Of recent times there has been various and multiple articles written by many enthusiasts and respected journalist within the community voicing out the issue of discrimination about the kind of cars we drive. These accounts by various individuals have been highlighted mainly through words and first hand accounts, mostly through stories with not much concrete evidence. Lets be honest, if you get LTA officers sent to your carpark, there could have been a very good chance you were causing nuisance and disturbing your neighbours. Its not always that performance cars are innocent as we also recognize there are black sheep among every community.

So this afternoon I received a call from a buddy of mine named Marcus. If you’re familiar with the local car scene you probably would have heard of him. Many of his cars have been featured on magazines and he’s been active within the community for quite some time now. Some of you might have also heard he recently got rid of his Matt silver lotus for a new play thing. A Mitsubishi Evo 9, a car that he has never even driven on the roads since the purchase. He sent us this email with various documents attached to prove his point. Attached below is that exact email.

To: The Right Wrong

This is with regards to a few previous articles in debate of the LTA discrimination against sports vehicle makes.

I have been an active member of the car scene for the past 8 years and have seen the stepped up enforcement of the government against modified vehicles. I always believe in logical reasoning and explaination.

However, i would like to bring to everyone’s attention (media and public) of the recent ‘request’ i have received from LTA with some of my documents to justify my case.

To begin with, i have recently made a purchase of a Mitsubishi Evolution 9 with the sales agreement on the 26th Sept 2012.

I am a very particular and fussy owner and for each purchase of my vehicles, regardless of condition i will do a full spec servicing at my workshop. therefore i left the car at the garage. Knowing that the car will be there for a couple of weeks and i would be doing a vehicle retention number, i removed and discarded the existing car plate and left my car at the workshop.

I have always retained my number plate for my vehicles for the past 8 years. Retention of the number plate was made on 4th Oct 2012.

However since the car has been at the workshop and the new number plate as of today 1st Nov 2012 is still not up yet as i am replacing all the wear and tear parts as this is a 6 year old vehicle.

Very unfortunately, I fell ill shortly after from the 8th Oct 2012 and was thereafter hospitalized and was only discharged on the 25th Oct 2012 with medical leave until 28th Oct 2012.

When i got home after finally being discharged, i received a registered letter from LTA. With date of issue on 22nd Oct 2012 indicating that a report has been made against my number plate within the period of time that i was hospitalised.

This number plate was never on this vehicle before, car was never on the roads since my purchase and i was hospitalized during the period the ‘report’ was being made.

My question now to LTA as i called in to their hotline posting the very same question that they could not give an answer to is,

‘On what grounds/reason is my vehicle requested to be send for inspection?’

If as LTA claims that a report was being made when i have all the documented proof that this vehicle was NEVER on the roads with the reported carplate as well as the fact that i was hospitalized during that period, then on what grounds made is that report actually valid?
If there is no grounds that a report is valid, am i right to conclude that anyone who writes a report in with a random carplate LTA would request for that vehicle for inspection? Or is it selective that just because my make and model is a Mitsubishi Evolution 9?
So if my carplate was submitted twice a month by random people, i would have to go for an inspection 24 times a year?
Would this be the case if my car was a Toyota Altis? It seems to me that LTA would just take anyone’s ‘report’ as valid from my above case.

This car was NEVER driven on the roads with the new retained carplate and could not possibly receive any true and valid reports with the new carplate. I was hospitalised and now there is a request for my vehicle to be inspected when i have not even driven the vehicle on the roads? This is purely ridiculous with no logic or explaination as i have all the black and white proof.

Could someone please enlighten me as it seems to be once again, discrimination against certain particular make and model of vehicle.

Regards,
Marcus Chow.

The car is currently still being worked on in the workshop, without its number plates and is still undergoing an overhaul. The workshop has cameras and in any case, will be able to prove that the car has never left the workshop since its arrival after purchase.

Marcus is still waiting for a reply from LTA.

What are YOUR thoughts?