Windows XP users pls always "Allow Blocked Content" whenever you see a pop up window restricting active content when this page is loaded because if not you won't see the navigation menu and many other stuff that aren't really dangerous nor may cause a meltdown to your computer's security. Well, not by my website anyway.

Heard of Gmail? It is by invitation only and I have plenty to give. If you want a gmail email account, simply email me at funnlim AT gmail.com (replace AT with @ and no space) together with your valid email address and I'll send you the invitation. Remember, must be valid email address because the details on how to set up an account is in that email sent to that very address.

August 29, 2006

Ah Kiu-gate : The Press Conference recap & opinion 
Permanent link ▫ Post a Comment ▫

I have decided to delete two of my posts, one of which is with regards to Gillian Chung's very problematic invasion of privacy problem, which I admit in retrospect were done in bad taste.



I visited Sehseh's Blog and read her post on a recently held press conference with the artistes united condemning and uniting against this type of invasion of privacy. Interestingly not sure if you catched it, tonight on ASTRO Ch 30 at 10.30pm the full 1 and a half hour press conference were shown. In attendance were some of the industry's biggest names and also some forgotten stars. Some were TVB artistes, including Roger Kwok, Cindy Au, Charmaine Sheh, Moses Chan and many more and many others movie stars, such as Jackie Chan and even reclusive singers like JAcky Cheung were there. Not many spoke out and preferred to let their presence speak their mind. The conference were hosted by Astrid Chan and Cheng Tan Sui. Gillian and the other Twins were there. Gillian was interviewed and she was visibly still upset. Senators were there too and so were many many many reporters, I presume none from the magazine which published the photos.

Jackie Chan was very outspoken and he felt ashamed that even Malaysians were condemning the HK paparazzi. I assume this meant the photos were from HK insider's job taken unfortunately and I believe from Genting Highlands Malaysia. Gillian reported to the police in Malaysia by the way but Malaysian police is having a hard time to investigate since she did not specify when, where and on which date the photos were taken. We are also unsure which law to go for since our privacy laws isn't that great. I assume we are going under some indecent exposure type of law.

As for HK, worse still. I am going to assume there is no privacy law there except for peeping Tom laws, as in against individuals. Amongst all who spoke their minds, it was Andy Lau that convinced me with his argument. He did not deviate from the point, he went straight into the point where he said ...

"I have been in this industry for a very long time and I have been very lucky that I haven't had much negative publicity or being put into the situation Ah Kiu was in. I find it frustrating that if I were to take a camera and start to photograph girl's undies from below the skirt, I can be arrested as this is a criminal offence. And yet the media can now do the same thing to Ah Kiu and can get away with it without repurcussion. I am angry because I see Ah Kiu as my little sister and I don't wish this to happen to my little sister. This is clearly invasion of her privacy. What was she doing that was so bad? If she was in the room taking drugs, fine, you can take the pictures and publish it and I will take it upon myself to punish her because it is wrong. But what she was actually doing was within the confine of a private room changing her clothes. What is so wrong about that that she has to go through all these? I know we need the media, and that there is an argument we are artistes and therefore we are subjected to limelight for publicity sake. I also am aware that there is this saying that the public wants, therefore they get. I recently made a movie where I played a drug addict. There was this observation that we were making, that drug addicts are drug addicts because they want to be drug addicts. This observation is wrong and is of course condemned. I told myself reel world is not real world. But with Ah Kiu's situation I realise the absurdity of the conclusion of my observation. I can't say drug addicts are drug addicts because they want to be drug addicts. And yet the media can publish such indecent photos because the public wants it. I find this observation a twist of reality. I am sure you have little sisters too. Don't let them do this to them as they have done to Ah Kiu".

Not in exact words but I believe that was what he said in entirety and in spirit. I can't help but agree. And of course came Jacky Cheung who talked about how his privacy was invaded and he mentioned that as an artiste he can't complain that he was photographed since there is a tacit understanding between the media who needs to do such work and the artiste who needs such publicity. But what about "my wife who has since retired? She doesn't want any interviews and yet she was forced to. What about my children?"

Sandra Ng of course had to spoil it all with her incoherent speech about her wanting to give birth and not wanting the reporters to know about it because she simply doesn't want to. It is because of artistes like her that there exists papparazzi if you want my honest opinion. She can't even string an opinion together and whatever she said was in no connection to the type of invasion of privacy that invaded Ah Kiu. In fact what Sandra Ng said was I believe fair game situation. I think the press should just boycott her and stop writing news of her if she finds some publicity unbearable. You can't even admit you're pregnant, so what's the point? There is a give and take situation, as eloquently put forward by Andy Lau and Jacky Cheung.

