A. Asohan

Anonymity, is your time up?

A. Asohan, my fellow comrade from the Stop 114A Committee, quoted me in his article in Digital News Asia regarding internet anonymity. I am an advocate of privacy rights and to me certainly would extend to online privacy. We now live in a world where enterprises are hungry for personal data to be exploited commercially. It can trace, among others, your habits, preferences and history.

Anonymity, is your time up?

 A. Asohan
Oct 26, 2012

 

Anonymity has a rich tradition and can be essential for some forms of online discourse

  • Yet it can be easily abused – should sites like DNA require identification for posting comments?

WE start, with a nod to Dickens, with a tale of two lawyers, both speaking about the contentious amendment to the Evidence Act 1950 that the Malaysian Government has bulldozed through.

The Government first said the law was formulated to bolster prosecution against online defamation and sedition – it later changed its tune to say it was to tackle terrorism and cybercrimes – by making it tougher for online commentators to hide behind anonymity.

[Further analysis of the wording in the legislation however suggests that it would actually encourage anonymity by making all parties up and down the online access supply chain legally liable and presumed guilty.]

In one forum discussion on the Evidence (Amendment) (No2) Act 2012, or Section 114A, Foong Cheng Leong, co-chair of Kuala Lumpur Bar Information Technology Committee, while acknowledging the mischief that anonymous commentators can cause, said that most Malaysians prefer to comment and engage anonymously.

“Clearly we all want to be anonymous online, in order to protect ourselves,” he said.

I was one of the panelists in that discussion, which was moderated by Jacqueline Ann Surin, co-founder and the editor of The Nut Graph. We had worked in The Star together, and I just muttered to her, “Not me,” and she nodded, “Not me either.”

Sure, we old-school journalists may not have understood the concept of personal branding in today’s online world, but we’ve always known about the value of our bylines. A journalist’s byline is our mark – it tells you who we are and what we stand for. Why would we want to hide it behind a shield?

We trust ourselves to be able to be critical without being defamatory, to be able to call a spade a spade without resorting to name-calling, to get to the heart of the matter without the need to insult.

In all my online interactions – whether it is on tech or political sites, whether it is on forums dedicated to role-playing games or my beloved and oh-so-depressing Liverpool Football Club, on my Facebook and Twitter accounts – I use my real name. My thoughts and what I believe in are part of my identity; they make up who I am.

So I never needed to shield myself behind anonymity. Not that I can’t see its value either. Another lawyer at yet-another forum discussion on Section 114A, K. Shanmuga, Member of the Malaysian Bar, pointed out that there is a rich and respected tradition of anonymity in political discourse, dating back a few centuries.

Without going into details, much of British political satire depended on anonymity – or more accurately, pseudonymity, where an assumed name or pseudonym was used instead of the author’s real name. In literature, women had to use male pseudonyms to be taken seriously, let alone get published.

The Federalist Papers, a collection of essays promoting the ratification of the US Constitution, was published anonymously, but was actually written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

“Satirists such as Jonathan Swift and Alexander Pope published anonymously, often for legal and political reasons,” Robert Folkenflik, emeritus professor of English at UC Irvine, writes in theLos Angeles Times.

“Anonymity protected Swift from arrest when a reward was offered for the author of his Drapier’s Letters, pamphlets advising the Irish not to take copper half-pence from England. The novels of Daniel Defoe, Samuel Richardson, Laurence Sterne, Tobias Smollett and Fanny Burney were all anonymous,” he adds.

Whistleblowers and inside sources require anonymity to protect themselves when they reveal information of public interest, especially in Malaysia, where the authorities prefer to shoot the messenger rather than prosecute the perpetrator.

So, granted, anonymity has its place in discourse. But it should never be taken as an excuse to be a jerk. In many cases, anonymous online commentators take it as their due, and end up only proving John Gabriel’s “Greater Internet F***wad Theory,” pardon the language [or the asterisks, rather].

Not just in Malaysia, but throughout the greater online world, there has been a growing movement against anonymity – especially when there is no need for it. And yes, you can criticize the Malaysian Government and some of its decisions without being seditious or defamatory, as Digital News Asia founder Karamjit Singh did when he described the proposed Budget 2013’s RM200 smartphone rebate as stupid.

