Singapore – May & June 2012

I was at Singapore on two occasions for business.

Eddie Law of eLawyer had an extra ticket to the Marcus Evans Intellectual Property Conference at Marina Sands Bay. Since the conference is related to my field of practice, I accepted the offer so that I can meet other fellow IP lawyers. Further, it’s been a while since I dropped by Singapore.

Never did I know that this conference was an expensive conference. It was attended by many in-house lawyers of well known multinationals and large companies. I was told that practising lawyers who wants to attend must be a sponsoring firm. Such firm pays around US$10,000 to US$40,000!

I must first explain the differences between an in-house lawyer and practising lawyer. The former works in an entity to advise the company of legal matters whereas the latter is a lawyer who works or owns a legal firm. I’ve heard of companies who set up law firms to service their own company and also other companies. But let’s not complicate matters here.

In-house lawyers are important to a practising lawyer because they are one of the sources for business. On the other hand, in-house lawyers sometimes need practising lawyers’ help if they are unable to cope, requires expert advice on a certain piece of work or to confirm or support an in-house lawyer’s point of view. However, there’s a trend now for in-house lawyers to do everything themselves.

Going back to this conference, the event had some speed dating elements. It had seminars throughout the day but there will be a session everyday where the event organisers pair up the sponsoring firms with the in-house lawyers of their choice. It was a one-on-one meeting. In this 20 minutes meeting, the sponsoring firm is given the opportunity to introduce and pitch their firm.

Of course, you are not guaranteed any businesses from in-house lawyer. Whether you will get any depends on a lot of factors such as your area of expertise, your personality and also luck. I learn that not all in-house counsels can give you work. Some in-house lawyers take care of certain areas and regions. For example, I met an in-house lawyer from Hong Kong who only takes care of Australia and Philippines for debt recovery litigation. He doesn’t need a Malaysian Intellectual Property lawyer.

One of the most interesting seminars of the event is by eBay on how they engage Governments to lobby their positions. Constant engagement with the relevant officials help a lot. Something I need to learn to oppose the new s. 114A Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2012.

After 2 days, it was time for me to go. I went home with a handful of name cards.


Interesting name..

I usually send an email to the people I met thanking them for their time and also to ask them whether they would like to be part of my mailing list. The response varies. Some don’t reply, some reply. Sometimes those you expect them to reply don’t reply but those you don’t expect them to reply, replies. Life is funny in that way.

The purpose of me asking them to be in the email list is for constant engagement. Constant engagement is important in marketing. You need to be in people’s minds all the time. Also, when sending such emails, it is useful to have your name and email as the sender instead of having your firm’s name/department and general/marketing email. Sending using your name and email encourages response. Your audience is not interested in replying to your firm’s general email.

Anyway, it’s been more than 3 months since the conference. I didn’t get any business from the contacts I met. It takes time and luck to get business from conferences. I’m glad to make the trip down.

Tweet below the law

This time round, I’ll digress from food entries to an entry regarding legal mambo jumbo. This is old news but I thought this article is useful for internet users. I was featured in this article published in The Star. Many thanks to Nikki Cheong for hooking me up with Joseph (the journalist who wrote this piece).

Sunday August 8, 2010
Tweet below the law

By JOSEPH LOH
sunday@thestar.com.my

Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have allowed people to easily let others know what is on their minds. But users should be careful with what they post because the laws of the land apply to cyberspace as well.

THE Internet is increasingly becoming a virtual soapbox for people to vent their thoughts – and sometimes frustrations and dissatisfaction. The proliferation of blogs, discussion groups, and more recently, social networking, have emboldened many – with the assumption that making comments from behind a screen shields them from any legal repercussion.

However, the long arm of the law extends beyond solid ground, and reaches into the virtual realm as well.

According to H.R. Dipendra, from the Malaysian Bar Council’s human rights committee, there is no distinction between comments posted on the Internet and traditional print media.

“Internet posts are subject to similar laws as that of print media, aside from the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (MCMC Act) and Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984.


False sense of security: People on social networking sites and blogs tend to say more than they do in real life, thinking they can do it anonymously.

“You have to be careful what you write, and not just post what comes off the top of your head. If you know it to be inflammatory, then you should be careful,” he says.

Eddie Law, blogger and founder of elawyer.com.my and laweddie.com.my says that the www header is not an acronym for the wild wild west.

“Some think they can post or write anything, but that is not true,” he says.

Examples of legislation (see chart) include the Sedition Act, Internal Security Act, as well as civil and criminal defamation laws – all of which have previously been invoked to bring an individual to court, most famously in the cases involving blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin.


Dipendra

More recently, DAP member Teng Chang Khim was summoned to appear before the party disciplinary committee for a Twitter message that read “OMG! Real culprit freed.”

Dipendra says what has happened to Teng is fascinating, but does not believe anything will come out of it.

“His statement is not defamatory as it does not specifically refer to any particular person. It is a general opinion on a general matter,” he says.

Posting news content on Internet blogs, for example, is in some way similar to what mainstream news journalists do, but Law feels that bloggers are at a distinct disadvantage.

“They do not have proper media training or resources to help them determine what they are doing is legal.”

He opines that as social networking and blogging activity is still relatively new, there is little legal precedent to follow and there are many issues yet to be tested in court.

“The wording of the MCMC Act (Section 233 and 211) is very broad, and there is a lot of uncertainty. Because it is not yet tested, you can be snagged if its wording can be defined to suit your case,” he says.

Dipendra shares a similar opinion, and believes that when the law was drafted, it was intentionally broadly-worded.


Law

“It can be of any mode, medium or application – SMS, iPad or Twitter – so long as you type out a comment and post it, you will fall within the ambit of the two sections.

