So, recently a proposal mentioned that cars with lifespan over 12 years shouldn't be allow on the road as this will decrease the rate of accident on road by the faulty cars. According to 'Malaysian Insider', Transport Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein even mentioned that this won't burden owners with debt. Oh really??
First of all, I gotta say that thanks to my dad I am not in heavy debt with a car loan. I am now driving a car older than 12 years but it always in good condition with proper maintenance. Even PTPTN with just 3% of the silly "kos pentadbiran" already makes a lot rakyat in debt. I mean, how much do you actually need to pay to clear your PTPTN loan? A person with RM60k already need to pay a few hundreds just for that "Kos Pentadbiran"
PS: If you just finished paying your PTPTN loan, make sure you got your release on loan or else you will be billed again for that "Kos Pentadbiran". You are highly advised to clear your loan at the Pejabat PTPTN instead. Don't use online transfer. I've just recently clear my PTPTN debt residue under their 20% 'promo', you may wanna read it here.
"Deputy Transport Minister Datuk Abdul Aziz Kaprawi said on Sunday that the Road Transport Department (JPJ) will decide soon on a policy to impose a lifespan on cars. Yesterday, Parti Keadilan Rakyat strategist Rafizi Ramli objected to the proposal, saying it would aggravate people's finances since most Malaysians are on a nine-year car loan and would have to take a new car debt three years after."
"Hishammuddin agreed with Rafizi's argument that going from one car debt to another would increase household debt. However, he said that "there are many ways to overcome this", without elaborating."
I've read this article on 'Malaysian Insider' the other day and wonder, it is really that cars over 12 years will increase the rate of accident? I would say it is more on how the driver take care of his vehicle and the way they drive that affect the accident rate on road. Let me quote some of the comments that readers left on the article. It sounds quite logic on what happen next and the real purpose behind this proposal.
"This is ridiculous. What If I own a Mercedes W124? Its more than 20 years old but runs perfectly? Scrapka? Or become like Singapore? Can, no problem, just make sure I have public transport to where ever I want to go.Perhaps what should be done is what they do in the UK, yearly Ministry of Transport (MOT) inspection. By doing this, you prove that your car is road worthy and safe...but obviously, they wouldnt have thought of that." - TheOutsider10
"When is this idiocy going to stop? How many accidents involving privately owned cars are caused by their old age of 12 years or more? Maybe true for taxis, buses, trucks and all those commercial vehicles which go through the daily grind and you may get tough on them. Show proof minister, and by the way don't doctor the evidence.I can't help but think that this call is not for safety reason but financial. You don't need to be a genius to figure out how much money the likes of Proton and Perodua and AP holders will make when people have to change cars every 5-12 years. And who are the majority shareholders in these companies? This is just another protectionist call!And by the way, it was a relief when I finished paying for my car after 5 years. I kept the car for another 17 years and during that period I used the extra money on my kids' education and general improvement to our lives. There's no way people can do this if we now have to change cars every 5-12 years. We'd be lumbered with endless debt. And what of the ordinary retirees and pensioners? They can't even get any loan. So to say that it won't hurt, you must be dumb minister!" - plonukiyas
"I am retired and owns a 9 year old Japanese make car which is in very good condition and has never missed a scheduled service appointment from the day of purchase. It has only clocked about 75k on the odometer. Is it reasonable to ask me to scrap my car when it reaches its 12th year? If I do that, how do you expect me to finance a new car since I am already retired?" - fthm1
"It has nothing to do with the life span of the car BUT the attitude of the drivers that cause accidents. Just have a good look at the drivers in KL and you'll know what I'm talking about. Double/triple parking and leaving the vehicle to the pay their bill, have their lunch/dinner or picking up the kids from school, driving in and out of lanes without signalling, etc etc. I have also once witnessed a lorry that was going at 70/80 km/hr having to slam on its brakes with smoke filling the air from the braking to avoid a convoy of the stupid PDRM outriders cutting into its lane escorting some VIP who thinks that they own the road. If I was the lorry driver, I would not slam on the brakes but smash into these idiots. That would teach them a lesson." - matikudasai
"What is the percentage of accident caused by cars over 12 years old. Are those accidents solely because of faulty car conditions not due to bad road conditions or other human factors. Are there no new cars involved in deadly accidents? Do you think that drivers of old cars don't treasure their lives. They would allow their car condition to deteriorate without even bothering to send them for servicing?Therefore imposing a 12 year lifespan on car is definite for another hidden agenda, likely due to monetary gain by certain powerful figures!" - Awangni
So in conclusion, people think that this proposal was made not to ease the debt of rakyat but to help Proton in selling their cars (rakyat has lose confidence on the pricey yet low quality vehicle). It would have sound better for the government to provide a proposal of having our car (eg. more than 10 years) undergo yearly inspection at reasonable price. I personally think that it is really unfair for rakyat who has been taking good care of their car for more than 12 years. Who would want to become in debt every 12 years just to maintain a new car every 12 years? Rakyat nowadays even couldn't own a house without helps from family members because of the spiking rise of property price.
So what can I say is, instead of increasing debts for the rakyat, I hope the government will help the rakyat to earn more living to sustain their living cost. I seriously don't think the yearly BR1N of RM500 (or more) would help anyone in long run. It sounds more like 'Angpow' in exchange of getting votes from you that happen only during GE.
*********************************************[New Update: Putrajaya scraps proposal for 12-year cap on lifespan of cars]
Speaking to reporters, Abdul Aziz denied that Putrajaya would implement the policy now. "This is not true. It is the opposition's speculation,” he said. When asked if the policy would be introduced at a later stage, he said it "depends on the rakyat". "We don't want to burden the people. It all depends. We put the people first," he added.
What does "depends on the rakyat" means? I wonder...
|I seriously need a getaway to somewhere like this - The Banjaran Hotsprings Retreat, Ipoh|
Take a deep breath if you feel angry, as this will clear your mind in handling many things including stupid statements from people around you. Stay positive and do your best in your live.