2. The problems and issues with the current scheme as identified by CAP
3. A closer look at the problems with the current system
It is undeniable that the current system for compensation of victims of motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) has failed. Its failure lies mainly in not delivering adequate remedy to persons injured as a result of such accidents, efficiently and equitably.
The current system is based on the principle of Corrective Justice, i.e. if you are at fault, you pay. Claims for compensation for personal injury or any other loss occasioned by motor vehicle accidents are made by instituting proceedings in court. The courts apply principles of common law negligence in determining fault and compensation. Compensation is paid out by insurance companies out of funds derived from premiums paid under compulsory third party risks insurance policies.
In fault-based litigation, not every person injured in an accident receives compensation. Furthermore, regardless of the severity of injuries or extent of loss, claimants usually have to wait for a considerable period of time and spend substantial amounts of money before a final determination of their rights and award of compensation. Such delay may mean that many are unable to speedily return to gainful employment.
Added to that is the difficulty and uncertainty endured by the victim in proving liability and damage. In this manner, the victim suffers although he/she may not be at fault.
There is also no proper guideline for awards of damages in certain categories such as those for pain and suffering, in which cases the quantum of damages vary from case to case.
Long term care and rehabilitation needed for victims of serious injuries is also not adequately addressed under the current system. What is provided for are only lump sum payments, which are clearly geared towards merely paying for their medical expenses and not towards assisting the injured persons in the long term, and towards returning gainfully to society.
Furthermore, because it is not a comprehensive scheme, it does not deal with accident prevention strategies. The Road Safety Department has made efforts, but accident and death rates have not reduced.
There is the question of where our insurance premium goes to and how much we get in return. According to our survey, for every RM1 premium, less than 50 sen goes back to the victim. The other half goes to commissions (11%), management expenses (20%), profits and legal expenses.
The system as it exists is untenable. Insurance companies say that they cannot run it anymore. As BNM pointed out, many insurance companies refuse to offer third party coverage, and many persons are forced to obtain their insurance coverage from MMIP, which is more costly. Many too remain uninsured, and they, being unprotected, are the persons most at risk.
4. Does the BNM proposed TPBID scheme sufficiently address all the issues raised?
The answer is certainly NO.
BNM’s proposal is in essence no different from current system. It is focused on:
It is our contention that the problems associated with TPBID claims all boil down to the principle behind the current and proposed new scheme – both are fault based schemes. In fault based schemes the entire focus is on determining the party at fault. Time, effort and expense is devoted towards this point. In all likelihood, it will still involve the same delays, bureaucracy and issues as the current scheme.
BNM does not propose a comprehensive solution to the problems at hand, a solution that ensures all persons are covered under the scheme, provides not only compensation but also life long care and rehabilitation for the seriously injured, and includes accident prevention strategies.
Merely looking at the proposal for a RM2 million ceiling for claims under the new scheme, there are issues:
5. CAP’s proposal
We are convinced that in view of the serious weaknesses in the current system and in the proposal by BNM, that the entire fault based system has to go. Precious time, effort and money is being wasted on determining who is liable and who is not.
We must move away from Corrective Justice to Distributive Justice, from determination of fault to compensation and rehabilitation to all. There must be a paradigm shift – from the question of culpability to the question of compensation, rehabilitation and welfare. It is the responsibility of society to assist persons injured from motor vehicle accidents and allow them to be able to return and contribute to society. Our failure to achieve this is also an economic cost to the country.
CAP firmly believes that the revamp of the current system for compensation for victims of motor vehicle accidents and the introduction of a no fault system is a manner in which justice and equality can be achieved for all persons who have suffered injury or loss as a result of motor vehicle accidents.
CAP had previously submitted a memorandum on our proposal for a no-fault system to BNM. We stand by that proposal. Reform should not be half-hearted, but aimed at resolving the problems existent in the system.
In fact no-fault proposals have been made over the years:
One proposal has stayed and remained successful: Social Security Organization (SOCSO) was established in 1971 under the Human Resources Ministry to implement and administer the social security schemes under the Employees' Social Security Act 1969, i.e the Employment Injury Insurance Scheme and the Invalidity Pension Scheme. Under this scheme, workers are protected in the event of industrial accidents including accidents occurring while working, occupational diseases, invalidity or death due to any cause. In essence, the SOCSO scheme is a no-fault scheme providing compensation to workers injured in work-related accidents.
