Are Malaysians buying looks—or demanding safety and quality?
By Dr. Amarjeet Singh @ AJ
A beautiful dashboard cannot hold an axle together.
A large touchscreen cannot strengthen a defective weld.
And a generous warranty cannot undo the consequences of a serious failure while a family is travelling on the highway.
The reported rear axle separation involving a Chery Omoda 5 in Johor Bahru should make us pause. Beyond the disturbing images lies a question that concerns every road user:
How much do we actually know about the engineering, manufacturing quality and long-term reliability of the vehicles we buy?
On October 11, 2026, JPJ temporarily suspended the Omoda 5’s Vehicle Type Approval, halting new registrations pending a technical investigation into the model, its production and suppliers. That is a serious regulatory intervention, and consumers deserve clear answers about what happens next.
We should demand those answers firmly. We should also keep our accusations tied to evidence.
An incident alone does not establish that every vehicle from a manufacturer is unsafe, or that an entire country produces substandard cars. Nor does it establish whether the latest failure arose from design, manufacturing, a previous repair or another cause.
But uncertainty about the cause is a reason to investigate urgently—not a reason to minimise the concern.
We have been here before
In 2024, Chery announced a precautionary recall involving 600 Omoda 5 vehicles. Its subsequent explanation identified 60 vehicles with potentially affected rear axle components and traced the problem to welding equipment miscalibration following a welding-tip replacement.
Now another reported axle separation raises an unavoidable question:
What did the earlier corrective action fix, and what evidence proves that the risk was contained?
The latest incident’s cause must be established independently. We cannot simply assume that it repeats the earlier defect.
Nevertheless, consumers are entitled to ask whether the vehicle involved was within the earlier recall population, whether it had been inspected, whether any component had been replaced, and whether the earlier method of identifying affected vehicles was sufficiently comprehensive.
These are questions about the effectiveness of a safety system. They deserve more than reassurance.
Are we being dazzled at the showroom?
Walk into a showroom and listen to the conversation.
Screens. Cameras. Panoramic roofs. Voice commands. Ambient lighting. Attractive instalments. Launch promotions.
These features have value. Buyers are entitled to enjoy them.
But how often does the conversation turn to component durability, supplier controls, recall history, repair turnaround times or the availability of critical spare parts?
How many of us ask what happens after five years of heat, rain, potholes, heavy loads and daily use?
The equipment we can see is easy to sell. The quality we cannot see is what we must learn to question.
A car carries our children, our parents and other people who trust us to bring them home. Its structural integrity deserves more attention than its lighting effects.
That does not mean blaming an owner for choosing an attractive vehicle. Consumers cannot inspect factory welds or audit component suppliers.
The manufacturer remains responsible for delivering a safe product. Our responsibility as buyers is to become more demanding about the evidence behind the sales pitch.
“Substandard R&D” needs a harder, more precise question
It is tempting to describe every serious failure as poor research and development. But different failures demand different answers.
Was the component inadequately designed?
Was the design sound, but the production process defective?
Did supplier inspections fail?
Did the assembly plant accept components that should have been rejected?
Did the recall miss vehicles that needed attention?
A well-designed component can still become dangerous if it is manufactured incorrectly. A polished product launch tells us nothing about whether those controls worked.
The questions should therefore cover the entire chain: design validation, supplier qualification, manufacturing consistency, inspection, traceability and corrective action.
Consumers deserve to know where that chain broke.
A supplier explanation cannot end the discussion
If a supplier’s equipment was miscalibrated, the investigation must go further.
Who checked the output after the equipment change?
How were affected components identified?
What prevented defective parts from progressing to vehicle assembly?
What controls were changed afterwards?
The supplier may have caused a defect. That does not remove the vehicle manufacturer’s responsibility to manage its supply chain and protect its customers.
The buyer purchased a complete vehicle. The buyer should not have to chase responsibility through a network of contractors.
A credible response explains the defect, its scope, the remedy and how the remedy was verified.
Regulators must make the next steps visible
JPJ’s intervention needs to be followed by information that owners can use.
Which variants and production batches are under investigation? What should existing owners do? How can they check their vehicle’s status? What conditions must be met before approval is restored?
A halt to new registrations and advice to existing owners are separate matters. People already driving these cars need specific guidance.
The public should also receive a meaningful account of the investigation’s findings, including whether earlier inspections and corrective measures were adequate.
Safety oversight must produce confidence through evidence, not merely through the announcement that a case has been closed.
Singapore’s position does not settle Malaysia’s concern
The report states that Singapore does not sell the petrol Omoda 5 involved, while its electric E5 uses a different rear suspension arrangement. That explains why the reported Malaysian issue does not automatically apply to Singapore’s cars.
It does not establish that Malaysian assembly caused the failure, or that an imported vehicle would necessarily be safer.
The useful comparison is between exact components, production batches, specifications and quality controls.
A country label is no substitute for engineering evidence.
Motoring coverage must ask questions after the launch
The automotive media should bring the same energy to safety investigations that it brings to launches.
If a publication can explain a touchscreen’s functions in detail, it can ask how owners will receive recall notices.
If it can celebrate a warranty package, it can investigate how long customers wait for repairs.
If it can publish performance figures, it can follow up on whether a safety remedy has been completed and independently assessed.
Manufacturers deserve fair reporting. Owners deserve persistent scrutiny.
A launch review is a snapshot. Consumer protection requires follow-through.
I saw a trend Chinease cars are eating up into the European Car Segment and a little of the Japanese Segment. At one time they were just 3% now going up to 20%, because of pricing? because of colours? because of look? but at what expenses? at who's expenses?
Also the same is happening into the motorcycle segement… MForce has jumped no 2 behind Yamaha and overtaking Honda, even local players last month sales was far behind… So again i ask? because of pricing? because of colours? because of look? but at what expenses? at who's expenses?
Buyers need to change the conversation
Before signing a long-term loan, ask:
- What recalls apply to this exact model, variant and production year?
- Has this particular vehicle completed all applicable recall work?
- What do owners report after several years of use?
- How readily available are critical replacement parts?
- What support is provided if the vehicle needs a lengthy safety repair?
- Can the dealer put important assurances in writing?
A short test drive cannot establish years of reliability. A familiar badge cannot guarantee freedom from defects. A newer brand should be assessed through evidence rather than dismissed automatically.
The standard should be consistent for every manufacturer.
And let us stop ridiculing people who already own an affected vehicle. They need practical help and reliable information. Their families’ safety is too serious to become entertainment in a comment section.
Confidence must be earned
Competition can give Malaysian buyers better products and better value. But sales growth must be supported by engineering discipline, dependable production controls and effective after-sales service.
When a serious failure occurs, the strongest response is a transparent investigation, prompt protection for owners and a remedy whose effectiveness can be demonstrated.
My challenge to manufacturers is simple:
Show us the evidence behind your promise of quality.
My challenge to regulators is equally direct:
Make the findings and the required corrective actions clear enough for the public to assess.
And my challenge to fellow consumers is this:
Before asking how impressive the car looks, ask how convincingly its safety and durability have been established.
We may buy the vehicle with our money.
Everyone travelling beside us shares the consequences.
Amarjeet Singh Sran (amarjeetsinghsran5@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
