Decision that needs an immediate U-turn

ALLOWING the rear screens and rear side windows of vehicles to be tinted as dark as one wants them to be is a big blunder. Where matters such as safety are concerned, the government cannot pander to the whims, fancies or demands of certain sections of society.

It is ironic that at a time when crime is on the rise, and when some of the crimes are carried out by hiding one’s real identity, the government has chosen to assist criminals by providing them legal cover in the form of the dark tinting behind which they can take refuge.

If a crime has been committed and the perpetrators are on the run, it is normal for the police to set up road blocks to look out for the criminals. With the new rule on vehicle tinting, the police would have to open the rear car doors, rain or shine, to see who or what is in or on the rear seat.

Gun-wielding criminals can calmly take aim and pull the triggers as soon as the doors are opened! Must there be statistics to show that such things can happen before taking measures to prevent them in the first place?

Crime is rampant these days, and now the government has done the criminals a big favour. Hence, the police is justified in being angry for having been snubbed in deciding on this matter. Nobody will be able to see if a struggle is going on in the rear seat of a car between a kidnapper and his victim, or if someone is being molested or raped, etc.

What statistics did the Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (Miros) and Road Transport Department (JPJ) produce to convince the Transport Minister to approve this ruling?

Should the rule on tinting be for the purpose of:

> Hiding from view what careless people have left on their rear seats (like handbags or laptops) so that cars are not broken into?

> Earning about RM6mil revenue a year for the government?

> Helping approved permit (AP) holders who import cars with very heavy tinting so they do not have to replace it to comply with Malaysian laws?

> Deterring criminals from hiding in vehicles? or

> Helping criminals by providing them a good hiding place whether in moving or stationary vehicles?

Could the Transport Minister please answer this question honestly? If an unfamiliar vehicle with heavily tinted screens parks in front of your house, or stops next to your car at a junction (especially on a road with very light traffic), are you going to feel safe when you are not able to see what or who are in the rear seat of the car?

Has the peace of mind of the public no place in making decisions like this?

Road Safety Department director-general Dr Tam Weng Wah is wrong in saying that “In terms of significance, determination of the tinted glass is made based on the request from the consumer, as well as taking into account the safety factor.”

The safety factor was ignored (the police were not consulted, as they would have objected and stalled this project) and the heavily tinted vehicle is now an excellent hideout for criminals.

This is one area where statistics cannot provide definitive conclusions, where “consumer requests” cannot be entertained just to satisfy them. Therefore, common sense has to play the major role based on public safety considerations, which the police would be the best party to ask about.

And yet the police were not consulted, otherwise they would have blocked the decision.