Social media networks like Facebook and LinkedIn have helped prepare us for this. When you think about it, social media loses at least half its value you don’t use your real identity.

Indeed, Facebook marketing director Randi Zuckerberg believes that putting an end to anonymity online could help curb cyber bullying and harassment.

“I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away,” she said during a panel discussion on social media hosted byMarie Claire magazine, The Huffington Post reports. “People behave a lot better when they have their real names down. … I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.”

Google began cleaning up YouTube’s comments section by encouraging users to post their real names, taken from their Google+ account — since Google requires the real name of someone signing up for a Google+ account,PCWorld reported.

Google’s former chief executive officer and current executive chairman Eric Schmidt has gone on record to describe online anonymity as “dangerous.”

“Privacy is incredibly important,” he said, adding, “Privacy is not the same thing as anonymity.” He went on to saythat “if you are trying to commit a terrible, evil crime, it’s not obvious that you should be able to do so with complete anonymity.”

We have had discussions about anonymity in our comments sections at DNA recently. When we launched the site in May, it was important to us that DNA provided a platform for insightful, interesting, honest and critical conversation about the tech ecosystem.

I am happy to say that has been the case, at least most of the time. When we noticed some “this sux” and “that sucks” comments coming in, we implemented “ground rules,” advising readers that we will delete comments that do not abide by them.

There have been some that have breached this, but we haven’t yet taken the prerogative to remove them, since such strident calls for attention have largely been drowned by the more intelligent conversations going on around them.

But lately, we’ve noticed what can only be described as “questionable comments” being posted in stories about entrepreneurs and startups in our Sizzle/ Fizzle/ Slow Burn section. “Questionable” because they were posted by “silhouettes” and/ or had content which made sense only if they came from the competitors of the companies in question.

That’s just not cricket. It’s sock puppetry of a different nature or name, but smelling just as foul. And we also realized that as we cover more companies, and as the start-up space here becomes more mature and crowded, as companies vie not so much on different ideas, but on different implementations of essentially the same idea, the competition is only going to get stiffer, and perhaps uglier.

And such foul play may find expression in our comments section.

We don’t want that to happen. One way of preventing this is to make identification a prerequisite for posting comments. We are loath to do so, but will take what action is needed to preserve the integrity of the site, and the generally high level of discourse that takes place here.

But we would like to hear from you, dear readers. Tell us if you would support such a move if it came to the crunch, and why; or if not, why not. Give us the pros and cons. Let’s hear from you.

And yes, you can do so anonymously, if you prefer. 🙂

When I said, “Clearly we all want to be anonymous online, in order to protect ourselves”, it wasn’t referring to the right of anonymity to posting comments and opinions online. I wasn’t referring to the right of anonymity in the narrow sense.

To me, the right of anonymity is the right to control your information online. I don’t want to be posting my full name online. I don’t want my potential clients to be googling my name to find pictures of me partying in my heydays. I would like to use an online pseudonym on Twitter and blog so that, among others, potential clients/employers/competitors don’t know what I do daily, who my family members are etc.

I think the video below summarises the problem without the right of anonymity.

The video above basically shows a gifted clairvoyant who finds out about numerous information above a few people he met. The gifted clairvoyant can be seen “reading” those people’s lives accurately.

[Read below for spoiler]

It was later shown that the gifted clairvoyant had a team of people scouring the Internet for information of those people.

Govt stealthily gazettes Evidence Act amendment, law is now in operation

I was quoted by Digital News Asia on what internet users and website owners should do in view that the Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2012 is in force.

A. Asohan
Aug 08, 2012
  • Controversial law has been in effect since July 31 after ‘stealth’ move by Govt
  • Civil society continues its struggle to see the law revoked

THE Malaysian Government has gone ahead to gazette a controversial amendment to the Evidence Act 1950 despite the objections and concerns of the online community and civil advocates, who have said it would have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

Section 114A to the Evidence Act was gazetted by de facto Law Minister Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz and has been in operation since July 31, according to a notification on the Attorney-General’s Chambers website(Click here for the PDF documentation).

