Yes, I am guilty of speculating too

Technically speaking, a ‘no speculation policy’ would require we not analyse issues we do not have in-depth knowledge of.

COMMENT

I read Scott Ng’s piece on Sunday titled “The price of speculation” with a raised eyebrow. Although Scott made a number of rather good points, it still felt like a kung fu kick right in my stomach. Ouch!

You see, I was one of those who speculated on the case. Even before the arrest of Hanizan Mohamed Radzi, the taxi driver who picked up a five-year-old kidnap victim wandering along the roadside and sent him home, I thought there was something fishy about the entire story based on the scanty reports and videos of the case.

Now I am not going to delve into the details of the kidnapping to justify my curiosity (and why I still am). However what remains a big question is why it was painted as wrong that some of us were curious and speculated on matters taking place around us.

There is a difference between analysing matters which give rise to our curiosity and actually voicing out our judgements to the world especially when a person’s good name and reputation is at stake.

Scott was right – it was wrong for commenters to bluntly prosecute the taxi driver on social media, knowing he was taken in for questioning and was placed under remand. However, speculation does not amount to prosecution by the public.

If speculation is wrong, aren’t we just as guilty for calling the taxi driver a hero the moment he sent the kidnap victim back home?

Technically speaking, a ‘no speculation policy’ would require we keep our mouths shut and not analyse an issue deeply if we do not have in-depth knowledge of the matter.

However, shouldn’t we have done the same during the investigations into Altantuya Shaaribu’s murder? Everyone speculated and freely prosecuted some big names in our country. But did anyone apologise to Razak Baginda when he was finally freed by the court of law?

Everyone speculated and publicly prosecuted Saiful Bukhari during the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy case as well but did anyone apologise to Saiful when Anwar was found guilty? Why wasn’t it wrong for us to speculate back then but not now? A tad hypocritical, is it not?

And even then, why did it take one long week before we were questioned about our syok-ness at speculating over matters we know very little about? Why the need to wait until Hanizan was released by the police to point out it was wrong to speculate?

Yes, like many Malaysians, I too am guilty of speculating. Although I did not publicly “prosecute” the taxi driver, I had already formed an opinion in my mind based on what I read and watched in the media. But that is my opinion. And I am entitled to have an opinion, aren’t I?

So no, I am not going to apologise for having an opinion nor am I going to award anyone by hero-worshipping them for being a good Samaritan.

(Note: Perhaps people need to look up the definition of the word “rescue” and ask themselves – Did the taxi driver rescue the boy?)

Doing what we are expected to do as part of society doesn’t make us a hero. It makes us a good human being. Heroes are those who are admired for having displayed outstanding bravery or having achieved outstanding deeds – like Tunku, Aunty Bersih or even Anina. Let us reserve the title for someone who truly deserves it, shall we?

If there was anyone who deserves to be called a “hero” in this case, it would be the PDRM who nabbed the suspects within 24 hours of the kidnapping. But then again, that is my opinion lah.

On second thought, maybe all I’m doing is finding excuses so I don’t feel guilty over my syokness at speculating over the taxi driver. Oh well…