By TK Chua

If news of the RM18 million paid to secure the release of four Malaysians kidnapped by the Abu Sayyaf is true, it is certainly a very disturbing trend. While I am happy that the four Malaysians have returned home safely after this most terrifying ordeal, I am concerned about the implications of this episode.

An RM18 million ransom for four persons is more than RM4 million per head. This is a large sum of money considering that those kidnapped were not business tycoons. How did the Abu Sayyaf arrive at this figure? While I am not suggesting that the life of an ordinary worker is worth less than a tycoon, I believe ransom demands are not based on the whims and fancies of the captors. I believe the kidnappers must have taken into consideration other factors beyond the victims’ ability to pay.

In this instance, can we assume that the kidnappers knew about the possibility of public donations? I appreciate that members of the public were willing to donate generously to secure the release of the four. But can the public be expected to do this all the time? Is this not a dangerous precedence we have now found ourselves in? What if future victims are unable to raise donations like the families of these four did?

The payment of RM18 million, if true, would greatly embolden the kidnappers. For those living in Eastern Sabah and plying their trade in the Southern Philippines, their security will not get any better. In fact, it may likely get worse.

The kidnappers have learned from this episode that kidnapping Malaysians is now a profitable business. Settlement is made promptly; the amount demanded can be anything depending on how much the victims’ families are able to raise through public donations; and lawlessness is now quite accepted since it is pretty “seamless” to hand over the ransom (as reported, but I have no means to verify this).

With RM18 million at their disposal, I am quite sure the kidnappers can now buy more speed boats and fire power.

TK Chua is an FMT reader.

With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.