From Shahrim Tamrin
I welcome Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (Miros) chairman Wong Shaw Voon’s renewed call to raise the minimum age for a motorcycle licence from 16 to 18.
But this is hardly a new proposal. It has been under discussion since 2018.
Malaysia needs neither another round of deliberations nor another announcement without a clear outcome. It needs transparency, a policy decision and the political will to act.
In May 2018, during Loke Siew Fook’s first term as transport minister, the transport ministry sought public feedback on the minimum licensing age, with Miros and relevant road safety authorities involved. The exercise ran until September, but its findings have never been made publicly available through official channels.
I obtained a summary of Miros’s findings after requesting it two years ago. The results were mixed. The online exercise involved 4,005 members of the public and 11 experts, while a separate survey covered 4,158 respondents.
Although Miros reported majority support among online participants for raising the age to 18, many motorcycle riders and secondary school students opposed the change. Some students even suggested lowering the age.
The findings do not establish a blanket public mandate for change. They establish something more fundamental: evidence was collected and the public deserves to know what became of it.
The presentation also reported that 80% of boys and 86% of girls surveyed rode to school without a motorcycle licence. Of 181 boys aged 16, only three held one. Meanwhile, 58% of students said their parents did not stop them from riding.
These figures concern the students surveyed, not all Malaysian schoolchildren. Nevertheless, they expose a problem that raising the licensing age alone cannot solve. Even a 13-year-old can ride an illegally obtained “kapcai”.
Wong himself has cautioned that raising the age will achieve little without effective enforcement against underage riders.
Licensing reform must, therefore, go hand in hand with enforcement, parental accountability and controls over access to motorcycles.
The paper trail
On Oct 8, 2019, police proposed a new B3 motorcycle licensing category at the National Road Safety Council’s 60th annual general meeting. The proposal envisaged restricting young riders to motorcycles of 70cc or below, or low-powered electric alternatives, to curb illegal street racing and improve road safety.
Recorded as Item 9.4 in the meeting minutes, the proposal was referred to the transport ministry. Years later, the public is still waiting to learn whether it was seriously considered and why it produced no clear policy outcome.
On Nov 25, 2021, Miros’s board backed a related but distinct proposal to study restricting young riders to motorcycles below 90cc. Recorded as Board Paper LPM 2-52 under Item 52.4(2), it was approved by the board, including its then chairman Suret Singh.
One proposal concerned a licensing category; the other concerned research into engine-capacity restrictions.
Nearly five years later, the study’s status remains unclear. Was it completed? What did it find? Were recommendations submitted to the transport ministry? If the study was not completed, why not?
In August 2024, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) children’s commissioner Farah Nini Dusuki sought an update on the B3 proposal and urged the transport ministry and road transport department (JPJ) to expedite legislation addressing motorcycle purchases by unlicensed riders. She also highlighted the unresolved status of the Miros study.
A study endorsed by the board should not become an administrative mystery.
Human cost
Suhakam has highlighted the risks faced by underage motorcyclists, including 87 children aged six to 10 who died while riding motorcycles rather than as pillion passengers.
Children do not acquire motorcycles by themselves. Adults may purchase them, provide access or knowingly permit illegal riding. Sellers and the wider regulatory framework also warrant scrutiny.
Section 31(1)(a) of the Child Act 2001 addresses neglect likely to cause physical injury to a child, while Section 39(5) of the Road Transport Act 1987 addresses causing or permitting a child below 16 to drive. Their application depends on the circumstances and relevant legal requirements.
Parental accountability matters, but it must not become a substitute for institutional accountability.
The government should disclose the status of legislation reportedly being developed to regulate motorcycle purchases by unlicensed individuals, explain outstanding obstacles and provide a timetable. The problem extends beyond teenagers riding kapcai – unlicensed adults can also access more powerful motorcycles.
I call on the transport ministry, JPJ and Miros to:
- Publish the 2018 survey. Release its methodology, detailed findings and recommendations, while protecting respondents’ personal information where necessary.
- Account for Board Paper LPM 2-52. Confirm whether the study was completed, publish its findings and explain what action followed.
- Disclose the proposed legislation’s status. Set a timetable for regulating motorcycle purchases by unlicensed buyers and establish enforceable safeguards.
- Set a timetable for licensing reform. Decide whether to raise the minimum age to 18 and seriously consider the B3 proposal, alongside proportionate power restrictions for young and inexperienced riders, effective enforcement and meaningful parental accountability.
Wong deserves credit for returning the issue to the agenda. In my years covering Miros, I have seen board recommendations stall before reaching the ministerial table.
It remains unclear whether Board Paper LPM 2-52, or any recommendation arising from it, ever reached the transport minister in a form requiring a decision. That, too, warrants an explanation.
Research cannot improve road safety if recommendations fail to travel from the boardroom to the ministerial table. Nor can policy succeed if it exists only in announcements, meeting minutes and presentation slides.
Malaysia is not short of studies, recommendations or press statements. It is short of visible follow-through.
Publish the evidence. Account for the decisions made and those left unmade. Set a timetable and act. The public has waited long enough, and too many children have already paid the price.
Shahrim Tamrin is a sustainable transport and road safety activist and former Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research board member.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.