OCTOBER 6 — What stayed with me after Fadhlina’s press conference yesterday was how quickly people dismissed her tears. She was speaking about Irene Sofiya’s death, and some had already decided they were “crocodile tears”. I don’t know how anyone can look at another person’s distress through a screen and be so certain that it is an act.
As a mother, I cannot hear about a child dying at school without thinking about the parents who sent that child there, expecting her to come home. That is something many of us understand. Why is it so difficult to accept that the education minister, who is also a mother, might feel it too?
Of course, her tears do not settle questions about school safety. She still has responsibilities, and we are entitled to ask what is being done. But surely we can ask those questions without mocking her.
I have been reading the conversations in school groups, parents’ groups, education groups and newspaper comment sections. Some of the same behaviour appears on my own timeline. What troubles me is that adults, including parents, are helping rumours travel. Someone shares a claim, someone else adds a theory, and before long people are discussing it as though it has been established by investigators.
We saw this with Zara’s case. There were so many competing stories that it became difficult to follow what had actually been confirmed. I understand why parents were upset and frightened. I was upset too. But being concerned about children should make us more careful about what we say, especially when a family is grieving and other children are involved.
The reaction to the verdict in Yap Shing Xuen’s case was another example. The boy was 14 when the killing happened and 15 when the court acquitted him on grounds of legal insanity. The court accepted psychiatric evidence that he was of unsound mind at the time and ordered him detained for treatment at Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, at the pleasure of the Sultan of Selangor, with no fixed release date.
Yet I saw comments along the lines of, “Next time I kill somebody, I’ll just say I’m of unsound mind.”
Come on lah. That is a reckless thing to say about a case involving a girl who lost her life and a boy whose mental condition was examined in court. He was not sent home simply because he offered an excuse. People can question the judgment, and Shing Xuen’s family has every right to pursue the legal avenues available to them. But we should at least understand the decision before commenting on it.
Now Irene’s death is being investigated, and once again people are reaching conclusions before the facts are established. When a child is suspected of seriously harming another child, there are difficult questions to ask about what happened, possible warning signs and whether someone could have intervened. Those questions cannot all be answered by pointing at the minister.
Schools have a duty to protect children. If a complaint was ignored, supervision was inadequate or safety procedures were breached, those failures must be addressed. KPM must also show that its policies are being carried out properly. But our responsibility as parents continues when our children enter school.
We need to know more than their marks and whether they have finished their homework. Do we know how they treat other children? Do they feel safe telling us about something frightening or embarrassing? If a teacher tells us our child has been threatening or humiliating someone, are we willing to listen? And if our child is struggling, will we seek help rather than dismiss everything as a phase or a discipline problem?
These conversations are uncomfortable. Sometimes they require us to accept things about our children that we would rather not believe. Still, protecting a child includes getting help for harmful behaviour and emotional difficulties, as well as protecting them from other people.
It is also unfair to speak as though Fadhlina and KPM have done nothing. Reporting channels and strengthened bullying guidelines exist. Since Zara’s death, KPM has reported safety audits, expanded CCTV coverage, additional hostel supervision and new student protection policies. We should ask whether these measures are reaching schools and whether complaints receive effective action. Announcing a measure and making it work consistently are different responsibilities.
That is where public pressure can be useful. Parents can ask how complaints are handled, how children are protected after reporting and what happens when staff fail to act. Those are questions that can lead to better protection.
But I wish we would bring the same seriousness to our own conduct online. If our children watch us mock other people’s distress, forward rumours and join a crowd in humiliating someone, what lessons are they learning about empathy and responsibility?
We tell them to be kind, then laugh at someone crying. We tell them not to spread stories about their classmates, then forward an allegation we have not checked. We tell them to take responsibility for their words, then excuse our own cruelty because we are angry.
I am not asking parents to stay quiet. I am asking us to remember that our children learn from how we behave, including when we believe we are right.
We cannot control everything on the internet. But the next comment we write and the next message we forward are within our control. Before we send them, perhaps we should ask whether we would be proud to hear those same words coming from our own child.
* Known online as Mom of KL, Padma Zachariah writes about parenting, everyday life and the Malaysia our children are growing up in.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
