Historically, companies were created to promote economic activity and protect investors/owners by limiting liability. The company generally takes the blame for the wrongdoings of the human owners... for all that a company do is what is decided by the human owners.
So when a company is found liable for its wrongs - who pays? It is the company - and so, the real human owners and the human decision makers do not really gets 'punished' for their wrongs. If the company does not have enough monies to settle its liabilities - it just winds-up, and the human owners walk away unscathed by the wrongs they committed through the Company. [So, if a company owes workers wages - and there is no more money to pay the workers, that is it generally - for the owners are not personally liable to settle the outstanding due and payable to the workers - NOT RIGHT - should be change the law, and make owners also personally liable?]
However, if one is doing business as a sole proprietorship or a partnership. other than a company - if the business has not enough money to settle its liabilities, then one can go after the sole proprietor and partners who are personally liable to pay the balance due.
In short, the COMPANY becomes a tool/SHIELD to protect human rights violators - we can change this law today - and END the ability of people to violate human rights and commit injustices hiding behind the 'COMPANY'.
THINGS changed a bit when enactments came into being like
Section 52 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT 1994 - Liability of director, etc., of company, etc.
Where any person commits an offence under this Act or any subsidiary legislation made under this Act is a company, limited liability partnership, firm, society or other body of persons, a person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, compliance officer, partner, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the company, limited liability partnership, firm, society or other body of persons or was purporting to act in the capacity or was in any manner or to any extent responsible for the management of any of the affairs of the company, limited liability partnership, firm, society or other body of persons or was assisting in its management—
(a) may be charged severally or jointly in the same proceedings with the company, limited liability partnership, firm, society or the body of persons; and
(b) if the company, limited liability partnership, firm, society or other body of persons is found guilty of the offence, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to the same punishment or penalty as an individual unless, having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and to all circumstances, he proves—
(i) that the offence was committed without his knowledge; and
(ii) that the offence was committed without his consent or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.
This means that that the human persons can NOW be also charged for offences committed by the Company, but still NOT the owners or the majority shareholders it seems. Should this LIABILITY be extended to the owners/shareholders too NOW?
Now, BIBIBI may be the real owner - holding 70% of the shares, but he may not be 'a director, general manager, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate,..' and so he may escape being criminally liable for the wrongs of the company - and this is simply ABSURD.
Similar provision is also there for Road Transport Offences - section 109 ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 - Liability of registered owner and others, where subsection 4 - (4) Where the registered owner is a body corporate, any person who at the time of the commission of such offence was a director, general manager, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or who was purporting to act in any such capacity, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his consent or connivance, and that he exercised such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and to all the circumstances. > so why was NO director, general manager, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the Company that owned the lorry/bus charged when the driver ALONE was charged?
A perusal of the application of these laws however will show that generally these humans who, by law, can be charged seldom get charged. The LAW is there, but there seems a 'protection mentality' when it comes to charging director, general manager, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the Company - Corruption, ABUSE of power, political connections????
Just look at the recent accident cases, that resulted in death > Drivers(workers) only of company owned vehicles have been charged - why was the company, Directors, etc not CHARGED - more so, in such cases, drivers just drive the vehicle provided by the company, and the duty to ensure that the vehicles are in good condition and safe is on the Company? In both the following cases, there were mention that the vehicles may not have been in good condition, in the first place...
When the lorry collided with police FRU vehicle that led to the death of 9 officers, and injury to more - the question is why was the lorry driver alone so speedily charged, and not the owner/company that is responsible for the said lorry and the driver not charged.
The driver of the lorry in the crash that killed nine Federal Reserve Unit personnel has claimed trial at the Teluk Intan sessions court to nine charges of causing death by reckless driving.Sinar Harian reported that Rudi Zulkarnain Mat Radi, 45, pleaded not guilty when the charges, framed under Section 41(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987, were read to him before judge Norhamizah Shaiffudin.The section provides for imprisonment of between five and 10 years, as well as a fine not exceeding RM50,000, upon conviction. The accused is also liable to have his driving licence suspended for at least five years. - FMT, 16/5/2025
Likewise, when the UPSI bus crash - only the driver was charged, but not the owner/company/employer not charged?
