06/04/2026

MONDAY | APR 6, 2026

3

Murder charge in drink-driving cases not straightforward

Ű BY T.C KHOR newsdesk@thesundaily.com

PETALING JAYA: With drink-driving continuing to claim lives, the e-hailing community is urging intoxicated individuals to stay off the road and book a ride instead – cautioning that a single reckless decision can have fatal consequences. The community says the choice is not merely about convenience, but a critical step in preventing avoidable tragedies. Malaysian e-hailing association Gabungan E-Hailing Malaysia chief activist Masrizal Mahidin said those who had consumed alcohol should avoid driving altogether, stressing Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research chairman Dr Wong Shaw Voon said enforcement must go beyond fines to genuinely change driver behaviour. He emphasised that officers should focus on behaviour modification rather than chasing summonses, stressing that enforcement affects not only drivers but also road users, including passengers and pedestrians. “Enforcement has to be creative and the main objective is to change the behaviour of the people using the road. “Issuing summons may not be the right target that enforcement officers should chase after. Enforcement doesn’t mean summons,” Wong told theSun. “Of course, issuing a summons is one way of enforcing but when enforcement becomes effective and people change behaviour, naturally there will be fewer chances to issue summonses.” Wong added that while Malaysia’s drink-driving punishments are already severe – including fines, imprisonment and licence suspension – severity alone does not guarantee compliance. PETALING JAYA: Fatal drink or drug driving incidents often spark outrage, but legal experts caution that securing murder convictions in such cases is far from straightforward if intent to kill cannot be clearly proven. Former deputy public prosecutor Datuk C. Vignesh Kumar said while murder generally requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, not all charges demand deliberate intent. He cited Section 300(d) of the Penal Code, which classifies an act as murder when it is “so imminently dangerous that it would in all probability cause death,” even if there is no specific intention to kill. “For instance, a person who fires a cannonball into a crowd is presumed to know the lethal consequences of such an act,” Vignesh explained. “But applying this standard to motorists is far more complex. Prosecutors must demonstrate that the driver knew their conduct was likely to cause death, not merely serious injury.” He also clarified that Malaysian Ű BY FAIZ RUZMAN newsdesk@thesundaily.com

“Even if the punishment is very severe, if the other factors are not there, it is not going to change behaviour.” The road safety expert also stressed the role of prevention and public responsibility. “Every day we have people being killed on the road. In many cases, the person who dies may have been obeying the rules and driving carefully but the other party was not, just like the DUI (driving under influence) cases. “Not just the police, but all of us as road users can make a difference by sharing awareness and complying with road safety rules.” The Road Transport Department (RTD) recently signalled support for a behaviour-focused approach. Its director-general Datuk Aedy Fadly Ramli said the department would no longer set key performance indicators for the number of summonses issued. Enforcement operations will now prioritise patrols, monitoring and preventive action, with officers assessed on the effectiveness of their operations and real-world safety outcomes rather than the volume of fines issued. “Our focus is not on issuing summonses but on ensuring compliance and reducing the risk of road accidents,” he said during the o Experts say prosecutors must prove intent to kill and establish mental element law does not recognise degrees of murder. “Every murder is culpable homicide, but not all culpable homicide rises to murder. The latter only applies when a higher threshold of intent or knowledge of imminent danger is proven,” he said. that the dangers of drink-driving extended far beyond the individual behind the wheel. “For Malaysians who are involved in consuming alcohol or intoxicating drinks, we do not encourage it. But if they have already done so, then our advice is to use public transportation, whether that is e-hailing or taxis. “Why? Because it is for their own safety and for the safety of other road users as well. For us, this is a shared responsibility. We all have to protect ourselves from accidents,” he told theSun. However, Masrizal, also known as Jose Rizal within the community, said the issue was not as straightforward as simply telling intoxicated individuals to book a ride, as many e

legislation

and

structured

he added. On civil remedies, Ong said compensation for victims’ families – including through the Islamic diyat (financial compensation for loss of life) mechanism – is appropriate and should be pursued separately from criminal proceedings. Calls for tougher treatment of fatal drink-driving cases have gained traction recently. Road safety expert Prof Rozmi Ismail argued that choosing to drive while intoxicated could itself suggest a degree of intent, warranting consideration under murder provisions. He also advocated for stronger deterrence through tougher

Lawyer and former Kebun Bunga assemblyman Datuk Jason Ong Khan Lee echoed these concerns, stressing that a murder charge hinges on proving both the mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (guilty act). “While the physical act of dangerous driving causing death may be clear, establishing the mental element required for murder is far more demanding,” Ong said. He also noted that drug-impaired driving may attract closer scrutiny than alcohol when assessing culpability. “Prosecutors retain flexibility to revise charges as proceedings unfold and new evidence emerges, but the legal burden of proof remains high,”

compensation frameworks. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Religious Affairs) Dr Zulkifli Hasan recently proposed exploring a Syariah-based diyat model after a suspected drink-driving incident. He emphasised that the rights of the victims’ next of kin must be safeguarded and that the diyat framework could serve as a fair mechanism for delivering justice to bereaved families. Under Malaysian law, a murder conviction carries the death penalty or a custodial sentence of 30 to 40 years, along with a minimum of 12 strokes of the cane.

‘Enforcement should target driver behaviour’ PETALING JAYA: Tough penalties alone will not stop drink-driving, a road safety expert said.

Wong said enforcement must go beyond fines to genuinely change driver behaviour as enforcement affects not only drivers but also road users, including passengers and pedestrians.

1987, which provides fines of RM10,000, up to two years’ imprisonment and a two-year licence suspension for drink-driving offences, and advised to use e-hailing services or appoint an alternative driver. – By Faiz Ruzman

year, the police’s Traffic Investigation and Enforcement Department carried out 255 operations, resulting in 238 prosecutions and 100% legal action taken. The public was reminded of Section 45A of the Road Transport Act

RTD monthly gathering last Friday. The shift aligns with the Transport Ministry’s policy direction to strengthen enforcement strategies that have a meaningful impact on road safety. Between January and March this

E-hailing ‘safer choice’ after consuming alcohol

hailing drivers themselves were reluctant to pick up drunk passengers due to the potential disruption to their work. He said drivers on the ground had raised concerns over passengers vomiting in vehicles, with some left to bear cleaning costs and the loss of income while their cars remained unusable. “From what our drivers tell us, the majority of them do not like picking up drunk passengers. “From the compensation side and from the work side, it can disrupt their ability to continue working. If someone vomits in the car, it becomes a serious problem. “The smell might not go away even after a week. They end up

consumed and should act when someone was clearly unfit to drive. “They need to have clear signage stating such reminders, not just do the bare minimum. They also need to keep reminding their patrons. Premises that serve alcoholic drinks must have a social responsibility to provide those reminders. “That would be the best approach. Because the premises would know better how much their customers have consumed. They are in a better position to know and be aware.” He said the issue should not be treated as a driver-only problem, but as a broader public safety concern requiring shared responsibility among passengers, platforms and alcohol-serving premises.

having to bear the cost and not all e hailing platforms provide compensation that is fair,” Masrizal said. Despite these concerns, he stressed that choosing not to drive after drinking remained the more responsible course of action, particularly during festive periods, public holidays and peak tourism seasons, when such cases tend to rise. Masrizal added that the responsibility should also extend to premises serving alcohol, which he said must do more to remind patrons not to get behind the wheel while intoxicated. He said nightspots and similar establishments were better placed to gauge how much a customer had