“The law can be enforced now,” said Masjaliza Hamzah, executive director of Center of Independent Journalism (CIJ) in Malaysia, which has been spearheading efforts to see the legislation revoked.

However, she noted that even if a law has been gazetted, it may be impossible to enforce it if those who are responsible for it are not trained and are not ready to implement it. “This was the case with the Domestic Violence Act which was passed and gazetted in 1994, but was not implemented until 1996 after women’s groups campaigned to put pressure for that to happen,” she added.

Law Minister Nazri gazetted the law despite his own deputy Datuk V.K. Liew conceding in June that more discussions were needed after the CIJ had handed him a petition with more than 3,000 signatures.

“Sometimes, laws can be gazetted quietly — unnoticed, you could argue it’s almost by stealth — and we only know they exist when they are implemented,” Masjaliza told Digital News Asia by email.

“Many people in Selangor and Federal Territory did not know that Muslim women cannot contest in beauty pageants under the Syariah Criminal Offences (SCO) laws until five young women were arrested for taking part in a Miss Petite contest.

“The fatwa banning this was gazetted and therefore can be enforced under the law and these women were arrested for breaching a fatwa. It was only at that point that people heard that there was the SCO Enactment in Selangor and the SCO Act in the Federal Territory, and that they apply to Muslims in those states,” she added.

Section 114A, otherwise known as Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2012, was passed by the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara in April.

Under Section 114A, an Internet user is deemed the publisher of any online content unless proven otherwise. It also makes individuals and those who administer, operate or provide spaces for online community forums, blogging and hosting services, liable for content published through their services.

“This presumption of guilt goes against a fundamental principle of justice – innocent until proven guilty — and disproportionately burdens the average person who may not have the resources to defend himself in court,” the CIJ has said.

“The amendment’s wide reach will affect all Internet users, websites which provide space for online comments, and any business premises which give free Wi-Fi access to their customers.

“In addition, the new amendment was passed despite the fact that existing laws — including the Computer Crimes Act 1997, Sedition Act 1948, Defamation Act 1957, and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 — have been used to arrest and charge in court those who commit defamation, criminal defamation, fraud and sedition online,” it said.

Govt knows best?

Malaysia’s law-making process can be very opaque and undemocratic, Masjaliza lamented.

“People who are affected by these laws — and we are many — are not consulted at all during the drafting process. We have no idea there’s a draft bill coming, and some of us may hear about it only when it’s discussed in Parliament, and only if the media covers it,” she said.

“Then there’s a period of silence. Are Malaysians expected to go to the Attorney-General Chambers’ website every day to check if any laws have been gazetted recently and see how they apply to them?

“This is what happens when the ruling government doesn’t believe in meaningful consultation with the public before they enact any law,” she added.

After a furore earlier this year over amendments to Elections Offences Act, later revoked, the Malaysian Government promised that public consultations would be the order of the day for future laws.

“It sounds a bit hollow … now,” said Masjaliza. “Who will be consulted? Will it be a select few? How comprehensive is that process going to be?”

Lawyer advises caution

Meanwhile, a lawyer who has been monitoring the issue has advised caution on the part of Internet users and website owners.

Users must ensure that their Internet connection or devices are properly secured, said Foong Cheng Leong, co-chair of Kuala Lumpur Bar Information Technology Committee.

“They should also frequently update their anti-virus software, use strong passwords and refrain from retweeting or republishing anything dubious or unverified,” he said.

“As for website owners, they may want to consider monitoring their comments,” he said.

Foong said that website owners may want to:

1) Disable anonymous users from posting any comments.

2) Revise the terms and conditions for use of their websites, to perhaps include an indemnity clause to compel the user to indemnify the website owner in the event of any damages. They may also choose to include a clause prohibiting users from posting comments relating to religion, politics, etc. and that anyone who does that will be banned or have his or her posting removed.

3) Remove Facebook’s comments function as website owners do not have control over the contents posted.

4) Only allow registered users who have provided all their personal details to post comments.

5) Owners of low-traffic websites may consider reviewing comments before allowing them to be posted.

6) High-traffic websites (e.g. forums) may consider appointing someone to monitor or track all postings. Alternatively, they can have a user rating system where users can rate whether a posting is offensive and if so, it gets suppressed/ removed. YouTube has this function.

