Some authorities are terrible about telling the truth. Some do not like to be criticised. Others make promises and fail to keep them.
The education authorities, for one, do not appear to see the need to offer people who have suffered a bereavement some form of closure, so they may move on with their lives.
S Vinosiny was a bright and aspiring 20-year-old accounting student in her fourth semester at Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM). After months of home and on-line study forced by the Covid-19 pandemic and the ensuing lockdown, she was excited about her return to UUM, to be among friends and to enjoy life on campus.
A week after sending her back to university, her parents received a phone call from the management to inform them of her death.
From then on, things became progressively worse for the family. There was silence from the authorities and they were denied answers to their questions.
From press reports, one can’t help but wonder if Vinosiny’s death was shrouded in half-truths and cover-ups.
When other students started speculating about her death, a gag order was imposed on the student body and they were warned that disciplinary action would be taken against them if they spoke up.
When the public heard about the ban, they reacted with outrage on social media and vented their anger at UUM. This prompted the vice-chancellor to pay a courtesy call to Vinosiny’s parents in Klang to offer their condolences.
The VC was accompanied by eight university management officers, including the principal of the students’ hostel. They promised to look into her death as a matter of urgency, but failed to provide a timeline for the final report to be shared with her parents, nor did the parents ask for one. One can understand that the family was still in a state of shock.
Five months after Vinosiny’s death, her parents have yet to be informed of the progress of the investigation. Frustrated by the lack of action, her father, R Sivakumar Rajoo, has requested that an inquest be held immediately to ascertain the cause of Vinosiny’s death.
Why are the authorities dragging their feet over their investigation? What is causing the delay? Does UUM not realise that this silence is not acceptable?
Vinosiny was suspected to have died after being electrocuted in her dormitory. If the UUM’s management, staff or hostel maintenance workers were at fault, then it is imperative that they find out what exactly had gone wrong, so that action may be taken to rectify the problem and prevent a recurrence.
If a worker had been negligent, or his quality of work had been poor, then suitable punishment for negligence must be made, and the shoddy workmanship dealt with. Are the workers not supervised by a manager?
If Vinosiny had been electrocuted in her room, was the equipment she was handling faulty? Did poor workmanship or maintenance contribute to her death? Is someone being protected?
Who did the authorities interview to find out what went wrong? The management, workers, staff and other students? What was the sequence of events that led to her death? Was Vinosiny also at fault?
How good is the maintenance culture at the UUM campus? Have complaints about faulty devices or dangerous items been lodged with the management and action taken?
Has UUM been telling the truth? If it has nothing to hide, then why the delay and the inaction?
Parents who enrol their children at school or university place their trust in the authorities to care for their wellbeing and safety.
Vinosiny died while under UUM’s charge. Her parents deserve more than just silence.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not reflect those of FMT.