“The parents are negligent under s.33 Child Act” – M’sian Lawyer Speaks About Sam Ke Ting’s Verdict

The talk about the verdict on Sam Ke Ting continues while the signatures on the petitions calling for her release constantly increase.

Just this afternoon (15 April), on her Facebook account, Malaysian lawyer Ng Kui Min shared her take on Johor Bahru High Court’s judgment on the 27-year-old clerk who was charged with reckless driving that caused deaths.

“Sam has good grounds for appeal if questions remained unanswered in the subsequent full grounds of judgment”.

In her post, she listed a few points for the people to ponder and question:

1. Sam and the deceased are all victims

Kui Min admitted that the death of the 8 teenagers on a fateful night 5 years ago is regretted but at the same time, Sam is also equally a victim on the road as her life was also in jeopardy.

“Her life was endangered by a group of teenagers on basikal lajak who were not even supposed to be there on the highway.”

2. Speed limit vs fly rangers 

The accident took place around 3:20 am and prior to that, Sam adhered to the speed limit and she was driving at only 50 km/h. Kui Min rhetorically questioned if Sam’s driving is considered reckless, what about the teenagers cruising on the basikal lajak on the road at 3 in the morning?

3. What if the roles were reversed?

Now, let’s tweak the angle and look at this matter from a different perspective.

If Sam managed to avoid the teenagers that night but got herself killed in the process, would the parents of the teenagers receive a similar punishment? Kui Min said, “why punish others for your failure in protecting your kids?”

4. Public interest

Prior to the verdict, various factors were taken into account, including public interest and the submissions of relevant parties in the appeal. As the act of riding basikal lajak is deemed a dangerous act, Kui Min said, “What kind of public interest do we serve in encouraging basikal lajak on the highway?”

5. Negligence 

Here’s a question that everyone has been wondering about ever since, including Kui Min herself.

“Why were the parents not charged with negligence when the tragedy happened?”

She said that no reasonable parents would have allowed their kids to fly on modified bicycles on the road at 3am. Based on what happened 5 years back, Kui Min believes it clearly reflects negligence under Section 33 Child Act 2001.

6. Justice must be served… Adequately

Last but not least, Kui Min said the deaths should not be the determining factor in serving justice. It has to be done adequately and impartially after taking into consideration the interest of everyone, including Sam and other road users.

As of today, Sam has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal while most of the people express their support for her. What do you think of the verdict?

Also read: PDRM: Stop Sharing Old Videos of Other Basikal Lajak Incidents To Avoid Confusion