The bus driver involved in the accident which killed 15 Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) students was charged today with causing their deaths by driving dangerously....Amirul was charged under Section 41(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987, which carries a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to RM50,000 upon conviction....He was also charged with an additional offence of reckless and dangerous driving under Section 42(1) of the same Act....If convicted, he could face up to five years in prison, a fine of between RM5,000 and RM15,000, and a minimum five-year suspension of his driving licence. - FMT, 13/6/2025
In the case of the FRU accident, it was revealed that there was OVERLOADING by 70% - surely that will have reasonably caused the handling of the lorry difficult - so, should not the Company also have been charged for the deaths caused by the accident? The DRIVER could not have refused to drive because it was OVERLOADED - so, should not the Company be liable?
Driver just drives the lorry the company asks him to drive >> so why only charge the DRIVER? Should the driver even be charged? Whose FAULT -
Is it also not the fault of the MINISTER Anthony Loke for the failure to do proper law enforcement???
"Overall, based on the technical inspection, the main mechanical systems such as brakes, tyres, steering and suspension of both lorries were found to be in satisfactory condition and comply with the set standards," it said. It added that the lorry was overloaded at the time of the crash, as it was found to have exceeded its permitted load by 70%. Citing the initial report of the investigation into the crash, the JPJ said the tipper lorry is only allowed to carry coal, but at the time of the incident, it was carrying 40,960 kilogrammes of gravel, which exceeded 70% of the permitted load limit.The lorry was also found to not be equipped with a Global Positioning System (GPS) as required by the Land Public Transport Agency (APAD). "The lorry violated the conditions of the Written Authorisation License provided under Section 57 of the Land Public Transport Act 2010," said the Ministry in its report. - Star, 12/6/2025
With regard the UPSI accident..
Preliminary investigations into the tragic June 9 bus crash that killed 15 Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) students have found no evidence of mechanical failure, the Transport Ministry confirmed on June 14.Transport Minister Anthony Loke said Puspakom’s inspection of the bus revealed that the vehicle’s braking system, tyres, steering and suspension were all in satisfactory condition.“There were no signs of brake drum inconsistencies or thinning of brake linings that could have contributed to the accident,” Loke said in a statement.He added that the tyres met Road Transport Department safety standards and showed no defects. The findings suggest the accident, which also injured 33 others, was more likely caused by human error or external factors, such as road conditions. - Business Today, 14/6/2025
We recall an earlier report
“I’m so sorry to all the students and families involved. The brakes suddenly stopped working,” said the 39-year-old bus driver, according to Malay language daily Sinar Harian...“If there are parties who want to take legal action, what else can I say? I tried various things, but because the air (for the air brakes) was empty, everything stopped working, including the handbrake, and the gear couldn’t be changed.“I tried to avoid other vehicles, and as far as I can remember, I avoided four vehicles, including a lorry, before the accident,” he said. (Straits Times, 10/6/2025)
So, again, we must note it was just a 'preliminary investigation' - was it not possible that the 'air brakes' failed? When was the last inspection of the bus by the authorities? When was the last check on the air brakes done? Is it not possible, that post accident may not reveal air brake failure? Interestingly, one of the possible causes was 'ROAD CONDITION"
Again, was the charging pre-mature? Why was the company, its Directors, its officers also charged? WHY was the name of COMPANIES also not revealed?
DETRIMENTAL to the government, the Minister of Transport, is the fact a recent ...
The road transport department (JPJ) found that 64% of commercial vehicle operators failed an audit on mandatory safety requirements, in a recent nationwide operation.Its director-general Aedy Fadly Ramli said the operation, which began on June 23, saw audits carried out on 133 companies operating commercial vehicles, Bernama reported. - FMT, 29/6/2025
Worse, in December 2024, there was also a special operation - if the bus and lorry that caused the deaths of police officers and students was seized and confiscated then, so many lives could have been saved...
The Road Transport Department (RTD) has launched a special operation to seize and confiscate commercial vehicles that fail to comply with regulations under the Land Public Transport Act 2010.Director-general Datuk Aedy Fadly Ramli said the operation follows a series of accidents and fatalities involving such vehicles. He also said that strict enforcement is being carried out under provisions of the Act through the nationwide special operation known as 'Gempur Teknikal'. - NST, 26/12/2024
So, one wonders whether the companies who owned the lorry and bus PASSED the inspections in late 2024? OR were these companies not part of this 'strict enforcement'? WHY? Corruption?
