NST Leader: Corporate manslaughter law

New Straits Times

2 days ago

The Road Transport Department is on the hunt for bus passengers who don't belt up, fining them RM300. But what about the two-thirds of bus and lorry operators who failed RTD's safety audit recently?
Out of 133 audited, 85 — 43 lorry operators and 42 express and tour bus operators — were found to have committed a range of offences: failure to appoint safety officers; not installing GPS; failure to monitor GPS data; not keeping records of driving hours; and not having safety plans.
They were among the 500 operators flagged for outstanding RTD and Land Public Transport Agency (APAD) summonses.
If not for the summonses, the rogue operators might not have been discovered. How long they have been flouting the law is anybody's guess. Call them profit-before-people operators.
This is why our authorities shouldn't depend on self-policing. Robust enforcement and punitive punishments are two critical ways to curb road tragedies.
We know that the RTD has forwarded the list of 85 errant operators to APAD, recommending that it suspend or revoke their licences.
APAD will do well if it makes its decision public, and soon. It did revoke the licence of the operator of the lorry involved in the collision with the Federal Reserve Unit truck in Teluk Intan on May 13, where nine police personnel were killed and seven others injured.
The range of offences of the lorry operator, as disclosed by APAD, was similar to those discovered during the recent RTD audit of 133 operators.
Transparency and speed are of utmost importance, especially so when many road tragedies have been caused by buses and lorries in a span of just months. Absent both, the public will lose confidence in the authorities.
Regulators and enforcers must also make it hurt for errant transport firms.
One way to hurt them is to pass a corporate manslaughter law, similar to the United Kingdom's Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, as suggested by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reforms) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said.
But the UK law comes designed with a limitation: individuals such as directors are not in the crosshairs of the law, but companies and organisations are liable for gross failures in health and safety management that lead to death.
The UK has other laws — such as the common law offence of manslaughter — to hold individuals like directors accountable if the offence was committed with their knowledge or neglect.
Malaysia, too, has laws to hold corporate individuals accountable, but proving personal culpability in a corporate environment isn't easy, a motivation for the UK to focus on companies.
The question is, should Malaysia replicate the UK model or incorporate individual liability as well, at least at the senior management level? This requires serious study.
Undoubtedly, there will be resistance from the industry, accusing the government of over-criminalising senior managers of companies.
To the operators in the industry, we say this: if you aren't rogue operators like the 85, you are as safe as houses.
Whatever our lawmakers decide, they need to acknowledge that Malaysia is in serious need of a corporate manslaughter law that hurts the company coffers of rogue operators. Dollars for sense, if you like.