There is therefore, in our opinion, no longer any need to debate on the superiorities of each scheme. What we need is a roadmap towards the implementation of a No-Fault Scheme in Malaysia.
6. CAP’s proposal for a no-fault liability scheme
CAP’s proposal is based on the following guiding principles:
In our memorandum, CAP proposed that Malaysia emulates the model practiced in Victoria, Australia and run by the Transport Accident Commission.
A specific piece of legislation must be introduced to regulate the scheme, providing for all matters therein. An state-owned corporation or statutory body, along the lines of SOCSO must be set up to run the entire no-fault scheme. A corporation is preferred to a government agency, as while the latter may eventually be beset with bureaucracy, the former can function independently while being able to operate as a profitable entity in the long run. At the same time, being fully owned by the Government, it would be expected to prioritise social security and the aims of the scheme, as opposed to mere profits.
CAP is in favour of the government coming on board, and that is what CAP has proposed in relation to no-fault. The insurance industry has been left to its own for so long, that now the public and the government is being held to ransom by it. There is no need for insurers to be involved in motor coverage if it is not their cup of tea. A perusal of the no-fault schemes in Australia and New Zealand will show that insurers are not involved at all in their set up.
SOCSO was first set up as a government department in 1971. The in 1985, it became a statutory body.
Just as in the TAC, only the initial outlay will be from the government and that the new corporation has to subsequently run on the premiums and investment.
CAP has always maintained that SOCSO is an ideal example of how a state owned corporation should work. According to SOCSO’s Activity Report 2007, SOCSO has total assets of over RM15 billion. The increase in investments from 2006 to 2007 was due to a rise in SOCSO’s Total Funds and its positive return on investments.
Funding for the no-fault scheme could come from existing insurance third party premiums. As legal and administrative fees of insurance companies can be expected to go down as there will no longer be a need to prove fault, and there will no longer be any commissions to agents, existing premiums may suffice.
In addition, it may not be burdensome to require drivers to contribute to the scheme, as a payment to be made together with payment for vehicle registration or driving licence renewal. CAP has proposed an average flat rate of RM50 per year. In fact the late Tan Sri Dato’ Harun Hashim himself proposed such a rate, way back in 1995.
Receipt and administration of payment could follow the SOCSO example, via banks or post offices or other authorized agents.
In addition, funding may also come from SOCSO. As SOCSO deals with claims by workers for injuries occurring during the course of employment, including travelling to and from the place of work, there will be an overlap where workers suffer injury in a motor vehicle accident during the course of their employment. We propose that all cases of injuries as a result of MVA come under the purview of the NFL scheme, including those currently covered by SOCSO. That being the case, a portion of the contribution made by employees and employers to SOCSO can be allocated for the NFL scheme.
At the initial stages, the initial outlay would have to come from the Government. However, the statutory corporation could later on fund claims from investment returns on reserves,.
An NFL scheme would save time and money as accident cases would no longer be taken to court and affected persons would not face delays in payments from insurance companies. The Government and insurers would also not have to fork out large amounts for interest on judgment sums, which would normally be due when delays occur.
To ensure the long term viability of the scheme, there should be regular actuarial review of rates under the scheme as well as the scale of benefits based on loss experience and inflation rate.
6.3 Road Safety and Accident Prevention
The no-fault scheme will be futile if effective steps are not taken to promote road safety and prevent accidents. In the Malaysian context, this will include changing mindsets, as generally a large number of Malaysian drivers (and pedestrians) disregard road safety requirements, laws and regulations.
Current campaigns to promote road safety may not be effective enough, and tougher campaigns, coupled with proper enforcement of the law, must be carried out to ensure that road accidents are prevented, and reduced.
A look at SOCSO’s Activity Report 2007 will show that the number of accidents reported throughout 2007 decline by 3.4%, as a result of initiatives implemented to reduce the number of accidents, such as seminars, campaigns, periodic inspection and enforcement, collaboration with government bodies, employer associations and unions to increase awareness about safety and health at the workplace.
Accident prevention is key to the long term viability of a no-fault scheme, as has not only been recognized by SOCSO, but also by the TAC in Victoria. As such, campaigns must aim to increase awareness and change behavior, with a view to reducing road accidents and injuries.
6.4 Viability of the no-fault scheme
When the accident compensation scheme under TAC was introduced in 1987, it had an immediate impact – there was improved viability and solvency and, among others, the number of claims were reduced.
