sideviews

Street racing in KL – Billy Hoo

February 25, 2016

Just a few days ago, Federal Territories Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, also known as Ku Nan, said the government is considering to close up some portion of the city’s roads for “mat rempits” or illegal bike racers to race legally.

As expected, the proposal was met with negative comments. Some cited that the suggestion would ultimately encourage youths to risk their lives and that it would also promote an unhealthy culture. Others suggested that there are greater priorities such as youth unemployment.

In Ku Nan’s defence however, the idea is not totally a bad idea. There are certainly some “pros” to the idea and I am not being sarcastic here.

There are really legitimate basis as to why legalising street racing is appropriate. This essay will first discuss both the pros and cons but really, will take an additional step back and re-evaluate the real problem at hand.

Cons

It will risk lives and promote unhealthy culture

Perhaps the most straightforward argument against the idea is of course that street racing would put lives at risk. And we do not want to promote an unhealthy culture among youths to be involved in street racing.

Youths should instead be encouraged to engage in more productive activities that could promote their welfare.

It will become a slippery slope to legalising other forms of street racing

Legalising the illegal bike racing will soon be met with subsequent pressures to legalise other forms of street racing such as car racing.

Under this circumstance, one would expect Kuala Lumpur to become a racing hub in a rather dissimilar fashion to its neighbouring city, Singapore. Is this a desired goal though?

It will create a marketplace for other underground activities

Perhaps, the biggest concern is that creating racing hubs in Kuala Lumpur would make the city an even more attractive marketplace for other underground activities such as sex and drug trafficking.

These illicit activities could potentially accompany the street races. This is particularly concerning especially when there is no stringent monitoring mechanism in place as part of the legalisation process.

Given the state of sex trafficking and the prostitution rings in Kuala Lumpur currently due to poor law enforcement, the scenario described here is more of a certainty than a probability.

Pros

Instead of putting lives at risk, it will make everyone safer

It is arguable that the policy idea would put lives at risks but isn’t the lives of these bike racers already at risk by default if racing illegally and it is actually riskier without a safer environment?

Specifying parts of Kuala Lumpur specifically for these street races will even make bikers safer particularly when there are no other pedestrians and vehicles expected to be on road. Fewer accidents will occur.

Banning will not solve the problem

Keeping street racing illegal will not solve the problem. One can safely assume that whether illegal or not, there will be street racing. And if street racing is in fact illegal, more youths will be remanded and that there will be operational costs associated to enforce the ban and penalise the youths.

There were already massive operations to catch these bikers in the past but we still see them on the road, don’t we? If we were to legalise these racers, the costs otherwise used to enforce the ban can be diverted to regulating them.

Also, presumably after having it legalised, racers will have to obtain licenses to participate in these races, the revenues obtained from these licensing can be used to sustain regulating the racers. In other words, there could be a tax system to fund the policy implementation itself.

A formal marketplace for (now legal) street bike racing can be created

Imagine now that once street bike racing is legalised – with proper regulations and monitoring mechanisms in place – a formal marketplace for street bike racing can be created.

As mentioned earlier, specific licenses to participate in these street races can be issued to the bikers so that bikers of a certain age and background can only participate in these racers.

This will be in addition to verifying their driving licenses, vehicular safety, road taxes and whether or not the bikes were actually stolen because these were also concerns mentioned in the past.

There could also be additional safety regulations that the bikers must adhere to in order to participate in these racers. This will further make them safer. Privatising these races can also potentially result in better management of the road conditions in the city, like potholes.

Also, if there is enough demand for this, these racers can be organised formally. Just as much as dance competitions are organised and created, street racers can be organised in similar fashion.

A whole mini-economy can be created out of these events. There will be jobs! Racers who are grouped into formal teams will be paid wages and enjoy labor and employment rights. There could be broadcasting opportunities too.

Pipelines can also be created where racers can also have the opportunity to participate in the more professional circuit if they perform well in these events.

This could be important when such jobs can be created and targeted to help alleviate the social economic status of the participants of the otherwise illegal bike races who are presumably of lower income and not tertiary educated.

In short, it will be Malaysia’s own take of the X-Games! However, again, this should only be promoted with really stringent and enforceable regulations.

Can the Malaysia government really establish proper and stringent executable regulations?

This is really one of the biggest concerns since in order to make the legalisation process effective, there must be really strict and executable rules, monitoring and enforcement.

Given Malaysia’s poor track record in terms of governance and policy implementation, it is really unlikely that an ambitious policy like this can turn to be successful.

Do we need to build more capacities to implement this policy?

As an extension to the previous question, more capacities will be needed in order to implement this policy. This includes the human capital and physical investment needed in addition to other administrative and research capacities that have to be in place to make this policy successful.

Given that the government is already having issues with its budget as well as the cuts we see in most sectors like public education, I am unsure if there are enough financial resources available to make this implementation work.

What will the public think?

Honestly, this policy idea would fall short in terms of its public support. Given now that there are cuts for public education, the Malaysia government would send a really wrong signal in terms of its priority.

If instead more funds are actually channeled into education and youth related programs that seek to develop human capital initially, this policy idea will actually be more accepted by the public especially also when the hypothesised benefits of the program are actually conveyed appropriately.

How do we measure success?

One problem when it comes to policy implementation in the country is that Malaysia has not been implementing robust program evaluations. If one were to claim that investing on a golf simulation system helps to promote the involvement of youth in the sport, there should be statistical evidence in place to support the claim!

I am not speaking of the conventional but outmoded before-and-after analysis – anyone can do that – but the more sophisticated evaluation methods like difference-in-difference analysis, propensity score matching, synthetic control models or randomised control trials if possible!

If Ku Nan claims that by doing so, quality of life will increase, how do we really measure that? More, what kind of indicators do we use to measure success? If so, are there mechanisms in place to collect data? Do we need to pilot test them?

Are we solving the problem or the symptom?

Ultimately, the biggest question that we have to ask is whether by legalising street racing, are we in fact solving the problem or the symptom? In the policy process, one must carefully identify the policy problem at hand or else mismatches would occur. Take traffic congestion for example.

An alternative to expand the road will actually be solving the symptom of traffic congestion. In fact, in such circumstance, more vehicles could be expected to be on the expanded road which is counter to the intervention goal.

If one were to identify the problem as the lack of public transport and car-pooling options, alternatives can be designed to address them rightfully.

Illegal street racing is a societal ill: a symptom resulting from poor management of the society as well as the youth. Legalising street racing thus, is a solution to the symptom and not the problem.

To solve the problem, one must consider what are the factors underlying youth participation in such activities in addition to their demographic characteristics. Are they tertiary educated or are they not? Do they hold stable jobs or are unemployed?

More importantly, what are their economic incentives to participate? Rousseau once mentioned that the enslavement to needs such as economic needs is the root to all societal ills. There must be an economic reason as to why these youths are participating in illegal street racing.

Once the important factors are identified, a participative policy design process involving the racers themselves and policymakers should be conducted so that a policy intervention can be created to address the real problem at hand.

Such interventions ideally, will be able to incentivise the youth to avoid participating illegal street racing altogether and instead be cultivated into the formal economy in a more sustainable fashion.

My verdict

In conclusion, despite the fact that the policy idea have legitimate benefits that can be expected through its implementation, unless the challenges and the more important questions are addressed, the idea of legalising street bike racing should not be pushed forward.

It is a good policy but Malaysia is not in the right position, resources and timing to implement such policy. There is no policy window for it. – February 25, 2016.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.