A Johor Bahru couple is seeking justice after their 5-year-old son, Teo Yu Zie, tragically died from suffocation after being left inside a school van for five hours.
Forgotten for hours in van
On April 30, Teo was left inside a school van for roughly five hours.
According to China Press, it was later discovered that he had already suffered from a lack of oxygen and was found lying next to the bus door, suggesting he had struggled in pain and tried to escape.
Settlement offer turned down
During a recent press conference, his parents said the money offered by the kindergarten meant nothing compared to the loss of their child.
Even if it was RM1 million, it wouldn’t bring him back,” his mother said in tears, rejecting the offer which she claimed was given “out of sympathy” and not accountability.
Lawsuit to be filed in August
The family’s lawyer confirmed they will proceed with legal action at the Johor Bahru High Court next month.
They are seeking RM2.059 million in damages from four parties: the kindergarten (Tadika Perintis Indah), YK Education Group Sdn Bhd, Double Tree Transport Sdn Bhd, and the driver involved.
Questions over school attendance
The mother, a Chinese national, expressed frustration with the school’s explanation.
The school said my son was marked present, but he never entered the classroom. So who signed him in?” she asked.
She believes the tragedy could have been avoided if proper attendance checks had been done.
Driver no-show in court
The van driver, Yao Zhi Rong (transliteration), was due to appear in court on June 17 but failed to turn up.
A warrant for his arrest has since been issued.
He is currently the only person facing charges under the 2001 Child Act.
Legal team challenges state decision
The family’s lawyer said they will also appeal to the Attorney General’s Chambers.
They are urging the federal authorities to review the Johor state legal advisor’s earlier decision not to prosecute the kindergarten management.
The owner of the kindergarten is also responsible. If parents can be charged under the Child Act, why not them?” the lawyer asked.
The family maintains that this is not just about compensation, but about justice for their son and preventing similar tragedies in the future.