“The law is broad enough to include everyone, even an innocent disseminator,” he says.

However, he does not think it is a bad law.

“It may be uncertain and ambiguous, but not bad law. It gives enforcement agencies a lot of leeway so they would have the unfettered discretion for its use. The only question is if this discretion is used fairly,” says Dipendra.

Anonymity not guaranteed

Foong Cheng Leong, from Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill’s intellectual property department, says that people tend to say more than they do in real life, thinking they can do it anonymously.

“They think they can get away with it, but they may still get caught,” he cautions.

He gives the example of the Stemlife Bhd v Bristol-Myers Squibb (M) Sdn Bhd case. The co-defendant, Arachnid Sdn Bhd, who provided website maintenance services, was ordered to reveal the names of the persons who posted disparaging remarks against the plaintiff.

However, in a separate defamation suit involving the same parties, the judge struck out the suit against Arachnid, as it had never played an active role in respect of the content of the comments posted on the website.

There was another case where the defamatory contents of a website were deleted, but the lawyers were able to find the offending page using archived pages on waybackmachine.com.

“Simply deleting the page is not a defence, as the damage may have already been done. In a way, it is like destroying the evidence,” says Foong.

However, Law says web service providers need immunity from content posted on their website, something that United States law provides for in Section 230 of its Communi­cations Decency Act.

Foong informs that a similar “safe harbour” provision is being drawn up in Malaysia, and the same kind of immunity may later be found here.

Dipendra also says that what is posted on cyberspace stays there forever.

“Something that you said 10 years ago on a website may resurface, and you may have no recollection of even writing it.”

While existing Malaysian law appears to cover cases of wayward online behaviour at the moment, there are some who feel that there is a need for the law to be reformed.

Sonya Liew of the Bar Council explains that the world is currently undergoing both a revolution and evolution at the moment.

“Just like how there was the industrial revolution before, now we are having an information revolution,” she says.

She explains that during the agrarian age, laws were formed to protect the land, and during the industrial age, to protect intellectual property with laws regarding copyright and trademarks, for example.

“Laws regarding sedition and secrets were passed many years ago, before the information revolution. But now, society has evolved beyond this,” she says, adding that the people’s expectations regarding the right to information have evolved – together with technological advances.

“The whole world now has information at its fingertips, and if you withhold information, people start to question the lack of access to it.

“People expect information, and the question is if existing laws are sufficient to provide for the needs of a modern society,” says Liew.

She notes that signs of this can be seen in the increasing call for freedom of expression and the right to information.

“Later, we will hear of even more rights that we have not even heard of before, and it may even eat into the right to privacy,” she says, explaining that this may arise as people may want to know more about government officers’ or politicians’ lifestyle – in order to reduce graft.

“Laws exist to serve society, and society does not serve the law. We have this need now, and the question is if the Government is doing enough to provide for this need,” says Liew.

Any significant legal reform on the use of the Internet is not yet on the horizon, and until then, social networkers and bloggers should be vigilant on their online behaviour.

“People should behave the same way online as they would in real life. If they do not shout and curse in public, then their behaviour should remain the same online. They should not wear a different hat in cyberspace,” says Law.

Foong succinctly describes the appropriate online behaviour with a biblical quotation – which is still as relevant today as it was 2,000 years after it was uttered.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” quotes Foong.

Other articles which I was featured can be seen at:
xes.cx – eLawyer Law Conference 2009 – Blogging & Law
xes.cx – Featured on Sin Chew Newspaper!
xes.cx – Keeping it Private

Forum on Blogging & Defamation Laws

I had only one day to prepare for this talk. With the patent examination and conference, time was not on my side. I only managed to work on the slide in the bus back to KL and few hours before the talk.

Just when I thought I had everything in order, I discovered that I forgot to bring my name cards while on my way to the Bar Council. Fortunately, a colleague took the trouble to pass me my name cards.
The speakers for the Forum were Member of Parliament YB Jeff Ooi, lawyer Nizam Bashir and myself. Richard Wee started off with an introduction on defamation law and the current situation in Malaysia.

Thereafter, Nizam gave a presentation on the laws applicable on blogs e.g. defamation law, sedition and Communications and Multimedia Act. I on the other hand spoke about the liability of a blogger for defamation, a guide to handle defamation action and also a guide on how to reduce the risk of being threatened with a defamation suit. Jeff closed the panel’s speeches by talking about his blog and the steps he had taken to minimalize the risk of commentors posting defamatory comments.

The floor was opened after that. We had a good number of people coming to the mike to ask us questions. It was an extremely good crowd. It wasn’t the typical quiet Malaysian crowd. It was a very responsive crowd. We had bloggers, students, lawyers, journalist and even random members of the public asking us questions.

Julian Hopkins was one of the persons who stood up to ask questions
Some people speculated that the Special Branch will be there to check on the things that we will say. They suspected one chap who is a member of the Special Branch sitting among the crowd. But they soon realised that he’s actually a Bar Council employee.

After the forum ended, journalist rushed to Jeff Ooi to interview him. I took the opportunity to take some pictures!

Since I was young, public speaking has never been my liking. On many occasions, I shy away from speaking in public. Giving a talk to a room of 80 to 100 people was a giant leap for me.

I must say that anyone who has the same problem with me should try to overcome this problem especially when you are a young lawyer and you wish to market yourself.

I’ve been given an opportunity to write in The Star. I guess I will be writing about this topic in detail.

Related Links:
KL Bar Blog – Forum on Blogging and Defamation Laws
The Potted Plot – Of Blogs and defamation
julianhopkins.net – Blogging and Defamation – Part II
LawEddie.com – Blogging & Defamation Laws Forum