“The registered account holders of Internet services [such as UniFi] may want to reconsider sharing their Internet connection with others,” Foong added.

Internet Blackout Day still on

Despite the gazetting of the law, civil society is going to go ahead with the “Internet Blackout Day” for Aug 14 which aims to create awareness among Internet users about the negative impact of the amendment on online expression.

Taking its cue from similar efforts in the United States and New Zealand in support of Internet freedom, on that day, Internet users who visit participating websites will see a pop-up window which contains the message of the campaign. In addition, Netizens can change their profile pictures/ avatars on Twitter and Facebook to black, or use downloadable images provided by the CIJ.

“We [still] hope to get a buzz around Section 114a and how it’s going to affect the average Internet user, and urge people to do something. We must do something, even if the law’s been gazetted,” said Masjaliza.

“Once a critical mass is aware of the law and its implications on them, then it’s easier to get people to support actions under the ‘Stop 114A’ campaign,” she said.

“If more people are talking about this and are outraged that this was done without their knowledge, then we will have a good base of support for the next course of action,” she added.

Foong concurred. “It is not too late; we can always lobby for the repeal of the amendment. Please take part in the Internet Blackout Day initiated by the CIJ.”

The Internet Blackout Day has received positive response from the Internet community. Businesses which rely on the Internet such as the auction store lelong.com.my, online forum cari.com.my, and entertainment portal gua.com.my have signed up to show support, the CIJ said.

Other key supporters include online news sites such as Malaysiakini and Digital News Asia, bloggers such as Niki Cheong and Nat Tan. This initiative is also supported by civil society organisations such as SUARAM and the Women’s Aid Organisation.

For more information about the Internet Blackout Day and to take part in the campaign please visit:
1. The official blog at stop114a.wordpress.com
2. The Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/evidenceamendmentact.
3. Stop 114A’s Twibbon page for Twitter: http://twibbon.com/join/Stop-114A
4. Stop 114A’s Twibbon page for Facebook: http://twibbon.com/cause/Stop-114A/facebook

For additional information, please contact CIJ via e-mail at cijmalaysia@gmail.com or call +603-4023 0772.

Changes to Evidence Act will ‘chill ICT growth’

In my effort to lobby for the withdrawal of the Evidence (Amedment) (No. 2) Act 2012, The Edge Daily reported the following:-

Changes to Evidence Act will ‘chill ICT growth’

by theedgemalaysia.com on Thursday, 28 June 2012 09:00

KUALA LUMPUR: The recent amendments to the Evidence Act 1950 will have a “chilling effect” on the country’s development of information and communication technologies, the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) said.

The media watchdog group made this statement when handing over a petition against the recent amendments to Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk VK Liew in Parliament on Tuesday.

The petition, bearing more than 3,300 signatures, called on the government to withdraw Section 114A of the Evidence (Amendment) (No 2) Act 2012 because it threatens freedom of expression online and presumes the guilt rather than innocence of Internet users publishing content online, CIJ said in a statement.

CIJ director Jac SM Kee said: “The law is vague and broad enough that it has caused a lot of fear. Majority of Malaysians will err on the side of caution.” The presumption of guilt also disproportionately burdens the majority of Internet users in Malaysia who are not very tech-savvy, the statement said.

“What can an ordinary Internet user do to prove it wasn’t them who published something online when the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission [MCMC] itself sometimes says it doesn’t have the technical resources to find the real culprits?” she told Liew. Liew, however, said many fears are misplaced and agreed that more dialogue is needed. He also thanked the petitioners for presenting their views.

The amendment also makes Internet intermediaries — parties that provide online community forums, blogging and hosting services — liable for content that is published through its services. This has implications on businesses such as eateries that provide free WiFi. 

“If a kopitiam owner is liable for all the traffic that goes through its WiFi, it places a lot of burden on them, in terms of monetary and human resources, to either conduct surveillance or stop providing WiFi altogether,” Kee said.

Joining CIJ at the handover was A Asohan, executive editor of Digital News Asia, and Foong Cheng Leong, co-chair of Kuala Lumpur Bar Information Technology Committee.

Speaking to reporters later, Asohan said: “The fact that MPs from the both sides of the political divide did not understand the wider ramifications of this amendment shows there is a need for greater discussion.

We need more legal brains on it and feedback from the industry and others like Multimedia Development Corp [MDeC] and MCMC. Given that the digital transformation programme will be announced soon, this will be a major issue.”

The controversial amendment was rushed through during April’s parliamentary meeting which saw a raft of laws passed without debate. The amendment made news shortly after when concerns were raised by civil society over its detrimental impact and broad reach, the statement said.

This article appeared in The Edge Financial Daily on June 28, 2012.

Internet: Guilty until proven innocent

Following from the forum “Section 114A Evidence Act: Crime-busting or Online Control?” organised by Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ), Selangor Times reported the following:-

Writer: Basil Foo
Published: Fri, 15 Jun 2012

KUALA LUMPUR: Internet users whose accounts are hacked into will be presumed guilty for unlawful online posts by the actual perpetrators under recent amendments to the Evidence Act, something that is being criticised as absurd.

The Evidence (Amendment) (No 2) Act 2012 will reportedly hold Internet users liable for any content posted through their registered networks or data processing devices.

“For example, if someone parks outside your house and uses your Wifi to post (illegal content online),” said KL Bar Council IT committee co-chairman Foong Cheng Leong.


Participants are all ears at the forum.

He was speaking during the “Section 114A Evidence Act: Crime-busting or Online Control?” forum at the KL-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall recently.

Foong said laws presuming guilt have always been around, including for individuals who were deemed to be traffickers if they were arrested with a certain amount of drugs.

“The Dangerous Drugs Act (discourages) people from carrying drugs. Will this Act (discourage) people from using the Internet?” he asked.

Center for Independent Journalism (CIJ) director Jac SM Kee said the Act was illogical as victims who sought help after their accounts had been hacked or report the crime to police may find themselves behind bars.

Even if someone else posts an offensive comment on a person’s Facebook wall, the latter could be found guilty.

“Business will be affected. If they provide Wifi (and offensive items are posted through their connection), they are responsible,” said BFM Media Sdn Bhd producer Jeff Sandhu.

He said if restaurants in the city are required by law to provide free Wifi and their Internet connections are open to abuse by irresponsible users, business owners will find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place.

Digital News Asia executive editor A Asohan said the Act put average Internet users at the mercy of tech-savvy users who could abuse the former’s unsecure Internet connections.

He said an analyst from investment firm Mackenzie traced 4.1 per cent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) coming from online activities.

“You want to create a high income nation, this is going to put damper on it. You can’t have an Internet community when people fear to go on the Internet,” he added.

WiFi providers caught between Evidence Act, DBKL

Following from the forum “Section 114A Evidence Act: Crime-busting or Online Control?” organised by Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ), Malaysiakini reported the following:-

WiFi providers caught between Evidence Act, DBKL
By Koh Jun Lin

Operators of the bigger Kuala Lumpur eateries might as well surrender to the authorities once Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act takes effect.

It would be too risky for them to offer WiFi services to patrons, said BFM radio producer Jeff Sandhu (left) .

This is especially in view of KL City Hall’s announcement in January that food operators occupying premises bigger than 120 sq m must offer WiFi services as a prerequisite for licence application and renewal.

“If you are running a restaurant in Kuala Lumpur and, by law, you are required to have public WiFi, you might as well walk to jail or walk to the cops and say ‘Arrest me!’” said Sandhu.

Sandhu, who produces BFM’s ‘Tech Talk’ segment, was a panelist at a forum last night to discuss the impact of Section 114(a) of the Act.

The amendment would presume that the owner, editor or administrator of a website on which any posting appears – or the owner of the Internet connection or equipment with which the posting was made – is also the person who made the posting, unless it is proven otherwise.

Another panelist, Digital News Asia co-founder A Asohan (right) , said Malaysia has a thriving Internet business scene.

Investors believe this could outpace that of Singapore, but the amendments would put a damper on it, he said.

“You can’t have an Internet economy when people fear for the Internet. You can’t have a high-income nation when people fear to express themselves,” he said.

He also quoted management consultancy firm McKinsey & Company as saying that Internet businesses contribute 4.1 percent to Malaysia’s GDP.

“You want to create a high-income nation. How do you do that? You need have people who are intelligent, educated in the right way – not merely drilled in the basics of science, maths and (who) just answer the questions,” Asohan said.

“A lot of our students are finding this extra knowledge through the Internet. They are willing to express themselves through the Internet… you need to get out of the school system to learn all these things.”
Responding to moderator and The Nut Graph editor Jacqueline Ann Surin, he said online media platforms would be the first victims of this law.

“Let’s face it, we’ve got how many thousand cybertroopers out there? They could just go and disturb all these sites. Now they can have a field day, go into Free Malaysia Today, post something, and the police would say, ‘Ha, got you!’”
‘Easy to forge identities’

Sandhu pointed out it is very easy to forge identities online, and that there is even a 10-step guide available online on how to impersonate another person’s email address.

“It puts the average Internet user at the mercy of the unscrupulous tech-savvy user. It is shielding identity thieves and hackers,” Asohan said.

“The victims are now the guilty, and there is no onus for the government to go after those who steal your identity, post things in your name, hack accounts, do stuff with it.”

KL Bar IT committee co-chairperson Foong Cheng Leong said it would be difficult to handle even the “rebuttable presumptions” once a person is charged.

“You go to court (with a civil suit). The fees are at least RM50,000-100,000 and you are there to defend against a High Court case as a normal, middle class, working citizen,” he said.

“How are you going to, first, get a lawyer. You also need technical assistance from someone who has technical abilities to look at all these modems, all these routers, and all these devices that you have to prove that it (the offensive posting) didn’t come from you.”

Foong said this would not even be possible if it were a criminal proceeding because the modus operandi of the police would be to confiscate the equipment.

“Once they take it from you, how are you access your own PC and show that ‘at this time I did not access anything’? The thing is lying somewhere in a exhibit room,” he said.

Foong said there is a need to deal with Internet trolls (people engaging in anti-social behaviour online), but the new law is not up to the task.

“We need something more technical. We need expertise to trace people online. The law is not the way to solve this. It is simply putting the blame on someone. In Chinese, we call this ‘eat the dead cat (being a scapegoat)’,” he said.

Centre for Independent Journalism director Jac SM Kee said the new law restricts freedom of expression and promotes a culture of surveillance. The media watchdog has started an online petition against the amendments.

Public Forum – Section 114A Evidence Act: Crime-busting or Online Control?

I will be speaking at the above event today.

The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) is organising a public forum on the newly introduced Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act 1950 which has a huge impact on the average Internet user.

Our panel of experts will discuss the amendment and its implication on online expression and Internet rights, looking at it from the point of view of not just the average user but also the IT industry, especially upcoming technopreneurs.

Here are the details:

Section 114A Evidence Act: Crime-busting or Online Control?

Date: June 12, 2012 (Tuesday)

Time: 8pm – 10:30pm

Venue: KL Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Auditorium, 1st Floor

The forum will look at the newly introduced amendment and its repercussions on Internet users, especially on the people’s rights to freedom of expression online.

Panel:

  • Foong Cheng Leong is the KL Bar IT committee co-chairman and member of the Bar Council Intellectual Property Committee. He regularly comments and writes on issues pertaining to social media and internet laws and the latest being “Grave Repercussions for Internet Users” published on LoyarBurok.com.
  • Jac sm Kee is a feminist activist working on the area of internet rights, feminism and sexuality. She’s the women’s rights policy coordinator for the Association for Progressive Communications, and one of the directors of CIJ.
  • Jeff Sandhu is producer for Tech Talk on BFM radio. Tech Talk is a technology segment dedicated to business owners, IT managers and the average user. This 30-minute segment from Mondays to Fridays has been on Malaysian airwaves for 3 years. Jeff comes from a multimedia design background, majoring in video and animation, and has worked in advertising and post-production.
  • A. Asohan spent 20-plus years with The Star, Malaysia’s No 1 English daily, mainly with the paper’s technology pullout In.Tech and with its digital or online media operations. In 2010, he left to take over as the Senior Public Relations Manager at Microsoft Malaysia, but returned to journalism recently to formDigital News Asia, a technology news portal, with two others.

 

 Scroll to top