Speaking to FMT, Aziz Kaprawi said the merger was a regressive move since it would remove the checks and balances instituted when Mavcom was established in 2015 to take over a role played by the transport ministry’s aviation division.
“Mavcom was set up because the previous administration wanted to have a more independent body” to regulate commercial matters relating to civil aviation, he said.
It was answerable to the prime minister and it was he who appointed its chairman, he added.
He noted that Mavcom’s board was made up of equal numbers of appointees from the prime minister’s office and the transport ministry and said this ensured good checks and balances since power was not concentrated in the transport minister’s hands.
He said separation of powers was also evident in road transport, citing the different roles played by the Road Transport Department and the Land Public Transport Agency.
Yesterday, the transport ministry confirmed reports that Mavcom would be disbanded and that its key roles would be absorbed by CAAM. This means the Mavcom Act will be repealed and the CAAM Act amended.
Aziz said Malaysia’s aviation industry did not grow as fast as it could before Mavcom’s establishment because power was concentrated in one place and this tempted political interference.
But transport consultant Rosli Azad Khan has a different view, saying the merger was a good move because many of Mavcom’s and CAAM’s functions overlapped.
He said the establishment of Mavcom had led to a state of confusion among aviation and aerodrome services players.
“Not only is there a duplication of roles and responsibilities, some of the provisions contained in the Mavcom Act are vague, too general and poorly phrased,” he told FMT.
“It contains provision such as, ‘evaluate the performance of airlines,’ ‘consider the effect of consumers’, ‘dominant market position’, ‘public service obligations’ and so on, which are all difficult to ascertain and enforce.”
Rosli said the power to set aeronautical charges should not be placed with Mavcom but CAAM because these were more related to the technical side of aviation.
“Also, having more than one government body to regulate government-owned entities is not a good practice,” he said, referring to the roles played by Mavcom and CAAM in regulating Malaysia Airlines and Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad.
“Their duplicated roles are unnecessary and don’t serve the aviation industry well.”