‘Compound’ for 2021 LRT collision: How to compensate victims?

On 15 April, Attorney General Dusuki Mokhtar ordered all deputy public prosecutors to apply for the courts to order compensation for the victims of crimes, including those killed by drivers driving under the influence.

With reference to Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he said that the order “can be made on top of a sentence, for the purpose of compensating the aggrieved party” (Free Malaysia Today, 15 April). This compensation order must be paid to the victims and cannot be extinguished by any in-default prison sentence [Section 426(2)].

Court can only order the convicted

However, if the alleged accused is not convicted in court, or escapes being charged by a compound offer, then the criminal courts cannot order them to pay victims for their suffering or loss.

Madpet is thus disappointed that a compound was offered to Rapid Rail Sdn Bhd. Once the offer is accepted and Rapid Rail Sdn Bhd pays, they can no longer be charged in court for the same offence – so there will be no trial or conviction, and thus the victims will not be able to get any remedy in the criminal courts.

On 11 April 2026, it was reported that the Land Public Transport Agency (Apad) offered Rapid Rail Sdn Bhd a compound of RM100,000, which was accepted.

Section 235 of the Land Public Transport Act 2010 (LPTA) says that the director general of Land Public Transport or any land public transport officer, among others, can make “a written offer to the person suspected to have committed the offence to compound the offence upon payment to the person making the offer to compound of an amount of money not exceeding fifty per centum of the amount of the maximum fine”.

The offence was under Section 101(10), concerning an operator’s licence. If Rapid Rail had been charged and tried, it “shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding RM500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both” (New Straits Times, 11 April). Thus, the compound offer could have been as high as RM250,000 – but why was Rapid Rail asked to pay a compound of only RM100,000?

This is not the first time Rapid Rail has been compounded, rather than charged, tried and convicted in court.

In the 12 December 2024 incident, where there was one fatality and three injuries to Rapid Rail staff members, Rapid Rail was also not charged but was offered a compound of RM100,000. That incident involved a brake system failure of a shunting machine operated by Rapid Rail, which led to a collision with a Speeder 3 machine. Again, no charge – just a compound of RM100,000 (The Star, 27 February 2026).

Section 235(4) of the LPTA states: “Where an offence has been compounded under subsection (2), no prosecution shall be instituted in respect of the offence against the person to whom the offer to compound was made”.

Some media reports referred to it as a “fine”, which is misleading. It was not a court sentence to pay a fine after conviction.

Compounds?

“You pay so much, we stop investigations and you will not be charged in court” – that, briefly, is what a compound is.

The power to offer a compound is thus open to the possibility of abuse. Compounds may be permissible for minor offences.

But compounds should not be allowed for serious crimes like LRT, motor vehicle or industrial accidents, especially where there are victims who have been injured or even killed. For such cases, the perpetrator should be charged in court, where the accused can plead guilty or claim trial and be sentenced justly. This also gives the court the ability to order the convicted to pay compensation to victims.

The amount of a compound offer is an administrative decision – not a court decision. For the 2021 LRT accident that caused injuries to 213 passengers, the compound offer was RM100,000 (about RM450 per victim), which is absurd. Moreover, it is the state, not the victims, that receives the money.

However, if Rapid Rail Sdn Bhd had been charged in court for just one charge under Section 101, tried and then perhaps convicted, the court could have sentenced the company by imposing “a fine not exceeding RM500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both”. The court could also have ordered Rapid Rail Sdn Bhd to pay each of the 213 victims compensation – which would have been more just.

There are still doubts as to whether any ongoing investigations will see other “persons who at the time of the commission of the offence were a director, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate” being charged in the near future.

Section 242(1) LPTA states: “If a body corporate commits an offence under this Act, any person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or was purporting to act in any such capacity or was in any manner or to any extent responsible for the management of any of the affairs of the body corporate or was assisting in such management – (a) may be charged severally or jointly in the same proceedings with the body corporate…”

And the MoT?

In this case, it appears that the investigation was conducted by the Ministry of Transport, and a most important element was oddly left out in the investigation – the determination of those who may be criminally liable for the LRT accident.

In fact, the MoT’s media release stated twice: “This report is not for the purpose of apportioning blame nor liability on any party.” (See MoT media release, 24 May 2021).

This is most odd. In such investigations, it is crucial to determine whether anyone was at fault by reason of action or omission, and whether such persons or any companies may be criminally liable.

The investigation revealed system failure, malfunctions and non-compliance of standard operating procedures. Thus, it is odd that no one has yet been found to be criminally liable. Was this a failure of law enforcement and inspection, a responsibility that also falls on the Ministry of Transport?

Remember that the MoT is also duty-bound to approve and regularly inspect the LRT to ensure it complies with standards and is always safe for public use. Section 105, for example, provides: “After a railway has been opened, the railway shall be inspected by a person appointed by the Director General of Land Public Transport in such manner and at such intervals as may be set out in the regulations made…”

Thus, in the LRT accident, the ministry itself could be implicated or criminally liable if it fell short in its approval or inspection duties. It would therefore be best that the ministry not be involved from the outset of investigations into the determination of criminal liability for the LRT accident.