After accidents, the government ACTS - this is not we want. Actions should be before so we can prevent deaths and injuries...
In some countries, MINISTER would have rightfully APOLOGIZE and even RESIGN in shame as he failed in his/her duties and responsibilities in Malaysia. Now, will Anthony Loke RESIGN - especially since recent disclosure of 64% not compliance of the law by commercial vehicle operators still, despite the last 'special operation' at the end of 2024 - where authorities under Minister Anthony Loke commenced a special operation to seize and confiscate commercial vehicles that fail to comply with regulations under the Land Public Transport Act 2010. Was there even a 'special operation' at the end of 2024 early 2025 - but wait, enforcement should be continuous...
Egypt’s transport minister resigned on Wednesday after a deadly train crash in Cairo killed at least 25, and left 50 injured. - African News, 27/2/2019
THE transport minister of Greece, Mr Kostas Karamanlis, has resigned after a passenger service collided head-on with a freight train near Larissa on February 28, killing at least 43 people. IRJ, 28/2/2025
Minister Azalina's suggestion for more corporate liability laws - including Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act is GOOD.
But, as I pointed out earlier, there are already corporate liability laws including with regard to Road Transport ACT - but the problem is that it is not being used - and one wonders WHY? Because of 'pro-corporate policy', owners relationship with politician/political parties, corruption, etc???
The perpetrator of CRIMES must be charged and tried. Likewise, the employer/owners should also be charged...
Sometimes, the OPPOSITE happens - why have the persons who made fun of an Hindu religious practice, which is an offence in Malaysia still not been charged in court yet. The issuing of a compound to ERA FM, their employer, alone does not settle matters...for the persons who broke the law still has not been 'penalized' for the crimes they committed.
Police officers that torture and cause the deaths of detainees also seldom get charged and tried. When the family of the victim takes up a civil case, they win and the court orders damages that could be hundreds of thousands ringgit be paid - who pays? Is it the government of Malaysia - so does these 'criminal' officers pay anything from their own pocket - noting that they escaped trial, conviction and sentence according to law...
What happened to that teacher who punished students making them stand under the hot sun - where one suffered heat stroke, and became a 'person with disability' - why has that teacher still not being charged and tried in court?
The correct way - Charge and accord a fair trial to the INDIVIDUALS who committed the crime, and also the employers who are responsible. Let the Courts decide on guilt and the appropriate sentence...NO ONE should be 'protected'.
For these collision cases that resulted in death/injuries - both the DRIVER, and his/her employer should be charged...more so, when the lorry/bus condition is the responsibility of the owners....
Gerik crash: M'sia needs corporate liability law, says Azalina
KUALA LUMPUR: It is timely for the government to consider amending the Penal Code or introducing a new law for corporate liability in light of the fatal Gerik bus crash yesterday, says Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said.
The minister in the prime minister's department (law and institutional reform) said such a law had already been introduced in the United Kingdom.
This, she said, was brought about in response to several workplace fatalities where no corporate entity could be held criminally accountable under previous laws, especially companies providing transportation services.
Azalina said she agreed with Transport Minister Anthony Loke's call for firm action against those responsible for yesterday's crash which claimed 15 lives.
"In this regard, it may be time to assess the effectiveness of law enforcement.
"(It may also be time) for the government to consider amending the Penal Code or introducing a new act, similar to the UK Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007," she said.
She added that the UK law allows a company to be prosecuted for serious failures in the way it manages the safety of its workers or the public, and for negligence that results in death.
"This act was introduced in the UK in response to several workplace fatalities where no corporate entity could be held criminally accountable under existing laws, especially companies providing transportation services, as these involve human lives which are of immeasurable value," she said in a social media post.
Yesterday, Loke had said in a statement that the Land Public Transport Agency (Apad) has issued a show-cause letter to the bus operator involved in the crash and the Road Transport Department (RTD) is concurrently conducting a Safety Inspection and Audit (JISA) on the bus and the operating company.
He had said stern action will be taken once investigations are completed.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment