Shortcomings exposed in issuing and complying with MOTAC ruling

Focus Malaysia

4 days ago

I WAS shocked with the heading of a report 'MATTA slams rule for crash report within 24 hours, says industry not consulted', which was published last Friday.
While members of the Malaysian Association of Tour and Travel Agents (MATTA) may be happy that its leaders stood up to the Tourism, Arts and Culture Ministry (MOTAC), such publicised criticism is rather unusual as it had preferred working behind closed doors for better outcomes.
However, I was relieved by another report 'MATTA: Rethink road crash rulings' published the next day.
The difference is stark with the first heading using 'slams' and the second 'rethink', and this could easily occur in any press conference, as reporters interpret the same message differently.
It is much easier to speak and explain during the question and answer session than preparing an informative press statement.
Nevertheless, it is necessary for accuracy and it can be forwarded to other media not present, and especially to relevant government agencies involved in the matter.
It was reported that from July 1, companies licensed by MOTAC under the Tour Operating Business and Travel Agency Business (TOBTAB) regulations are required to report any accident to the ministry within 24 hours, or risk having their company licence revoked.
The ministry was established in 1987 to take over from the Tourist Development Corporation and TOBTAB was introduced thirty eight years ago.
Is the ruling new? Or is it an old one resurrected after a spate of nasty accidents involving Bas Persiaran, commonly known as tour buses?
Understandably, MOTAC would not be able to provide any information or manage a crisis if kept in the dark, but it may not have ready resources and competency to handle well.
For example, action against illegal or errant operators is lacking due to the shortage of enforcement officers.
Does the overarching rule cover only road accidents involving tour buses and vans? Or any deaths and injuries entailing all forms of road, rail, cable and water transport? What about other activities such as diving, caving, mountain climbing, theme park rides, robbery and homicide?
Here, the focus is on road accidents. It is common knowledge that a police report has to be made within 24 hours of a road accident, unless the affected parties chose to settle privately, especially for collisions that are minor and making an insurance claim is not worth the trouble.
The 24 hours is meant to facilitate the investigation officer (IO) to meet up with both parties within a short time, as drivers involved usually lodge reports separately, only after they are ready to make the trip to the police station. Usually, the IO will issue a compound fine to the driver at fault.
A report can still be made after 24 hours and the driver is likely to receive a compound fine for being late.
The same applies to those failing to make a police report but the other driver did. The IO will have a notice issued requiring the driver to turn up at the police station to see him.
But there can be extenuating circumstances, such as the driver could be seriously injured or killed.
If so, will MOTAC accept reports based on statements by witnesses or victims such as the tourist guide or passengers on board, other road users, recordings by dashcams or CCTV?
Were all these taken into account or spelled out when the ruling was made? What kind of report MOTAC requires within 24 hours of an accident?
Can it be a series of progressive reports based on information gathered? To get a copy of the police report, a request must be made at the station.
Even before that, if the IO was off duty earlier, one may have to make another trip to the police station to meet up with him to complete the investigation and the police report.
If this is deemed complicated, it is nothing compared to the tour arrangements involving multiple parties.
For a foreign tour group, it could involve the overseas outbound tour operator, local inbound tour operator, and another tour company that provided the excursion bus.
Sometimes, the service could be substituted at the last moment by yet another bus operator or a freelance driver.
There are also individual drivers who own their tour buses and have bought them using the bus licence and the name of a tour company granted the Bas Persiaran permit.
These owner-drivers work unsupervised, and they are determined to run many trips to earn as much as they can. ‒ July 14, 2025
YS Chan is master trainer for Mesra Malaysia and Travel and Tours Enhancement Course and an Asean Tourism Master Trainer. He is also a tourism and transport business consultant.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
Main image: Bernama