Critics of the proposed RM100,000 fine argue that simply increasing penalties may not address the root causes of rail cable theft. While the intention to protect infrastructure is clear, there is skepticism about whether a high fine will actually deter individuals who are often driven by economic desperation or organized criminal syndicates. If the perpetrators are part of a larger black-market network, they may view the risk of a fine as a cost of doing business rather than a deterrent.
There is also concern that the focus on punitive measures ignores the need for better physical security and community engagement. If the rail network remains vulnerable to easy access, thieves will continue to find ways to bypass security, regardless of the potential fine. Critics suggest that resources might be better spent on hardening infrastructure, such as using non-recyclable materials for cables or improving perimeter fencing, rather than relying solely on legal threats.
Furthermore, the enforcement of such a large fine presents practical challenges. If the individuals caught are indigent or lack the means to pay, the penalty becomes symbolic rather than functional. This could lead to a situation where the legal system is clogged with cases that result in uncollectible debts, failing to provide any real relief to the rail operators or the public who suffer from the delays.
Finally, some observers warn that an over-reliance on surveillance and heavy fines could lead to unintended consequences, such as increased costs for the rail operators to manage the legal and administrative burden. Instead of a singular focus on punishment, critics advocate for a more holistic approach that includes addressing the illicit market for stolen metals and providing better support for vulnerable communities near rail lines. Without these broader efforts, the cycle of theft and disruption may persist despite the new legislation.