‘Basikal lajak’ case reignites fierce debate after clerk’s conviction

 

Screengrabs from online videos showing teenagers riding “basikal lajak” (cut-down brakeless bicycles).

PETALING JAYA: The conviction of Johor clerk Sam Ke Ting, 27, the driver of the car involved in the “basikal lajak” accident that claimed eight lives, has reignited a fierce debate on social media over whether justice is truly being served.

Some insist that the person behind the wheel must bear responsibility for the deaths of the children five years ago but others say that the parents of the children – who were cycling on a public road in the wee hours of the morning – should also be held liable.

FMT talks to a road safety expert and a lawyer regarding the issue.

Facts of the case

The incident took place at 3.20am on Feb 18, 2017. Sam, who was 22 at the time, was driving along Jalan Lingkaran Dalam in Johor Bahru when she crashed into a group of teenagers riding modified bicycles known as “basikal lajak”. Eight teenagers, aged 13 to 16, died.

Sam was subsequently charged with reckless driving, an offence under the Road Transport Act with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ jail and RM20,000 fine.

She was acquitted and discharged by the magistrates’ court in October 2019, based on a number of factors, including the conditions of the road, which was dark and winding, the unlikelihood of being able to predict the presence of cyclists on the road at 3am, and the danger posed by the cyclists themselves, who were using modified bicycles.

The investigation also found that Sam was neither under the influence of alcohol nor using a cellphone while driving.

The prosecution filed an appeal, which resulted in the magistrate’s court being ordered to call for her defence. In October 2021, the Johor Bahru magistrates’ court again acquitted and discharged her.

The prosecution then appealed again, and the High Court found her guilty of reckless driving and sentenced her to six years’ jail, and a fine of RM6,000 or six months in default if she did not pay the fine.

She was also disqualified from driving for three years from the date she completes her prison sentence.

High chance Sam didn’t see teenagers

Road safety researcher Law Teik Hua of Universiti Putra Malaysia said there was a high chance that Sam could not have seen the teenagers in time.

He said sensory conspicuity theory stated that humans were not capable of reacting to fast-moving objects. A “basikal lajak” could go as fast as 60km/h to 70km/h, depending on road conditions.

“This is why in order to enhance (road users’) safety, we have to ask (riders) to wear a reflective jacket and a white helmet, not black,” he told FMT, adding that it was uncommon to see these modified bicycles on the public roads.

He asked how the authorities could blame Sam for not driving carefully.

Criminal liability

Former Malaysian Bar president Salim Bashir said when a person was charged and convicted for reckless driving, personal steps and precautions that were taken by the driver at the time of the accident would only be taken into account as mitigating factors in sentencing the driver.

“Criminal liability can still be fastened if the prosecution is able to prove all ingredients of the offences as charged,” he told FMT.

Salim urged the government to review the mandatory sentencing in road traffic cases and also called for the abolition of the need to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, in cases involving imprisonment.

Providing a right to automatic appeal would allow convicted persons to file an appeal properly “and he or she will get to argue on merits of the case and the sentence”, he said.

On whether action could be taken against the parents of the children, Salim said the Child Act provided for this. Action could be taken against the parents for neglecting and exposing their children to danger due to lack of supervision, an offence punishable with up to five years’ jail or RM20,000 fine or both. - FMT