The accident compensation scheme has been and continues to be successful because it focuses on:
Accident prevention is key to the scheme’s long term scheme viability. There has been a reduction of more than 38000 claims over 10 years, with savings of more than AUD $1 billion. The number of fatalities on Victorian roads has reduced dramatically, from 776 reported in 1987 to 337 in 2006.
This can also be achieved if pro-active steps are taken to improve road conditions vehicle safety in addition to hard-hitting and emotive road safety campaigns.
The viability of the scheme in the long terms also depends on the delivery of good service to crash survivors – service does not only mean compensation but also caring for injured persons in their return to health, work and independence.
To ensure it remains a long-term compensation scheme, the TAC uses its funds fairly and responsibly. This ensures the TAC is able to meet the needs of seriously injured people who need lifetime care.
Furthermore, TAC’s legal services are not outsourced but in-house. Claims related legal services were in-sourced in 2004. This helps TAC claims staff make the correct or preferable decision and assists to resolve disputes and litigation.
CAP is of the view that all these must be emulated in the creation of a viable, functional and effective no-fault system in Malaysia.
7. Specific Issues raised by BNM
In the following paragraphs, we will examine the issues raised in BNM’s Discussion Paper and provide our responses as to how a no-fault scheme will resolve these issues, in contrast with the half-reform currently being proposed.
7.1 ISSUE: Inadequate access to 3rd party insurance cover; large number obtain cover from MMIP; many insurers selective in offering 3rd party insurance cover; many vehicles uninsured
In the No-fault scheme proposed by CAP, all vehicles registered in Malaysia must be covered, as long as the accident occurs in Malaysia. Benefits should be payable to persons injured in an accident as a driver, passenger, pedestrian, motorcyclist or cyclist.
There will therefore no longer be any issue of uninsured vehicles. The question of paying commissions etc to agents will also not arise.
As for tariffs not being revised, we propose that tariffs remain the same, and in addition that every vehicle registered be required to pay a sum of RM50 per year together with vehicle registration, to be channeled to the corporation that runs the no fault scheme. Considering that there are 18 million vehicles in the country, this should bring in an additional RM900 million.
7.2 ISSUE: Lengthy claims settlement process
Involvement of multiple parties
Between 1 to 3 years
Reasons for delay – acquisition of documents, processing time, time taken to come to reasonable compensation, disputes, court case
With a no-fault scheme, first of all there will no longer exist the need to determine fault. As a result, the process of documentation will become less complicated. The possibility of persons using official processes to obtain reports in their favour (read corruption) will reduce greatly. There will also be reduced opportunity for interference by third parties and agents.
Within a no-fault scheme as proposed by CAP, the corporation or body running the scheme will have to investigate and verify claims, and to assess compensation and manner of payment. There will no longer be a need for lawyers, adjusters and the like, except for the in house legal and technical support staff.
As perusal of SOCSO’s client charter will show that SOCSO aims to pay:
These are admirable targets, which a no-fault scheme should emulate and in fact, will be able to emulate, because of the elimination of the need to prove fault.
7.3 ISSUE: PREMIUMS INADEQUATE – HIGH CLAIMS RATIO
BNM has identified two reasons for the increase in the claims ratio – increasing rate of accidents and leakages. What is being done to address these issues?
Leakages in the system must be addressed. The culture of wanting to make a quick buck together with the lack of enforcement has resulted in this situation where insurers claim they are making losses.
CAP says that the bureaucracy must be cut, leakages identified and removed, and processes made transparent. In CAP’s proposal for a no-fault scheme, the corporation which runs the scheme will employ its own adjusters, investigators, legal advisers, to look into claims and reports. Management expenses and commissions will also become a thing of the past.
The Annual Insurance Industry Statistics 2009 show that a total of 30% of premiums earned go towards commissions and management expenses. This is extremely high.
In contrast, a look at Socso’s Activity Report 2007 shows that Administrative expenditure accounts for only 9.15% in 2006 and 9.79% in 2007 of overall employers and employees contribution.
The high claims ratio can also be reduced if accidents are reduced, road safety is improved and the number of claimants falls. But that cannot be achieved under the current system.
8. Advantages of the NFL system
There are several advantages to replacing the current system with the NFL scheme, along the lines proposed in our Memorandum and above:
CAP reiterates that it is time for reform of the accident compensation scheme in this country. No-fault is the ideal system that Malaysia should adopt, and it is in fact practiced in many progressive countries.
