MALAYSIANS are happy to support local products. But when it comes to the app that gets us to work on time, avoids a 3km jam and tells us which exit to take on the PLUS highway, patriotism alone may not be enough.
Tell us to switch from Waze to Malaysia’s own TuJu, and we have one simple question: Why?
The government’s concern about data security is legitimate. Nobody wants our movements, routines and whereabouts falling into the wrong hands. But if national security is the reason for making the switch, Malaysians deserve to understand the risk and why the proposed alternative is safer.
After all, we are talking about navigation apps, not changing from teh tarik to kopi O. Get the directions wrong and you could end up in the wrong taman, miss your meeting or make an unexpected U-turn while your passengers question your life choices.
So when the prime minister said civil servants should ditch Waze for TuJu, the debate was inevitable. Malaysians are willing to give homegrown technology a chance. What we are less willing to do is take a detour without knowing where the road leads.
To be fair, the government has a point. Waze Mobile Ltd is a data controller incorporated under Israeli law, which was cited as the basis for barring civil servants from using the app. National security is not something to take lightly.
Location data may seem harmless when we are simply trying to avoid a traffic jam or find the nearest mamak. But collected over time, it can reveal patterns about where people go, when they travel and how they move.
The government has every right to be cautious, particularly when it comes to the digital tools used by its officers. But there is a difference between directing civil servants to use a particular app and convincing the wider public to follow suit.
And this is where a few questions remain. Which specific Israeli laws raise concerns? What powers do they give authorities over users’ data? Has any particular vulnerability involving Malaysian users been identified?
These are not questions asked to challenge the government for the sake of it. They are reasonable questions from people who want to understand the decision.
If the security risk is serious enough to warrant a change, explaining it clearly would help Malaysians understand why the move matters.
After all, saying a company is subject to another country’s laws tells us something but it does not tell us the whole story. The same transparency should apply to TuJu.
Developed through a collaboration between the Malaysian Highway Authority and Prosignal Consortium Sdn Bhd, the app presents an opportunity to build homegrown technology that serves Malaysians.
There is nothing wrong with wanting our own solutions, particularly when national infrastructure and data security are involved. But supporting local products does not mean switching off our questions.
How was the private-sector partner selected? Was there an open tender? How much public money has gone into developing and maintaining the app?
These are not accusations. They are basic questions about public procurement and accountability. If taxpayers are expected to support a product, they deserve to know how their money is being spent.
Data protection also deserves a closer look. TuJu’s Google Play Store listing has reportedly indicated that location data may be shared with third parties. That disclosure alone does not establish that users face a security threat but it makes a clear explanation of the app’s data practices all the more important. If the concern is who can access our movements, Malaysians should know how TuJu collects, stores, uses and protects that information too.
Then comes the most Malaysian question of all: Boleh pakai ke?
Security aside, a navigation app must get us where we need to go. Users have raised concerns about unclear directions while TuJu did not support Apple CarPlay or Android Auto at launch.
These may sound like minor technical issues but try missing an exit on the PLUS highway when you are already late for work. Suddenly, app compatibility becomes a very personal matter.
Of course, TuJu deserves a fair chance to improve. Every new product needs time, feedback and investment to get better. Malaysians should not dismiss it simply because Waze is familiar or because a local alternative is still finding its feet. But neither should we be expected to embrace it purely because it is Malaysian.
The government’s aim of strengthening digital sovereignty and protecting sensitive data is understandable. The way to build public confidence is to explain the risks, clarify the safeguards, account for public spending and keep improving the product.
Do that and more Malaysians may be willing to give TuJu a proper try, without keeping Waze open as a backup just in case.
We do not need the government to justify every decision as though it were asking permission. But when a decision affects how we use technology and how our personal data is handled, a clear explanation goes a long way.
At the end of the day, we want our data protected, our money spent wisely and our navigation apps to work when we need them most.
So, by all means, let us support Malaysian technology. Let TuJu grow, improve and prove itself.
Just answer a few questions along the way. Because when it comes to finding our way on the road, we may be happy to follow the voice on our phones.
When it comes to public policy, however, Malaysians still want to know where exactly we are being taken.
Hashini Kavishtri Kannan is the news editor at theSun. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com