Kuching school attack: Don’t let online speculation become a public verdict

 

THE recent school attack in Kuching has understandably raised public concern about youth violence, school safety and the influence of online subcultures.

Equally disturbing, however, is the speed at which speculation is presented as fact, unverified narratives are circulated and those who challenge such claims face personal attacks and online harassment.

Freedom of expression is not a licence to spread harmful falsehoods, intimidate others or interfere with the administration of justice.

Police are investigating the alleged attack on a female teacher by a 16-year-old student at a Kuching international school.

As of Oct 23, statements had been recorded from 24 individuals, and a police briefing was scheduled for Oct 27. The teenager remained in hospital while investigations continued.

Before investigators have completed their work, some commentators have attributed the incident to the True Crime Community (TCC), with suggestions of links to two other school incidents.

There is no publicly established evidence linking the three incidents through TCC. Presenting such connections as fact without credible evidence risks misleading the public and distorting perceptions of guilt or criminal responsibility before the facts have been established.

From a criminological perspective, attributing violent conduct to a single online subculture is overly simplistic. Crime can involve interacting psychological, familial, social, environmental and situational factors.

(Image: Bernama)

Not everyone who follows or participates in TCC commits crime. Even where an individual has engaged with such communities, that association alone does not establish causation.

Correlation must not be confused with causation, and sensational theories must not be mistaken for criminological explanations.

Nor do digital footprints, online influences or ideological interests replace the principles of conventional criminal law. Criminal liability depends on the elements of the relevant offence, including actus reus and mens rea where applicable.

Digital evidence may help investigators establish what happened, but it does not displace established principles of criminal responsibility.

We must also remember that the individual involved is a child. Whatever the seriousness of the alleged conduct, his dignity, welfare and legal rights must be protected.

Repeatedly circulating his face, statements or footage of the incident serves little constructive purpose. It risks sensationalising violence and exposing a minor to unnecessary public scrutiny.

Malaysia’s child-protection laws restrict the publication of identifying details concerning children involved in criminal proceedings or investigations.

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission has also urged the public to stop sharing footage of the Kuching incident and warned that disclosure of a child’s identity may breach legal protections.

There must also be a clear warning against cyberbullying and online intimidation directed at those whose views are challenged.

The police and MCMC should respond appropriately to demonstrably harmful content, harassment and material that violates children’s legal protections.

Those who deliberately intimidate witnesses, interfere with evidence or obstruct investigations should be held accountable where the elements of an offence are established.

Misinformation, harassment and obstruction of justice are legally distinct. Not every inaccurate statement or offensive comment constitutes a crime, but online conduct is not automatically beyond the reach of the law.

The media, too, must practise responsible journalism. Giving a platform to individuals who advance unsupported claims without scrutinising their accuracy risks legitimising misinformation.

Journalists and editors should verify assertions and distinguish evidence from speculation, particularly when reporting on children and ongoing investigations. Repeating an unverified claim does not transform it into evidence.

(Image: Pexels/Kindel Media)

Ultimately, police must be allowed to complete their investigation without undue pressure from those seeking to impose their preferred narratives.

Until evidence establishes otherwise, the three incidents should be assessed individually rather than artificially connected to fit a predetermined explanation.

Crime prevention demands an understanding of the complex factors that contribute to offending, not convenient labels or sensational narratives. Expertise requires evidence, intellectual humility and restraint. Public discourse demands accountability.

Those who spread harmful misinformation, engage in unlawful cyberbullying or deliberately obstruct criminal investigations should not assume their conduct carries no legal consequences.

The rule of law must prevail over the rule of social media. Criminality must be determined by evidence and due process, not speculation, intimidation or whoever commands the loudest voice in the public sphere. 

Dr Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid is a Criminologist and Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya. Aizat Shamsuddin is the Founder and Executive Director of INITIATE.MY (Initiative to Promote Tolerance and Prevent Violence).

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT

- Focus Malaysia.