By Dr. Haezreena Begum binti Abdul Hamid, Aizat Shamsuddin
The recent school attack in Kuching has understandably raised public concern about youth violence, school safety and the influence of online subcultures. However, equally disturbing is the speed with which speculation is being presented as fact, unverified narratives are being circulated, and those who challenge such claims are subjected to personal attacks and online harassment. Those engaging in such conduct must be reminded that freedom of expression is not a licence to spread harmful falsehoods, intimidate others or interfere with the administration of justice.
The police are still investigating the incident. Statements have been recorded from 24 individuals, and an official police briefing is scheduled for 27 October 2026. The 16-year-old boy involved is reportedly receiving hospital treatment. Yet, before investigators have completed their work, some commentators have already attributed the incident to the True Crime Community (TCC), even suggesting connections with two other school incidents.
There is presently no publicly established evidence linking these three incidents through TCC. To present such connections as established facts, without credible evidence, is not responsible analysis. It is a distortion of the information presently available and risks misleading the public. Speculation must never be allowed to overtake police investigations, much less influence public 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 fundamentally flawed. Crime rarely has a single cause. It is often the culmination of interacting psychological, familial, social, environmental and situational factors. Not everyone who follows or participates in TCC commits crime. Even where an offender 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.
Neither does the presence of digital footprints, online influences or ideological interests remove an act from the ambit of conventional criminal law. Malaysia has a plethora of laws addressing criminal violence. Criminal liability remains dependent on the requisite elements of an offence, including actus reus and mens rea, where applicable. Digital evidence may assist investigators in establishing the facts; it does not displace established principles of criminal responsibility.
More importantly, we must remember that we are dealing with a child. The boy is only 16 years old and is reportedly receiving hospital treatment. Whatever the seriousness of the alleged conduct, his dignity, welfare and legal rights must be protected. Repeatedly circulating his face, words and footage of the incident serves little constructive purpose. It risks sensationalising violence and exposing a child to unnecessary public scrutiny. The safeguards under the Child Act 2001 must not be disregarded simply because an incident attracts widespread attention.
There must also be a clear warning against those who resort to cyberbullying and online intimidation when their views are challenged. The authorities, including the police and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, should take a firmer stance against demonstrably false and harmful information, cyberbullying and the circulation of material that violates children’s legal protections. Individuals who deliberately interfere with evidence, intimidate witnesses or otherwise obstruct investigations must be held accountable where the legal elements of an offence are established. While misinformation, harassment and obstruction of justice are legally distinct, none should be trivialised when the conduct crosses the threshold of criminality.
The public must understand that social media is not a lawless space. Online conduct can carry legal consequences, and hiding behind claims of free speech, expertise or victimhood does not confer immunity from the law.
The media, too, must practise responsible journalism. Providing a platform to individuals who advance unsupported claims without critically examining their accuracy risks legitimising misinformation. Journalists and editors should scrutinise opinions, verify assertions and distinguish evidence from speculation, particularly when reporting on children and ongoing criminal investigations. Giving someone a platform does not make their claims credible, and repeatedly publishing an unverified assertion does not transform it into evidence.
Ultimately, the police must be allowed to complete their investigations without undue pressure from those attempting to impose their preferred narratives. Until evidence establishes otherwise, the three incidents should be assessed on their individual facts rather than artificially connected to fit a predetermined explanation.
Crime prevention demands an understanding of the complex factors contributing to offending, not convenient labels or sensational narratives. Expertise demands evidence, intellectual humility and restraint. Public discourse demands accountability.
Let this serve as a reminder: those who spread harmful misinformation, engage in unlawful cyberbullying or deliberately obstruct criminal investigations should not assume that their conduct is without 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 binti 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)
About The Author
