I WAS stopped by a Road Transport Department (JPJ) officer about a month ago, apparently for not wearing my seatbelt.

Funny thing is, I remember being stopped and then removing my seatbelt, which obviously meant I was wearing it.

I got down from the car when the officer asked me to do so and handed over my driving licence.

I argued with the officer, saying that I was indeed wearing my seatbelt and asked that he show me proof that I wasn't.

He claimed that a photograph was taken but printing it out at that point in time or showing it to me was not possible.

His reply did not make sense. I continued to dispute his allegation, ticking him off to a point where he threatened to cancel my driving licence.

Obviously not wanting that to happen, I succumbed to his demands and allowed him to write out the summons.

I then called the JPJ hotline in Putrajaya and told them I wanted to see the photograph that allegedly put me in a compromising position. I was told to head to the JPJ in Wilayah Persekutuan to take a look.

I simply have no time to go there, so I e-mailed the director of  the Wilayah Persekutuan JPJ who told me that no photographs were taken on the day of the operations.

Why are there contradicting statements now?  

The director went on to claim that witnesses from the JPJ team could prove I was not wearing a seatbelt.

A photograph can eliminate such disputes, but no photograph was taken.

What exactly are the standard procedures of JPJ and why are innocent motorists slapped with summonses through no fault of theirs?

Is there no undeniable proof that can be used instead of just relying on what a few officers think they might have seen?

Doesn't that amount to writing out a summons with insufficient evidence?

Aggrieved Party
Selangor

Related story

JPJ stands by its action