Malaysia in fact has practiced no fault for almost 40 years in the SOCSO scheme. Human resource and technical support will therefore not be problem, as it is readily available. There is no point in considering other system. The Government should accept the no-fault system and appoint a high-powered committee to work out and set up the mechanism for the introduction of this scheme in Malaysia.
CAP also appeals to BNM to put forward our proposal to the Cabinet. We will be happy to be of further assistance if required.
Dated this 14th day of May 2010.
On one hand Bank Negara (which comes under the Ministry of Finance) has said that the TPBID policy is not finalized and has invited the public to give its feedback on it. CAP too submitted its comments on 14th May 2010.
CAP strongly opposes the implementation of the proposed TPBID as in essence it is no different from the current system whereby compensation for the victim depends on proving fault. Most of all it is designed to help reduce the losses suffered by insurance companies for third party motor policies. The call by certain groups to retain the existing system ignores the injustice done to accident victims and is motivated largely by their own group interest. The government should ignore such calls.
In view of the serious weaknesses in the current system and in the proposed TPBID by BNM, the entire fault based system has to go. Instead of wasting precious time, effort and money on determining who is liable and who is not, we should be concentrating on compensation and rehabilitation to all. It is the responsibility of society to assist persons injured from motor vehicle accidents and allow them to be able to return and contribute to society. Our failure to achieve this is also an economic cost to the country.
CAP firmly believes that the introduction of a no fault liability (NFL) system should replace the present system.
In fact no-fault proposals have been made over the years. In 1995, the late Tan Sri Dato’ Harun Hashim, a former Supreme Court judge proposed the introduction of a no-fault scheme for claims in relation to bodily injury and death as a result of motor vehicle accidents. In August 2007, the Attorney General’s Chambers issued a Preliminary Issue Paper proposing that a No Fault Liability Scheme (NFL) be introduced. The paper had set out the reasons why NFL was needed and several meetings were held with interested groups. But, regrettably, nothing came out of that proposal.
CAP has already submitted a memorandum on our proposal for a NFL to Bank Negara Our proposal is based on the following guiding principles:
That the NFL scheme is workable here can be seen from the success of our SOCSO scheme which was introduced in 1974 for the welfare of workers.
Under SOCSO, an injured worker is compensated without having to establish fault. The SOCSO charter provides that upon receipt of all completed documents and information payment of benefits will be made:-
SOCSO’s administrative costs are low at 9.15 % of the contribution in 2006 and 9.79% in 2007. Thus under SOCSO almost 90% of the contribution received is spent for the welfare of the workers.
Compare this to our current system for motor accident vehicles, where 20% of the premium earned goes to the insurance companies as management expenses and 10 % to the agents as as commission. Out of the remaining 70%, 30% or more goes to the lawyers leaving only 40% or less available for the victims.
SOCSO has also taken steps to reduce the number of accidents and as a result of the accident prevention measures taken, the number of accident has declined by 3.4% in 2007.
In the state of Victoria, Australia its highly successful NFL scheme (implemented in the 1980s), has also resulted in a drastic reduction in accidents and claims for compensation. Fatalities fell from 776 cases in 1989 to 337 cases in 2006 and 290 in 2009. Over 10 years the number of claims for compensation had fallen by 38,000 resulting in savings of more than AUD 1 billion.
The success of SOCSO means that the NFL scheme is a viable one. Because of prudent and efficient management, SOCSO’s assets have increased to over RM15 billion
CAP reiterates that it is time for reform of the accident compensation scheme in this country. No-fault is the ideal system that Malaysia should adopt, and it is in fact practiced in many progressive countries.
Malaysia in fact has practiced no fault for almost 40 years in the SOCSO scheme. Human resource and technical support will therefore not be problem, as it is readily available. There is no point in considering other systems. The Government should accept the no-fault system and appoint a high-powered committee to work out and set up the mechanism for the introduction of this scheme in Malaysia.
Press Statement, 18th May 2010
In August 2007, the Attorney General’s Chambers issued a Preliminary Issue paper proposing that a No-Fault Liability Scheme (NFL) be introduced. There were intensive discussions with all interested parties including BNM on the need for the NFL scheme.
It is our hope that the new scheme proposed by BNM closely resembles the NFL scheme discussed 2 years ago. We badly need the NFL scheme to do justice to those people who are injured in accidents or dependents of those killed in accidents.
