Siti Kasim has been viciously defended by her brethren. Since the ‘finger’ incident took place last month, we have seen a lot of her in the news. Likewise the liberals have been adamant that “it was the right thing to do”. A few days ago she mocked the other participants as being “butthurt” by her antics.

Siti said that she does not know her investigations fall under which law. Sad, coming from a lawyer. Maybe Siti forgot the Penal Code, so let us show her the law.

Penal Code, Section 509 says, “Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any person, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such person, or intrudes upon the privacy of such person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both.”

So, she in many of her appearances in media acknowledged the action. She insulted a crowd, with the pretext, they were hooligans. Siti decided she should be the biggest hooligan of them all. There it was, the finger that took the media by storm. Hafidz Baharom wrote a letter titled ‘Middle fingers are not a crime’ in Malaysiakini dated Oct 10, 2016.

So according to Hafidz it is okay to flash the middle finger. In fact her brethren have emphasised time and time again that it was the best she could do given her situation. So from their perspective it is okay to lose your mind under stress and curse others. That’s the first thing, and secondly, no one points out Siti’s ‘provocation’ towards the crowd.

The ironic thing about those who defend Siti is that none of them were there at the event. So Hafidz said there were only two women in the audience. Again I have to mention that he was not at the event. That said, probably he has difficulties counting above ‘two’ as there were many other women there.

Yes, the men outnumbered the women, but no doubt but there were plenty of women there. Unless of course you mean the two that stood out the most. Standing out in a crowd does not mean that the reason behind this exceptional trait is good. On the contrary, Siti chose to give her misleading opinions to the crowd. She wanted to give a speech and went on to attack a panellist.

So Siti and her friends are advocates for freedom of speech. Freedom indeed, but without any truth to most of their claims. They defend her, but all of them were absent from the event. None qualify as an eyewitness to the event. And since Siti got the limelight, only her version of the story was told.

There were hundreds of people at the event, how many of them shared their views on Siti’s behaviour? How many were given the same amount of attention, so that the story from the other side could be heard too? It is a very biased incident indeed. Those who were absent make claims as they were.

Claims, or rather conjectures, that were made to merely defend their friend. Credibility and veracity is absent for the most part of their claims. These are the people that expect to be heard despite being fallacious. The same people spread falsehood in the name of ‘justice’. What kind of justice is based on the spread of false information?

How can one lay claims when he/she were absent from the arena? How does one become so vocal, despite defending the wrong? Everyone has the right to an opinion, however bad that opinion maybe. We have the likes of Siti Kasim sharing her views, despite the falsehoods present.

We should strive for the truth, all of us. Everyone has shortcomings, no one is perfect. It is better to seek answers than to give half baked opinions. Deviation is not a trait of the virtuous. Virtues earn respect. The fact that Siti had none from the audience, that speaks more about herself than it does about the audience.

REHAN AHMAD JAMALUDDIN AHMAD is research fellow, Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (Iksim).