introduce a more equitable policy instead like giving a Rm 15000 rebate for trading in a 15year+ car for a new Proton/Perodua car.Then your rural voters will be happy to vote for BN |
|
|
written by se, November 05, 2009 |
Dear DPM,
MY old proton Wire will be turning 15 next year. A good car I must say, because I have to keep it tip top as I cant afford a new car, and partly because my mechanics can always find me used replacement I can afford. With the NAP2010,
1. New car price continue to be too high, exorbitantly high, because you know why
2. Used car may no longer be properly maintained because we will soon cut off supply of used replacement, and the new parts may be too high, exorbitantly high, because you know why
3. Because of item 2, used car will not pass the Puspacom test, leaving the rakyat to ride bicycle
4. I would not even care to comment on the guideline on APs.
The government should not re-review the policy, instead, the government should ask why in the 1st place such policies were even put together.
To put in short, the whole NAP issue is perceived as incompetent officials producing sloppy results.
A big slap to "One Malaysia. People First. Performance Now".
|
|
|
written by AgreeToDisagree, November 05, 2009 |
Remove the AP-system and liberalise the car modding prohibitions and regulations as well. AND remove the toll concessionaires. Or PAS will bulldoze BN to hell ! Sickening profiteering car and road industry. |
|
|
written by Chan, November 05, 2009 |
If the goverment want to implement the inspection of cars older than 15 years they should scrap the AP system immediately so that prices of cars can come down. I am very sure if car prices come down by 40% a lot of old car owners will be willing to change their cars. |
|
|
written by pat ling, November 05, 2009 |
Not only that. We also cannot see the rationale why used car parts will no longer be available effective mid-2011. How on earth do you expect owners of old cars that are already out of factory production find replacement spare parts other than from cannibalized car parts dealers. For those who are living on tight budgets, particularly the retirees, buying used car spare parts is an affordable means of maintaining their cars. We also cannot see how this will road safety can be compromised especially when most parts do not affect the worthiness of the car's road performance, eg body parts replacements like bonnets, boot covers and doors, starter motors, alternators, headlights, bumpers, etc. Motorists themselves are more concerned about their own safety when it comes to replacing parts like brake pads, shockers and tyres which most often than not they opt for new replacement parts. Depriving these low income groups of a cheaper alternative in maintaining their cars can only force them to discontinue owning cars and relying on public transport which we all know shucks! Also depriving them access to cheaper used parts may also lead them to stop maintaining their cars to the level that they have been maintaining all along. A lot of countries (including the US, UK and Australia) permit existence of car junk yards to facilitate cannibalization of used car parts. Why can't we especially when the low income group is in such large numbers. Why cause more hardship on these people when they are already struggling to make ends meet. |
|
|
|