NFL scheme is better than the present fault based system whereby claims for compensation for personal injury or dependents or any other loss occasioned by motor vehicle accidents are made by instituting proceedings in court. The courts apply principles of common law negligence in determining fault and compensation. As a result, not every person injured in an accident receives compensation in spite of having to wait for a considerable period of time and spend substantial amount of money.
However the NFL scheme is much more than getting accident victims compensated as quickly as possible. It is based on the principles of community responsibility, comprehensive entitlement, complete rehabilitation, real compensation and administrative efficiency.
The NFL scheme is a good one as it has many benefits for example :-
We believe an NFL scheme along the following lines can work :-
Very little is known about the proposed scheme by BNM, but from various reports in the media, it appears that :
2. The scheme has been proposed because insurance companies say that premiums are insufficient to cover third party claims, and that they are making losses.
3. A private company or conglomerate comprising insurance companies will manage the scheme. An initial capital of RM500 million is required, and this is proposed to be raised through higher premiums or a government (ie, taxpayers) payout.
4. Consultation, including working groups, have already been carried out with insurers – whereas the public, consumer organisations and other stakeholders have all been left out. Only now, the central bank is planning to consult everyone else.
CAP is alarmed that BNM has thought it appropriate to support a scheme such as this that will adversely affect millions of road users in this country, in response to the lobbying of the insurance industry.
The industry claims there is an underwriting deficit. As far as the public is concerned, no evidence has been produced in support of this contention. If what the industry claims is true, then the solution is not in appointing insurers, who have proved themselves incapable of delivering benefits to victims of accidents efficiently and equitably, to manage such a scheme.
If insuring TPBID claims is a burden to insurers, it makes it even clearer that the reason they have made such a proposal is to reduce their 'losses' and increase profits. That should never be the reason for a change of policy.
It is the responsibility of the government to step in and set up a system which would deliver fair and just relief to all persons affected by MVAs, quickly, adequately, efficiently and without great cost. We have to look at other solutions, which would ensure social justice to all road accident victims.
It is irresponsible of the insurance companies to propose motorists pay a higher premium for a scheme that will put them in a far worse position that they are in now. Most motorists cannot afford to file cases in court, and many will never be able to pay the damages sought by persons seriously injured, especially those who are unemployed or without full time jobs.
Consultations should have been carried out at the outset with all stakeholders, before such a scheme was even considered, and not merely with the party who will profit the most ie, insurers.
CAP is of the opinion that the current system is not working and accident victims are not getting a fair deal. Currently, under the fault based system, claims for compensation for personal injury or any other loss occasioned by motor vehicle accidents are made by instituting proceedings in court. The courts apply principles of common law negligence in determining fault and compensation. Compensation is paid out by insurance companies out of funds derived from premiums paid under compulsory third party risks insurance policies.
In fault-based litigation, not every person injured in an accident receives compensation. Furthermore, regardless of the severity of injuries or extent of loss, claimants usually have to wait for a considerable period of time and spend substantial amounts of money before a final determination of their rights and award of compensation. Such a delay may mean that many are unable to speedily return to gainful employment.
Lawyers take a big chunk of the damages paid by insurance companies. CAP has received complaints of lawyers taking between 25-30% of the amount paid out.
CAP has for years been calling for a no-fault scheme in relation to motor vehicle accidents. Last year, CAP sent a memorandum on the subject to the prime minister, the Finance Ministry and BNM on this.
Under no-fault, it becomes irrelevant who is responsible for the accidents. Efforts are geared towards assisting victims of road accidents, and not in establishing who is at fault. All injured victims get compensation, with some exceptions in the case of motorists who flout the law, who are injured in motor vehicle races, those convicted of drink or drug driving offences as a result of accidents, those convicted of committing a crime at the time of the accident etc.
CAP proposed that the scheme run by the Transport Accident Commission in Victoria, Australia as a suitable model to emulate in Malaysia, taking into account that modifications will need to be made to enable the scheme to be suited to local circumstances.
Victoria's Transport Accident Commission (TAC) is responsible for Victoria's transport accident scheme which is in essence a no-fault scheme, but also has among its foremost aims the prevention of accidents and the rehabilitation of persons injured by road traffic accidents. Aside from its role to pay for treatment and benefits for people injured in transport accidents, it is also involved in promoting road safety in Victoria and in improving Victoria's trauma system.
