The deputy minister for housing and local government M Kayveas, appears to be resolutely convinced that the fire at the Dewan Tunku Canselor, Universiti Malaya, was sabotage.

And his reasons for doing so appear to be based, not on having reviewed the exact contents of the final report from the six-man special task force headed by Negeri Sembilan Fire and Rescue Services Department director Othman Abdullah, but rather on the coincidence that the fire occurred a day before the visit by the prime minister.

After all, why on earth should a conclusion be based on a detailed report written by experts when one can rely on the unlikelihood of coincidence?

But to be fair, he also seems to have taken into account the fact that the electrical outlets were shut off and that the security guards were on duty. This, of course, is indisputable evidence of a sabotage again as I must compare to the obviously unenlightened and unreasoned opinion of the Fire and Rescue Services Department.

He averts to drawing these conclusions based on reports he has received. This raises the question of whether these reports, if so compelling, were made available to the special task force. If the task force had access to the same information, it might be prudent for a politician to make himself aware of their findings and the basis of such findings before making such an unequivocal declaration.

His opinion quickly descends further into confusion when he states that sabotage is hard to prove. This is somewhat surprising given his original statement, "If anybody disagrees with me, I don't know, but I can give a very clear picture of what happened."

How can it be hard to prove that sabotage had occurred if he can give a clear picture of the fact of sabotage?

Proving sabotage against a particular individual or group is a completely separate issue. It is completely untenable to say that the prime minister was being fair when he said all the reports were not the same.

It is a matter of honesty. Either the findings were inconclusive, and if so there should not be any pointing of fingers because it simply means that there was no evidence of foul play one way or the other. Speculation (which the government so often denounces) is unhealthy given the emotive nature of this issue.

The deputy minister's opinion that the saboteurs could be the students, lecturers or even the security guards, not ruling out the possibility of the involvement of outsiders is, to put it mildly, highly speculative. If there is a conclusive finding, the people have a right to know. If it was foul play, let the people know, if not they should also be told. That is what is fair. The truth is what is fair.