Ooi Tiang Chien KEW080018

Question 1: Newspaper cutting and comment it critically
KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysians are aware of laws but they just do not bother to obey them when making online comments, said Information, Communication and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim.

He added that many people assumed the law would not catch up with them.

“It is only right to inform the public that if they freely utilise seditious utterances, those comments will be used as the ‘meat’ for law enforcers to take action,” Dr Rais told reporters after launching the Special Affairs Department’s national assembly here Monday.

He said this when asked on whether the public was aware of communication laws since there were many who commented freely on social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter.

Dr Rais added that as long as people knew how to draw the line when making statements, they should be able to avoid committing a crime.

“Under Sections 232 and 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, we have to be careful with what we publish over the Internet to ensure that we do not threaten national security, create social unrest or misuse it for child pornography.

“Our country is liberal enough but what we need now is to step up on enforcement.

“This is what the Government has been doing and the proof of such action is the recent case of the 25-year-old student who was charged in court,” he said.

Last Friday, Mohamad Tasyrif Tajudin was charged in the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court with attempting to create public unrest with his Facebook posting by writing threatening words on the controversy over the use of the word “Allah.”
He claimed trial on Monday and was released on RM6,000 bail.

Source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/18/nation/20100118221539&sec=nation


Comments:
I feel the Government’s act in enforcing the cyber law is a good move. This will ensure safety within the Malaysia community and people will think twice before posting any threats or illegal materials on the internet or they will be caught and punished according to the law.

Nevertheless, we must take note that this law was not that strict before this. We can barely hear people get arrested over such cases. As a Facebook user myself, I was not well-educated about the cyber law regarding posting comments. Yes, I do know that hacking and posting child pornography is against the law(those can be known by the public with common sense) but honestly, I do not know where exactly the "line" is when making statements online. Similar to most facebook users, I did not learn the laws of commenting on the internet when I was in school.

Even primary school students are capable of operating a computer and thus, a lot of them owns a facebook account. Primary school students are too young to be educated about the law. Even after they have grown up, and if they do not further their education into the law field, how are they suppose to know where the "line" is? I am certain we are not required to memorize the law acts like how lawyers and judges are. Furthermore the definition on the “line” stated in the news article is controversial as it differs for every person. It is totally not fair for everyone to be required to read the government’s mind and for this case, know where their definition of the “line” is.

In other words, I feel the statement given isn't specific enough and more should be done by the government to ensure fairness to the public at the same time enforce this cyber law successfully.



Question 2: Live speech from anyone and comment their statements.
Title: Dr. Randy Pausch - The Last Lecture
[/b]
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ya9BXClRw&feature=fvw

Comments:
(02:01)
Point: Even if you do not achieve your dreams, you can still gain a lot by going after your dreams.

Reasoning: He is saying that even if we do not achieve our dreams, we can gain experience from going after it. His dream was to enter the National Football League having played Little League for a long time. He based his point on his experience during his football training whereby he was always picked and punished by his coach. He then learnt that “When you’re doing a bad job and nobody points it out to you, that is when they have given up on you”.

Conclusion: Well that is just one example of what he had gained from going after his dreams. I am sure he had gained much more of other things. From this speech, he supported his point critically with a good example which a lot of people face but failed to realize its true meaning.

(03:00)
Point: Brick walls (obstacles) are there for a reason: they let us prove how badly we want things.

Reasoning: He is saying that the obstacles in our path in achieving something exist not to annoy us but to test us how badly we want to achieve that thing. He wanted to become an Imagineer in Disneyland. Upon graduation from college, he tried to apply for the job several times but his application was rejected every time. He then worked very hard, became a junior faculty member who specialized in doing certain kinds of Virtual Reality Research. There, he developed a skill that was valuable to Disney and was accepted to become an Imagineer.

Conclusion: He gave an example which shows the audience how the “brick walls” can be overcome. His example on his rejection in his application but he continued working hard without giving up is a great example which most of us encounter. He proved his point and all of us are able to understand his message. I would say he supported his point critically.


(05:36)
Point: The importance of people versus things.

Reasoning: Here, he is saying that we should give the people close to us more priority compared to things. Firstly, he gave an example of his parents allowing him to paint on his room wall, allowing him to show his creativity rather than caring for the beauty of the wall. Secondly, he purposely emptied a can of soda in front of his niece and nephew onto the backseat of his brand new car so that they can enjoy sitting on his car without any worries of dirtying the seats. A few days later, his nephew threw out on that particular backseat. He then told how glad he was emptying the can of soda as his action has made his nephew not feeling guilty doing something he couldn’t control.

Conclusion: The two examples showed us what he meant by the importance of people versus things. Those examples supported his point with a concrete base in the sense that they are something people always do neglecting people they care about over things. I would say he supported his point critically.

(07:39)
Point: A good apology has 3 parts:
1.) I’m sorry
2.) It was my fault
3.) How do I make it right

Reasoning: He said that usually people will tend to skip number 3 which is the point to show the sincerity of someone apologizing.

Conclusion: Despite agreeing with him, I feel he stated his point without any proper examples or reasoning. Therefore, I would say he did not support his point critically.

[b]Overall: Since his point of the speech was to tell about “childhood dreams & how to achieve them”, I say he successfully did it critically. This is because from the comments above, there were 4 important points given in order to achieve childhood dreams and he supported the 3 main ones critically.

The line is unclear. In the end, people will either play on the safe side or accidentally/unintentionally cross it.

The importance of People VS Things indeed! Too bad that when such a battle occurs, Things will win almost everytime

Edmund, you got the same article as me