Expose’ is resorted to upon different motives—revenge, blackmail, jealousy or just for fun to subject a person to ridicule..
In the case of “monsterball” it was done to meet his challenge to sue him for defamation.
As mentioned in the post “Malicious “monsterball” and Cyberspace Defamation”, one of the legal requirements before a cause of action is possible is to establish the real identity of the potential defendant out there in cyberspace.
As such the expose’ in “Malicious “monsterball” and Cyberspace Defamation” was undertaken as an effort to establish the identity of the potential defendant and nothing more.
Therefore the motive of the expose’ is not revenge, blackmail, jealousy or to make fun but purely to meet the legal conditions. What is so unethical about this when the law requires it.
There was no assumption made at all that “monsterball” and a person by the name of “Goh Swee Soon” is the same person.
In fact if one goes by the blog, “monsterball” is a man with 3 ex-wives and an Indonesian “maid”, and if one goes by the IC the holder, Goh Swee Soon, is a Hainanese woman in her 60s. The disclaimer at the footnote states that “At no time it is to be assumed the two is the same person”
Now lets analyse each of the 8 expose’ to see if it is done with malice or are essential to meet “monsterball”’s challenge.
1. I/C No: 390712-05-5138
This IC is issued to a 68 year-old woman by the name of Goh Swee Soon. In all databases Goh Swee Soon is a woman who used to stay in Setapak. As “monsterball” is a man, there will be legal complications when accepting his challenge. If Goh Swee Soon is indeed a man, this expose’ is a favour to him to fix the mistake as soon as possible otherwise there will be problems with traveling overseas (like what Rafidah Aziz went through), voting in the coming General Election, banks and practically all places where the use of IC is a must. As for his IC and passport, any policeman or immigration officer looking at him will assume that either Goh Swee Soon is a female pondan or that the IC or passport is a fake.
2. Address: 105, Jalan USJ 2/4Q, Subang Jaya.
Anyone going to this address would expect to see a Hainanese woman by the name of Goh Swee Soon, in her 60s. But instead there would be an Indonesian woman in her 30s in the house. The address is a legal prerequisite to serve court papers. But then this address belongs to a female Hainanese whereas “monsterball” is a male. So by revealing the address, it is intended to ascertain if this is the right place.
In the case of “monsterball” it was done to meet his challenge to sue him for defamation.
As mentioned in the post “Malicious “monsterball” and Cyberspace Defamation”, one of the legal requirements before a cause of action is possible is to establish the real identity of the potential defendant out there in cyberspace.
As such the expose’ in “Malicious “monsterball” and Cyberspace Defamation” was undertaken as an effort to establish the identity of the potential defendant and nothing more.
Therefore the motive of the expose’ is not revenge, blackmail, jealousy or to make fun but purely to meet the legal conditions. What is so unethical about this when the law requires it.
There was no assumption made at all that “monsterball” and a person by the name of “Goh Swee Soon” is the same person.
In fact if one goes by the blog, “monsterball” is a man with 3 ex-wives and an Indonesian “maid”, and if one goes by the IC the holder, Goh Swee Soon, is a Hainanese woman in her 60s. The disclaimer at the footnote states that “At no time it is to be assumed the two is the same person”
Now lets analyse each of the 8 expose’ to see if it is done with malice or are essential to meet “monsterball”’s challenge.
1. I/C No: 390712-05-5138
This IC is issued to a 68 year-old woman by the name of Goh Swee Soon. In all databases Goh Swee Soon is a woman who used to stay in Setapak. As “monsterball” is a man, there will be legal complications when accepting his challenge. If Goh Swee Soon is indeed a man, this expose’ is a favour to him to fix the mistake as soon as possible otherwise there will be problems with traveling overseas (like what Rafidah Aziz went through), voting in the coming General Election, banks and practically all places where the use of IC is a must. As for his IC and passport, any policeman or immigration officer looking at him will assume that either Goh Swee Soon is a female pondan or that the IC or passport is a fake.
2. Address: 105, Jalan USJ 2/4Q, Subang Jaya.
Anyone going to this address would expect to see a Hainanese woman by the name of Goh Swee Soon, in her 60s. But instead there would be an Indonesian woman in her 30s in the house. The address is a legal prerequisite to serve court papers. But then this address belongs to a female Hainanese whereas “monsterball” is a male. So by revealing the address, it is intended to ascertain if this is the right place.
3. Runs a company selling non-commercial coffee dispensers;
4. Selling dispenser at RM4,846 and a annual maintenance fee of RM550;
This is to give the likely reason why the company’s business is bad. Selling the machine, from Australia with cost price around RM500, at such high price. If the business is not making money, would it render the court effort futile.
5.Clients mostly banks such as CIMB, Maybank, etc where contracts suspected to
be Ali Baba type;
5.Clients mostly banks such as CIMB, Maybank, etc where contracts suspected to
be Ali Baba type;
This is to show that the company’s base is precarious as most Ali Baba arrangements couldn't stay the course.
6.Company suffering losses of more than RM700,000 up to 4 years ago;
7.Company has not filed in annual returns to Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (ROC) for the last 3 years, an offence under Company Act 1965 Section 165;8.Company still owing bank over a mortgage after more than 25 years;
With such a reputation and situation, any award could well be just paper judgment.
The eight expose’ are only a fraction of what are in store. Only the eight facts are in the blog because these are relevant to the legal issue on hand. The rest are deemed irrelevant and kept away for future reference.
Therefore the question of ethics over its divulgence does not arise because the law asks for it.
Reading is an art and a skill. The adverse reactions to the expose’ couldy suggest that those blog readers still lack such attributes and jump into conclusion oblivious to what is stated. To use a metaphor it is like “monsterball” diving in the moment so-and-so open her blog mouth oblivious to any bad breath, wallow in it with his convoluted logic and last to leave mumbling “wau…so shiok man”.
6.Company suffering losses of more than RM700,000 up to 4 years ago;
7.Company has not filed in annual returns to Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (ROC) for the last 3 years, an offence under Company Act 1965 Section 165;8.Company still owing bank over a mortgage after more than 25 years;
With such a reputation and situation, any award could well be just paper judgment.
The eight expose’ are only a fraction of what are in store. Only the eight facts are in the blog because these are relevant to the legal issue on hand. The rest are deemed irrelevant and kept away for future reference.
Therefore the question of ethics over its divulgence does not arise because the law asks for it.
Reading is an art and a skill. The adverse reactions to the expose’ couldy suggest that those blog readers still lack such attributes and jump into conclusion oblivious to what is stated. To use a metaphor it is like “monsterball” diving in the moment so-and-so open her blog mouth oblivious to any bad breath, wallow in it with his convoluted logic and last to leave mumbling “wau…so shiok man”.
No comments:
Post a Comment