Guilty, unless proven otherwise

The newly-inserted Section 114A of the Evidence Act is another example of a law that was rushed through Parliament without much debate and discussion, to the detriment of us all.

AS often happens, e-mails pop up in my inbox with interesting headlines. While I usually save them to read later, I had to open this particular e-mail immediately because it had my name in it.

To my horror, I found an article purportedly written by me being circulated to much salutary praise.

Normally, I would either ignore it or leave it to readers to judge whether I really wrote such an article.

It would be obvious, I thought, to those who have followed my columns all these years that the style in that article, the photo byline notwithstanding, was definitely very different from mine.

Indeed, the reason I was passed the article was because some people who are very familiar with my writing style had their suspicions.

But I cannot rely solely on the goodwill of my readers anymore. With the new amendment to the Evidence Act 1950 which just came into being – it won’t matter if my so-called “article” was full of grammar and spelling mistakes which I wouldn’t normally make – I would be deemed as having written it until I can prove otherwise.

The newly inserted Section 114A of the Evidence Act provides for the following:

> Owners, hosts, administrators, editors or sub-editors of websites or social media accounts are deemed responsible for any content that has been published or re-published on their site whether by themselves, persons impersonating them or any other persons;

> Subscribers of a network service which was used to publish or re-publish any content are deemed responsible for the publication; and

> Owners or individuals in custody of an electronic device that was used to publish or re-publish any content are deemed responsible for the publication.

Basically, this means that until you can prove you are innocent of these charges, you are considered by the law as guilty.

This is a complete reversal of the usual “innocent until proven guilty” axiom in most courts of law.

You can imagine the chill that went through my spine when I read this law. Over the years, not only have I been impersonated in articles and comments but also in real life.

Now all of these people will be encouraged to do more because of this law. They will know that I will have to spend so much time, energy and expense to fight to prove my innocence in the courts that they will get away pretty much scot-free.

Furthermore, while I’m trying to prove that I didn’t write these articles, they can continue to keep writing them with impunity.

Who, therefore, is this law meant to protect? And how could such a law have been passed?

Once again, this is another example of a law that was rushed through Parliament without much debate and discussion, to the detriment of us all.

More importantly, it is a huge threat to the freedom of speech that is enshrined in our Federal Con­stitution, a freedom already threatened by so many other laws.

The Government is hoping that this new law will curb postings by anonymous bloggers and commentators who are critical of the Government. Which may sound well-intentioned; I am also a target of many of these.

But, at the same time, this law is more far-reaching because it makes owners of blogs, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts responsible for anything that appears on them.

If someone posts an anonymous comment on my blog or Facebook page that somebody else does not like, then I’m instantly responsible for it even if I don’t know who the poster is in real life.

It can also work the other way round. Anyone can pretend to be a government official or politician and make a critical or defamatory posting on a government or political website.

Actually, there can be lots of such postings on any website and the owner, including presumably the Government, will be held responsible for them.

I’m not even sure what can be done by anyone to seek redress for that. Talk about an incentive to spam people with all sorts of nasty comments!

It makes you wonder how laws are made in this country. Already one law, the Election Offences Act, had to be retracted after it had been passed because it was found to be detrimental to all sides in an election.

Surely this was a result of not giving the law enough scrutiny and debate in Parliament. If more time had been given, then surely such faulty laws would not have been passed in such a form.

Doesn’t this also make you worry about the other laws passed in such a hurry as well? What traps lurk within them that we don’t know about, and which we could unknowingly get caught in?

Read More

There’s art and there’s sleaze

Kuala Lumpur may not be Paris, and we may not yet be ready for fashion photographer Helmut Newton’s nudes, but to ban ballet seems a very unsophisticated thing to do.

I WAS in Paris recently and with some free time one Sunday afternoon, I decided to see an exhibition at the Grand Palais, one of the city’s many museums.

My husband had suggested I go and see the retrospective of the work of the famous fashion photographer Helmut Newton who died in 2004.

Although Newton’s job was to showcase the designs of fashion designers like Yves St Laurent, he had a very particular vision of how he presented the clothes.

Invariably, his models are beautiful, strong, even athletic, women. Not for him any coy poses, his photos show women in almost confrontational stances.

That cold spring afternoon the line to see the Newton show snaked down the street.

Young and old, Parisians and tourists shivered for up to two hours to hand over €11 (RM44) for entry to the exhibition.

Inside, they were met with a huge exhibition, dozens of photos throughout his long career as well as a video made by his wife, June.

They were also greeted with literally huge works.

Gigantic photos lined the walls of some of the exhibition rooms, almost all of them of nude women, full frontal, standing tall and proud.

Unflinching and powerful, the exhibit has generated some debate as to whether Newton was a misogynist or a feminist.

I am inclined, having viewed the entire exhibition, to think he was the latter, albeit an unconscious one.

As I toured the exhibition, I watched the crowd as much as I looked at the photographs.

People treated the show with the same respect as they would an exhibition of the Old Masters.

They knew this was art and the work of a great photographer.

They paid good money to view this.

Confronted with the nudes, nobody sniggered or threw up their hands in horror.

Nobody ran out of the room screaming in moral indignation.

I have read no reports of anyone being inspired to rape anyone after being exposed to Newton’s work. There were no protests outside the museum.

There could be several explanations for the calm Parisian reaction to Newton.

Some might say that they are so morally degenerate that they have become immune to the sight of such full frontal nudity.

On the other hand, we can also say that the French are such mature and sophisticated people that they know when something is art and, therefore, worthy of respect, and when something is sleazy and pornographic and, therefore, is not.

Those who may disapprove always have the option of saving their money and staying home.

I flew home from the cold weather in Paris to the heat of home to find myself transported to another world, not just meteorologically.

While thousands of Parisians queued to view Newton’s exhibition, back home, a troupe of classical ballet dancers, fully dressed ones, were banned from performing in Malaysia to a much smaller but also paying audience.

Kuala Lumpur may not be Paris, and we may not yet be ready for Newton’s nudes.

After all, some years ago, an exhibition of Ferdinand Botero’s fat nude sculptures was axed in case some of us got too excited by the sight of giant breasts and bums.

But still, to ban ballet seems a very unsophisticated thing to do.

After all we have dozens of little girls dressing up in tutus for their ballet lessons every weekend.

I myself did ballet as a tiny tot. I don’t think my parents were setting me up for a life of immorality when they sent me to ballet class.

But the point is really this: why should the authorities decide for us what or who we should or should not see?

Especially when we are talking about paying money to attend such shows.

By that alone, the audience is limited and, therefore, whatever alleged “immoral” impact our authorities imagine would naturally be severely curtailed.

Nobody is being forced to watch anything.

Even though the ban has subsequently been lifted, the damage has already been done.

Is it too much to ask that there be a stop to this nonsense?

We are fast gaining a reputation as a place that no artiste wants to come to. But more importantly, why should people who know nothing censor culture and the arts?

In a country where a movie about a rapist is celebrated, why do we censor dance performances, women singers and men who are simply not macho?

Which is more harmful?

Or are even our arts censors keeping one eye on the elections, and somehow imagine that ballet would be an issue we should vote on?

Read More

Net video the modern PA system

If mass conveyance of messages is unclear or late, then one is likely to get the wrong message and make the wrong decision.

I WAS at the airport the other day waiting for a flight. As always, I kept my ear out for announcements about boarding times and was surprised to find the public announcement system faint and unclear.

I had thought there is no longer any such thing as less than crystal clear announcements at airports so that passengers can never find excuses for being late at the gate.

Worse, in some of the airline lounges, there are no announcements at all and you have to rely on your own watch to ensure you get to your gate on time.

Which led me to think of how important the mass conveyance of messages is. If they are unclear or late, then you are likely to get the wrong message and make the wrong decision next.

If the announcement about gate changes is too soft or too late, then you’re likely to find lots of very stressed people rushing from one gate to another, hoping not to miss their flights.

I suppose those who work the airport PA systems hardly ever make the wrong announcements. And I must say that those at our airports are usually clear in their pronunciation so you get their messages quickly and concisely.

In some countries, however, the accents can be confusing but luckily there are always alternative ways of checking flight information.

I do wish all public announcements had the clarity of airport announcements.

Unfortunately, other forms of mass announcements tend to be unclear, and sometimes even misleading. And unlike airport announcers, sometimes the lack of clarity is actually deliberate.

Of late, public announcements in this country seem to be particularly prone to obfuscation. If one only relied on them, then one is likely to get a very skewed view of the world.

Most recently, there was a video on an African warlord that went viral all over the world. It called on everyone who sees it to not just pass it along but to donate to help get rid of the warlord. This is the modern form of the PA system, the Internet video.

But almost as soon as it gained popularity, people started writing articles, i.e. other forms of public announcements, that gave a more nuanced analysis of the issue involving the warlord and questioning whether the aims of the organisation behind the video were truly honourable or, at best, somewhat naive.

Whichever way anyone felt about the whole campaign, the availability of these alternative perspectives allowed us to hopefully make a more intelligent assessment on whether we would support the cause or not.

Being able to assess leaves the power to decide in our hands.

The Internet, not being controlled by anyone, is a many-headed PA system. It can convince you of one argument or another, or it can leave you confused.

But it does allow power to remain in the person who uses the Internet to decide one way or the other.

Read More

Stork talk is no child’s play

Nobody disagrees that we should have sex education. But with the impasse that we have now, the more aware and concerned parents have to do their own educating.

I MAY be getting long in the tooth these days but I’ve always held high hopes for the youths of today.

Everywhere I go, whether here in this country or abroad, it is the young people who I find most enthusiastic and energised about the world, ever eager to contribute to society in one way or another.

As much as we like to think of the youths of today as lethargic and apathetic, there are certainly also plenty who are bright young things, sparkling with new ideas.

I saw that recently at the United Kingdom and Eire Council of Malaysian Students (UKEC) conference in London where many of the students got up to ask some really sharp questions.

And I’ve seen that with the young women students at the Asian University for Women in Chittagong, Bangladesh.

Every visit I’ve had there has been nothing short of inspiring.

Of course, let’s not forget the youth-led revolutions in the Middle East, where they have helped to mobilise people using social media.

Meanwhile, back home, someone who calls himself Yoof was making a rare visit to a bookstore, probably heading to the magazine section to look for short reads on cars and football, when he came to a screeching halt in the kiddie section upon seeing a book called Where Do Babies Come From?.

Instantly donning his righteous cap, he quickly scanned this book meant for eight-year-olds, utterly shocked at learning how babies are made (all this time he thought they came from Aisle B at Tesco), blushed and made the sort of thoughtful decision that only Yoof can make: ban this book, it’s obscene!

While youths elsewhere are conducting revolutions and changing the course of their countries, ours are banning children’s books. Way to go, Yoof!

For decades, the seemingly endless debate in our country about sex education has revolved around only one question: who should do it?

Teachers are reluctant to handle the awkward questions that may arise while parents think it’s better done in the more formal setting of school.

Nobody disagrees that we should have sex education.

The best formula is actually to have both teachers and parents do it; teachers do the fact-based bits while parents deal with the many emotional issues that are bound to come up.

But with the current impasse that we have now, where essentially our kids are not getting any sex education, the more aware and concerned parents have to do their own educating.

Every day we read of children being sexually abused, unwanted babies being born and often dumped while sexually-transmitted diseases including HIV continue to spread.

It’s obvious that to at least prevent some of these, we need to educate our children about both their bodies and about sex.

There have been enough studies overseas to show that there is a strong correlation between good school-based sex education and low rates of teenage pregnancies.

Now, if parents want to educate their children – they have every right to do that – then some teaching aids are needed. Good simple books are very helpful.

When I asked the inevitable question at age 11, my mother brought out a cartoon book, not unlike Peter Mayle’s, to explain the facts of life to me. It helped her and me a lot.

I suppose the easily shocked Yoof is not a parent yet or is going to leave the educating of his children to someone else (the Internet perhaps?).

And our equally easily shocked Home Ministry, which is probably embarrassed that it was caught out sleeping for the past 30 years, immediately banned the book.

So now, perhaps Yoof would like to check all the Education Ministry’s materials on sex education, too. Or perhaps, the ministry can write its own sex education book. No doubt a book that says babies are made when Daddies put their ahem-ahem in Mummies’ dot-dot-dot would really be helpful.

By the way, you’ve heard the story of the nurse who told a woman to put her diaphragm at her “door” and then was puzzled when the woman came back a few months later pregnant, right? Turns out that she’d been putting it at the door to her bedroom.

Meanwhile, Yoof and friends have offered to go through every single book there is to ensure that no others will make them blush.

I think that’s a great idea really. It’ll keep them well occupied, make them better informed and perhaps improve their English. Might be a way to keep Mat Rempits off the streets, too.

The rest of us, meantime, will carry on with, oh you know, unimportant things like trying to survive in this economy and bringing up our kids to be decent well-educated children

Read More

Common sense not so common

We learn much folk wisdom – some couched in semi-superstition – either from other people or simply from experience.

I USED to muse that there seems, these days, to be a lack of common sense, the wisdom that comes from basic knowledge and experience. Everyone seems to be more interested in fantasising about imaginary things or providing far-out solutions when simpler ones may do.

People in leadership positions seem to have the least common sense of all, probably because they think people expect something different from them instead of the obvious.

I am reminded of this more and more lately. People are so obsessed with getting from A to Z that they skip over B and C and don’t realise that the wisest outcome is in fact D.

So we get, for example, people who think the ultimate goal is to bring out a website in English but who forget that in order to do that, one needs to first find someone competent in English to do it.

Or who, without checking a simple encyclopedia, wish the wrong people greetings for a religious festival. All it takes is some care and common sense.

There are of course worse examples. Sometimes it makes better sense to say nothing than to open one’s mouth and disclose that one’s head is full of rubbish. It can be jaw-droppingly embarrassing for all observers, if not for the one speaking.

Sometimes we can’t blame those laying out such nonsense. Common sense comes from having some basic knowledge handed down from teachers and guides, as well as lived experiences and just plain intelligence.

Getting websites so excruciatingly mistranslated or sending out wrongly targeted tweets is not so much the fault of whoever wrote them but whoever supervises them.

If supervisors and leaders have not had the sense to lay down some basic rules and procedures, then it’s not surprising that such faux pas happens.

I recently had a request for an interview for a student research project. Reading their proposed project, I was appalled by the entire premise of their topic, one so nonsensical that had it been a foreign university, they would have been laughed out of their room.

But then I realised that it’s not the students’ fault. Such a research proposal should really not have passed by their supervising faculty at all.

Their lecturer should have questioned them much more, made them read more background material to come up with something that made better sense.

Then I had the awful realisation that maybe the lecturer, too, thought it was a topic worth researching.

In our lifetime we learn much folk wisdom either from other people or simply from experience. Some are couched in semi-superstition.

Our mothers would tell us not to cut our fingernails at dusk. It may have sounded a bit mystical but the real lesson was that if we cut them at a time when the light was bad, the chances are we’re likely to cut ourselves.

Or we would be told to close our mouths with our hands when we yawned so that the Devil would not enter our bodies, when in fact it was so that we would not rudely display our open mouths to other people.

When dealing with the public, simple psychology will often do. Nobody really likes to be berated all the time. Often gentle persuasion works better.

Most people have a certain innate sense of decency and justice, so will tend to take the side of the underdog. Thus wielding a stick too heavy-handedly over someone much weaker will only elicit sympathy for that person.

Being humble, even if suspect, usually wins over arrogance. Doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.

But repeatedly, all we see is the opposite of such common sense. Perhaps some people feel the need to be too clever, or assume that the audience must be simply too stupid.

This is the worst mistake of all. If there’s one of you and millions of them, chances are there are probably lots of people much smarter than you out there and they’ll outgun you with brains any time.

The trouble is, like those students, once there is no common sense at the top, the bottom takes the same cue and loses all ability to think clearly, too. Whatever is the prevailing logic on high, no matter how absurd, becomes everyone’s logic, too.

The illogic when unquestioned is accepted as gospel. Thus a talk becomes a seminar, a party becomes an orgy, a gathering a riot. The simple matter of supporting evidence is ignored.

Where on earth will this collective stupidity lead us?

Will it make us stand tall and proud as Malaysians, punching above our weight, as someone put it, all round the globe? Or will it make us increasingly isolated and provincial?

Or don’t we care?

Read More