Still No Closure Over Vinosiny S Death

---

 

Malaysians do not want to be told something they already know about the death of S Vinosiny, the Universiti Utara Malaysia undergraduate who died in her dormitory last year.
Why repeat the cause of death after nine months of investigation? We know how she died. From electrocution.
What we would like to know is how and why she was electrocuted. Was it from exposed wiring in her room? Was it a faulty electrical appliance? Was this appliance her own, or the university’s?
Did the nine-month investigation fail to look into this simple fact, the “why” of her death? Or is there another reason for withholding this vital information?
Vinosiny was a 20-year-old accounting and information systems student at UUM’s Sintok campus in Kedah. She died on May 21 last year in her hostel.
The circumstances surrounding her death are mired in controversy but, more importantly, it is the manner in which UUM has allegedly abrogated its responsibility that has angered many Malaysians.
UUM has been blamed for dragging its feet in giving Vinosiny’s parents closure, and questions have been asked over whether it had conducted a proper investigation, demanded the relevant authorities to act with greater urgency, or failed in its duty of care towards their former student.
It was also alleged that an inquest was held on Feb 15 this year, without the family or witnesses present. According to a report, the coroner’s court in Alor Setar ruled that Vinosiny died from electrocution.
Why were the parents not invited to the inquest since they were considered properly interested persons (PIPs)? They had every right to be present. Vinosiny did not die a natural death. Her father reportedly noticed burn marks on her hands and face. How were these obtained?
Let us remind ourselves what happened to Vinosiny. Like her peers, she was excited to return to campus to resume her studies and be among friends after the two-year lockdown.
Imagine her father’s shock on receiving a call days after he had dropped her off at her campus. The university had phoned to inform him that Vinosiny had suffered a fall and had lost consciousness. It was later reported that the UUM management later informed him that she had died. If this is true, why did they withhold this from her father?
Then, on social media, it was alleged that other students had been warned about highlighting her death online. Some postings claimed that they were even threatened with expulsion.
We were told that a delegation of UUM officials, including the vice-chancellor, later made a trip from Kedah to Klang to visit Vinosiny’s family and offer their condolences. The VC reportedly assured Vinosiny’s father that an investigation into her death would be conducted, but, as we know, little has happened.
The family needs answers for closure, but, more importantly, to obtain justice for their daughter. - FMT
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---