The TAC is a state-owned monopoly provider of transport-related personal injury accident compensation. It is a statutory business enterprise established by the Transport Accident Act 1986, and owned by the Victorian government. The minister of finance exercises responsibility over the TAC, and it is overseen by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The TAC operates as a commercial insurer and is funded both by premiums and investment income generated on reserves.
If such a scheme were to be introduced in Malaysia, a specific piece of legislation must be introduced to regulate the scheme and an agency along the lines of Socso must be set up to administer and run the NFL scheme. Alternatively, a state-owned corporation could be set up to run the entire no-fault scheme. A corporation is preferred to a government agency, as while the latter may eventually be beset with bureaucracy, the former can function independently while being able to operate as a profitable entity in the long run. At the same time, being fully owned by the Government, it would be expected to prioritise social security and the aims of the scheme, as opposed to mere profits.
Opponents have pointed out that a no-fault scheme may encourage accidents since the guilty party will not be punished (Motor Insurance – reconsider your stand CAP). Yet with the implementation of the NFL in 1987 in Victoria, there has been a 29% drop in road fatalities between 2000 and 2009. This was achieved by carrying out intensive road safety campaigns. We can do the same, but our efforts have to be more aggressive and messages more hard-hitting than they currently are.
Naysayers have also said that NFL only works in a social welfare state. In a welfare state the state takes responsibility for the welfare of the citizens. In Malaysia, we have done this with workmen's compensation (Socso) for instance. NFL schemes have been introduced throughout the world, and not only in welfare states. Each country which practices no-fault has a scheme which suits its local circumstances. We merely have to consider which model is most appropriate for us.
Some have claimed that premiums will increase under an NFL system. CAP has proposed that funding for the scheme could come from existing insurance third party premiums and a portion of comprehensive insurance payments. As legal and administrative fees of insurance companies can be expected to go down as there will no longer be a need to prove fault, existing premiums may suffice.
We agree that BNM is not proposing an NFL scheme. During the 2007 discussions, it was widely known that the whole NFL idea mooted by the attorney-general then was at the lobby of the insurance industry, and that is why at that time government representatives made it clear that the government would not fund the scheme.
The proposal by the Attorney-General's Chambers then involved insurance companies administering the scheme. CAP had at that time, while stating its stand in support of no-fault, made it clear that it would not support any such scheme being run by insurers. At all times we said it ought to be run by the government.
In fact, in New Zealand and some other jurisdictions, insurers are not involved. It appears now that insurers have found another proposal to lobby the government with, on the same basis that there is an underwriting deficit in relation to TPBID claims. We say that if the insurance industry finds this sector running at a loss, don't run it. Let the government take over.
In relation to objections to the NFL scheme:
From a moral perspective – there are exceptions to payment of compensation in an NFL scheme – please see above. Recklessness is to be dealt with by the Road Traffic Act. No one will be encouraged to be reckless or negligent merely because their injuries will be covered. In any event, even under the current system, damages are not paid by the reckless drivers personally but by their insurers. That is why NFL must be a complete package – coupled with serious efforts aimed towards reducing road accidents and not mere sloganism.
From a social perspective – fraud already exists in the current tort system. Litigation is fraught with delays, which opens up opportunities for fraud and corruption. A no-fault system is meant to create an informal mechanism of resolving disputes and ensures claims are resolved quickly and efficiently. To beat fraudulent claims, effective control mechanisms, including a proper fraud detection system must be in place to minimise fraud or abuse of the system. Enforcement must be strict and consistent. Procedures must be simplified, so that injured parties can place their claims directly, without the involvement of intermediaries or agents.
From an economic perspective – why should there be an increase in premiums? With reduced administrative expenses and elimination of payments to lawyers etc, there would be adequate funds to provide relief to everyone injured in accidents, and therefore there is no need to increase the premium. In addition, funding may also come from Socso. Socso deals with claims by workers for injuries occurring during the course of employment, including travelling to and from the place of work.
There will therefore be an overlap where workers suffer injuries in a MVA during the course of work. CAP has proposed that all cases of MV injuries come under the purview of the NFL scheme, including those covered by Socso. A portion of the contribution made to SOCSO can be allocated to the NFL scheme.
In summary, CAP agrees that major reform is overdue in how we compensate victims of motor vehicle accidents. However, such reform should put the public interest as priority and must not, in any circumstances, be at the behest or for the profitability of insurers.