In this case, it appears the investigation and ultimately the compound offer to the suspected perpetrator were all made by entities under the MoT. The question that should be asked is whether the investigation and the decision to prosecute (or offer a compound) should have been independent, without the involvement of the MoT or entities under it.

Independent probe needed

Madpet takes the view that when the police, the MACC or, in this case, the MoT may themselves be criminally liable, it is best that some independent body investigates. It not, there is a risk of a flawed investigation and even an attempt to ‘eliminate’ their own liability.

It was this rationale that led to the promotion of the idea of an independent body not linked in any way to the entity or ministry involved; hence the proposal for an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC). In the LRT accident case, doubt remains as to whether the MoT was in any way criminally liable for the accident.

Other investigations?

In these LRT accidents, we wonder why there has been no report from the Ministry of Human Resources, which would have conducted its own independent investigation, as this was also an industrial accident. It should also have been investigated under labour laws like the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994.

As there were serious injuries to the victims, and even a death in the 2024 LRT accident, should there not also have been a police investigation?

Penal Code offences such as negligent conduct with respect to any machinery in the possession or under the charge of the offender (Section 287), causing grievous hurt (Section 338) and even murder are appropriate, since the 2024 accident resulted in a death and injuries.

It would be odd if the public prosecutor were to say that homicide charges are only possible in road accidents but not LRT or railway accidents. Indeed, we have heard little from the public prosecutor, the Ministry of Human Resources or the police on the outcome of their investigations into these two LRT accidents in 2021 and 2024. Are investigations still not complete? Will others be charged soon?

No preferential treatment

Rapid Rail Sdn Bhd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Prasarana Malaysia Berhad, a government-owned company under the Minister of Finance (Incorporated).

Malaysia must not do anything that raises any suggestion or perception that special treatment has been accorded to government-owned companies.

So, the question we should ask is why the driver, those responsible for the equipment that failed, the directors, etc were not charged.

The Greece case

By comparison, let us look at a similar train collision in Greece in 2023, where 36 persons are now being tried in court. Thirty-three face felony charges of endangering transport safety, an offence that can carry a sentence of life imprisonment. Other charges include involuntary manslaughter and bodily harm by negligence (Euractiv/AFP, 24 March 2026).

Madpet calls on the public prosecutor to immediately charge thosewho are criminally liable for the 2021 LRT accident that caused injuries to 213 passengers, and the 2024 LRT accident that left one dead and three injured.

A corporate entity’s liability for a crime means there must be actions or omissions of some individuals, done intentionally or negligently – and thus justice demands that all such individuals be charged and tried in an open court.

Restorative justice also focuses on repairing the harm done to victims and ensuring that offenders take responsibility for their actions.

In this case, the investigations revealed, among other things: Vehicle On-Board Communication (VOBC) system failure (not once but twice); that both the driver and the OCC’s train controller had overlooked and missed critical procedures;and that Train 81 was prematurely made to depart KLCC station towards Kampung Baru station without proper verification that Train 40 had been safely reset and re-entered into automated train operation (ATO) mode. (See MoT media release, 10 June 2021). Surely, the individuals responsible – and possibly even the suppliers of the VOBC and ATO systems – may also be criminally liable and should be charged in court.

Shifting blame?

It was most disturbing that in an earlier media report, Prasarana Malaysia Bhd (Prasarana) and Rapid Rail Sdn Bhd allegedly denied negligence and asserted that such claims must be proven with strong evidence. They also suggested that victims may be partially or entirely responsible for the injuries they sustained during the Kelana Jaya LRT crash of May 2021: “Failing to stand or sit at the locations designated for passengers, failing to hold the straphangers provided by the defendants, with negligence and/or purposely caused and/or allowed themselves to experience the injuries to which they have claimed,” their statement of defence read (Vibes, 29 May 2023).

This was shocking. In such cases, a compound should never have been offered, and an open trial would have been best to determine the truth. An acceptance of a compound offer is not an admission of guilt – thus the victims will still have to prove in court that Rapid Rail was negligent before they can be compensated – an onerous task for lay victims.

However, if Rapid Rail or Prasarana, together with any criminally liable individuals, had been charged, tried and possibly convicted, the people would also learn the truth – whether it was an act of God or an act of negligence by the company or some individuals. Once convicted, the court can order the convicted to compensate all victims.

Madpet calls upon the Malaysian government and Prime Minister and Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim to act fast to ensure that all victims of these LRT accidents are justly compensated.

Madpet also calls for the abolition of compounds for crimes where there are victims, such as in this case, where passengers were injured in the LRT collision, and for other serious crimes like corruption, money laundering and abuse of power.

Failure to charge and try offenders also means an absence of conviction and sentences, and thus no deterrence. Would the 2024 accident have happened if there had been a speedy open trial and conviction for the 2021 LRT accident?

Charles Hector issued this statement on behalf of Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture.

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: