Wednesday, 4 June 2025

Malayan Tit-Bits by S. Durai Raja Singam - A book from the Past



A friend lent me his book, Malayan Tit-Bits by S. Durai Raja Singam. It is a fascinating collection of news and anecdotes. On Google, I found a reference to the author and the book in the Shonan Times (Syonan Shimbun), dated 20 November 1942, published during the Japanese Occupation. This, in itself, makes the book even more intriguing. Someone writing under the name Sakura praises the book for the information it contains about Malaya. He must have been a Japanese official in Japanese-occupied Malaya because he adds that copies of the book should be sent to Nippon so that the Japanese will be informed about Malaya. Then, quoting an entry in the book about how Sir Andrew Clarke, upon his appointment as Governor of the Straits Settlements, found no information about Malaya in the Geographical Society’s library in London, Sakura writes that the Japanese must not remain ignorant about Malaya as the British did when they first arrived in these parts.

The writer, referring to another entry in the book about the various claims of individuals like Stamford Raffles and Frank Swettenham regarding the development of the colony, cheekily adds that to that list must be included Lt. General Tomoyuki Yamashita – “I conquered Malaya.”

Simply fascinating.  

Monday, 12 May 2025

Espact Handout on Bullying


What the New Law Says About Bullying – Including Online Abuse

Although the recent amendments to the Penal Code do not define “bullying” in so many words, they introduce six new offences—Sections 507B to 507G—that directly target the kinds of conduct most commonly associated with bullying, particularly verbal abuse, psychological harassment, and online threats.  

These provisions apply to any form of bullying, whether in person, at school, in the workplace, or online. This is especially significant in an era where cyberbullying, including doxxing and online threats, is becoming increasingly common and damaging.

 Section 507B – Threats or Abuse

Criminalises threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour, whether in person or online, if they are intended—or known to be likely—to cause harassment, distress, fear, or alarm. Penalty: up to 3 years’ imprisonment.

Section 507C – Causing Distress Without Intent

Even if the bully didn’t intend harm, they can be liable if their words or actions are likely to make a person feel distressed or alarmed. This includes cyber comments, messages, and posts. Penalty: up to 1 year in prison.

Section 507D – Causing Fear of Harm or Provoking Self-Harm

Making someone believe they or someone they care about will be harmed, or provoking them to harm themselves, is now a criminal offence. Includes online provocation or threats. If it results in suicide or an attempt, the penalty may extend to 10 years’ imprisonment.

Section 507E – Doxxing to Cause Distress

Makes it a crime to share or publish someone’s private information online (e.g. photos, phone numbers, addresses) with intent to cause distress or fear. Penalty: up to 3 years in prison.

Section 507F – Sharing Information to Threaten or Facilitate Harm

Criminalises sharing of personal information to make someone believe they will be harmed, or to help others attack or harass the person. Includes group targeting and viral attacks. Penalty: up to 1 year in prison.

Section 507G – Broad Definitions of Harm

Defines 'harm' to include not just physical injury, but also psychological harm, reputational damage, and emotional trauma—common outcomes of online bullying.

Together, these sections offer the most complete legal framework Malaysia has seen to date to combat bullying in both physical and digital spaces. They reflect a critical shift: that bullying—especially cyberbullying—is not merely misconduct, but can be a criminal act.

Still, the law could go further. A single, clearly defined offence of 'bullying' would help schools, workplaces, and the public more easily identify and act against it. Until then, these six provisions offer real protection, especially for those who suffer in silence behind screens of fear.

Friday, 9 May 2025

Bullying – Now a Criminal Offence Under the Penal Code

 Although thousands of cases of bullying are reported in schools and other educational institutions, there is still no clear legal definition of what constitutes bullying. Yet its impact is undeniable. Victims often suffer from fear, humiliation, and deep psychological trauma. In some cases, bullying has even led to suicide. For children, the effects can be devastating, driving them away from school and leaving scars that last a lifetime.

The law provides adequate remedies for physical bullying—assault, battery, and causing hurt are clearly punishable under the Penal Code. But when bullying falls short of physical violence, victims have had to rely on the psychological or emotional impact—feeling threatened, abused, or insulted—as a basis for seeking protection or redress.

Recent amendments to the Penal Code attempt to fill this gap. Six new provisions (Sections 507B to 507G) were introduced in 2025 to address various forms of bullying-related conduct. This article examines whether these provisions are adequate to control this persistent social scourge, especially in cases where emotional and psychological harm is inflicted.

Importantly, these provisions are not limited to schools. They extend to workplaces, public spaces, and online platforms—anywhere people interact and where bullying may arise. This broader scope is essential, but also raises questions about how clearly and effectively the law defines what bullying is and how it can be identified and punished.

What the New Law Says About Bullying – Including Online Abuse

Although the recent amendments to the Penal Code do not define “bullying” in so many words, they introduce six new offences—Sections 507B to 507G—that directly target the kinds of conduct most commonly associated with bullying, especially verbal abuse, psychological harassment, and online threats.

These provisions apply to any form of bullying, whether in person, at school, in the workplace, or online. This is especially significant in an era where cyberbullying, including doxxing and online threats, is increasingly common and damaging.

Here’s what the new law covers:

Section 507B: Criminalises threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour, whether in person or online, if they are intended—or known to be likely—to cause harassment, distress, fear, or alarm. Penalty: up to 3 years’ imprisonment.

Section 507C: Even if the bully didn’t intend harm, they can be liable if their words or actions are likely to make a person feel distressed or alarmed. This includes cyber comments, messages, and posts. The law focuses on the effect on the victim. Penalty: up to 1 year in prison.

Section 507D: Making someone believe they—or someone they care about—will be harmed, or provoking them to harm themselves, is now a criminal offence. This includes online provocation or threats. If it results in a suicide attempt or suicide, the punishment may extend to 10 years’ imprisonment.

Section 507E: Known as doxxing, this makes it a crime to share or publish someone’s private information online (e.g. photos, phone numbers, addresses) with intent to cause distress or fear. Penalty: up to 3 years in prison.

Section 507F: Criminalises the sharing of personal information to make someone believe they will be harmed, or to help others attack or harass the person. Includes group targeting and viral attacks. Penalty: up to 1 year in prison.

Section 507G: Defines “harm” broadly to include not just physical harm, but also psychological harm, reputational damage, and emotional trauma—all of which are common outcomes of online bullying.

Together, these sections offer the most complete legal framework Malaysia has seen to date to combat bullying in both physical and digital spaces. They reflect a critical shift: that bullying, especially cyberbullying, is not merely misconduct but can be a criminal act.

Still, the law could go further. A single, clearly defined offence of “bullying” would help schools, workplaces, and the public more easily identify and act against it. Until then, these six provisions offer real protection, especially for those who suffer in silence behind screens.

Overlap with Sexual Harassment

The new Penal Code provisions on bullying also overlap with protections offered under the Sexual Harassment Act 2022. Both legal frameworks recognise that harm is not limited to physical injury, but can include emotional distress, fear, and psychological trauma. While the Penal Code amendments focus on general bullying behaviours—whether in schools, workplaces, or online—the Sexual Harassment Act specifically targets unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that causes discomfort or humiliates the victim. 

Yet in many cases, particularly involving young people, bullying and sexual harassment often go together: persistent teasing, body shaming, inappropriate jokes, and coercive online behaviour may constitute both bullying and sexual harassment. Understanding this overlap reinforces the idea that respect, consent, and dignity must be upheld across all environments and that the law now provides a framework to achieve this.

Implementing the New Laws

Laws addressing bullying and sexual harassment will have little impact if they remain buried in legislation, unknown and unpractised. To be effective, these laws must be actively brought to life by the governors and managers of schools, universities, and workplaces. 

Awareness is crucial. 

Institutions must ensure that staff, students, and employees are made fully aware of their rights and responsibilities under these laws. 

In schools and universities, especially, the relevant legal protections should be integrated into curricula and orientation programs. 

These laws are not meant to be invoked only after an offence has occurred; their true power lies in prevention. By sharing them early and openly—especially with those most likely to offend or be victimised—institutions can create safer, more respectful environments where the law serves not only to punish, but to protect and educate.


Monday, 21 April 2025

The Irreplaceable Voice: Will Artificial Intelligence Silence Human Song?

 The Irreplaceable Voice: Will AI Silence Human Song?

 

The first thing I do every morning is to turn on the music. I start each day with Carnatic music from CDs randomly arranged on the player. The music brings to life the stillness of the morning and starts my day on a positive mood. The language, genre and style of music may change but music remains in the background all day long, at home and at work.

As I write, Maharajapuram Santhanam's distinctive earthy voice fills the room. Like all great voices, his voice is unmistakable—one that I doubt any human or algorithm can ever replicate.

Yet synthetic voices pervade the media to communicate news and other information and to persuade people to purchase goods and services. All we hear are the same few voices repeated over and over.

As artificial intelligence grows ever more sophisticated, I wonder if this distinct—and, I believe, irreplaceable—pleasure of listening to a multitude of voices in Carnatic music will one day be replaced by synthetic voices? Is this the beginning of us humans abdicating our individual differences to machines?

The Allure of the Human Voice

What makes a voice like Maharajapuram’s so captivating is not just its pitch or clarity, but its humanity—the slight tremble in a long-held note, the improvisational flourish in a raga, the faint breath between phrases, a cough, a clearing of the throat. These are not flaws; they are the fingerprints of a living artist. Carnatic music, like all great vocal traditions, thrives on this individuality. One singer’s rendition of a song does not sound like the same song rendered by another. Nor is one recording of a song identical to a later recording of the same song.

This diversity is not incidental; it is part of the tradition. There are over a hundred singers I listen to, and only rarely do I mistake a rendering by one for another, and I am no expert in the Carnatic tradition.

The Rise of Synthetic Sound

Yet, AI now threatens to flatten this richness. Already, tools exist to clone voices, generate "perfect" singing, or even compose new "performances" by long-dead artists. At first, this may seem harmless—a novelty, a tool for experimentation. But the danger lies in normalisation. If listeners grow accustomed to synthetic voices, will they still seek out the raw, unfiltered beauty of human song? If record labels can license an AI "Santhanam" to sing endlessly without fatigue or ageing, will they invest in living artists? The convenience of artificiality could quietly erode our connection to the real.

A Call for Self-Awareness

Our greatest challenge is not to reject AI, but to awaken to what it means to be human alongside it. We must recognise two worlds—the organic and the artificial—without blurring their boundaries. Just as we teach children to distinguish a photograph from a painting, we must now teach them to discern a living voice from a synthetic one, a human choice from an algorithmic suggestion. But this awareness must extend beyond sound to touch, intuition, and creativity. Our selves—and our agency—are not relics to be archived, but flames to be guarded.

Teaching Humanity

AI’s greatest danger is that it will make us forget who we are as humans and forget the multiple talents we are born with. To counter this demands a reimagining of education. Let us teach students to wield AI as a tool—for drafting ideas, transcribing melodies, or exploring creative possibilities—while fiercely preserving the sanctity of human expression. The new curricula must emphasise:

  • The role of human emotions and the human body in art (the breath behind a note, the callus on a violinist’s finger);
  • The ethics of authenticity (when to label AI, when to privilege human creation);
  • The courage of imperfection (why a cracked note can express more than a flawless one).

As Santhanam’s voice rises in a final, resonant phrase, I am reminded that technology has no inner life. A song synthesised by AI may delight the ear, but only a human voice can reach the soul of the listener. Our task is not to resist progress, but to insist that progress serves what machines can never replicate: the messy, glorious act of being alive, of being human.

"Let us use AI, but never mistake it for artistry. Let us listen to both worlds—but only bow before one."