Abstract
Malaysia has always been on a general upward trend when it comes to the drink-driving issue, with the increasing number of accidents sparking tensions among Malaysians and calling for a revisit to existing laws. In championing tougher law enforcement against offenders, the public has somewhat created a social distance between themselves and drunk drivers, highlighting an unequal flow of power between the majority and the minority of drunk-driving motorists. To investigate how this dynamic is communicated, this study examines how drink-driving is represented in The Star newspaper articles, analysing the discursive construction of victims, perpetrators, and authorities through van Leeuwen's socio-semiotic framework and Wodak's Discourse-Historical Approach. Data comprising six newspaper articles revealed consistent framing patterns where perpetrators are individualised (18 instances) yet negatively predicated, victims are humanised but passivated (26 instances), and authorities are activated (32 instances) as legitimate enforcers. Referential strategies employing "us versus them" dichotomies, argumentative topoi of numbers and justice, and predication strategies (representing 28.1% of discursive strategies) collectively marginalise drunk drivers while legitimising punitive responses. This study proposes amended legislation with mandatory alcohol education programs, enhanced public awareness campaigns, and improved alternative transport infrastructure as multifaceted solutions. The findings contribute to understanding how media discourse shapes public perception surrounding drink-driving in Malaysia.