Then 4 TVB artistes were interviewed. Moses Chan expressed his opinion well where he went straight to the point and begged the legislature to please enact laws to protect artistes' privacy in situations faced by Ah Kiu. I think that narrows the issue. Roger Kwok told of how he was hounded by the press who refused to believe his wife was not pregnant and camped next door to him, forcing him to close his apartment's curtains and he can't even enjoy his honeymoon. Sorry, he was deviating from the point. But the implication is they can use faraway zooming type of lenses. But the lesson is if you're pregnant just admit it. Of course Roger said he did deny, nobody believed. Anyway he too begged for some laws to be enacted.

Myolie Wu surprisingly became the drama queen of the night. She deviated from the topic and surprisingly wept some tears when recounting a hurtful event, this time the spinning of an untrue story by the media. She said "I was filming this scene which required me to wear a swimsuit. I was already very self concious of my weight and more so with the swimsuit and I knew there were 7 or 8 groups of papparazzi with cameras taking my photos as I filmed the scene. I am ok with that, because there wasn't much problem them though I was uncomfortable. However later that night when I was about to go home I noticed there were some reporters waiting for me. I knew something bad must have happened because normally they won't wait that long. I panicked and then I found out it was written that I have exposed myself wearing that swimsuit. I do know that when I was filming that scene my swimsuit was ok. It was a safe swimsuit and nothing was exposed but the way the article was written, it was as if it happened.". She was upset apparently because the article said something about her nipples being exposed. Anyway deviating from the topic of the day again but not as bad as Sandra Ng. Myolie was very emotional but I feel you can't stop what was written and if it is untrue get TVB to sue them for slander or whatever laws there is in HK but the topic of the day is not this kind of situation. It is the fact photos taken from hidden cameras that showcase the artistes in states of undress should be the main topic.

Next Charmaine Sheh who looked haggard to say the least. But she didn't deviate from the topic. So far we all news on her centre on her love live, nothing indecent had cropped up. Anyway she said "I feel it is very disgusting that such photos are allowed to be published and can be purchased for a few dollars. We as artistes have our rights to privacy too. I sometimes wonder whether there are any senators whose children are in the entertainment business. Do they want the same thing to happen to their children? The fact that this unfortunate event happen to Ah Kiu is in my opinion shameful and ultimately disgusting". Not exact quote but she did mentioned the word disgusting and she threw the responsibility back to the senators.

To sum it up, Nathan Chan (Ah Lek) said it best where he walked forward and said "I have been in the business for more than ?? years (can't remember how many years he said) and during the 70s and 80s, artistes and the media were working together in harmony. That is until the 90s. I know I should not name names but I might as well. It was after ??? (I assume the guy who is the editor of the infamously notorious magazine who published those photos) emerged that the relationship became what it is today... there was the same issue that cropped up some time ago and back then the legislature did not enact any laws and the said editor walked away a free man except for some fine. Now the same thing has happened again and what does the government intend to do? Let him walk away again? I hope not. I hope to see some laws enacted, something done to prevent such things from happening again. Save our future generations from such filth"

Something like that. Well he did name the guy actually.

I did take offense at what Astrid Chan said. I thought her strategy like Sandra Ng backfired. She fired the audience, said that "Why are you taking such trash into your mind? Why do you want to make your mind filthy with such trash? The responsibility lies on you to reject such trash!". Sorry, I don't need you to tell me what to do thank you very much. The last thing the public needs is some almighty speech about rejecting trash. The irony is the magazine is reprinting the said edition because the demand was so great. Irony you know in this sense is very telling of the public opinion. So Andy Lau was right. As much as we need to change the public's perception and acceptance of such materials which we can't because I myself is a public and I don't mind reading such filth, it is time that perhaps some laws should be enacted to prevent rather than cure the problem. I believe playing on the public's conscience is never going to work because especially youngsters, curiosity always outweighs their conscience. Whilst it is true public especially youngsters must be educated on what is acceptable and what is not (in this case peeping Tom taking pictures of Ah Kiu in private and selling it to the public at large without any guilty conscience or moral threshold whatsoever) they must also realise the fact that people are curious creature. To us reading such stuff doesn't lower our moral values as opposed to killing someone which some may even believe is not so immoral. It's just photos to us, harm done to Ah Kiu, not to us. This is scary of course because I saw the Mercedes Benz ad I think where it was shown two young kids peeping at someone taking a shower and they say that's comraderie and that's cute. No it is not. It is no longer about supply and demand. To curb this, it must be cut off the supply and therefore even if there is demand, there isn't any supply.

And that comes the tricky part. One MP was interviewed and he said laws were being debated even before the Ah Kiu-gate (ermm Watergate remember?) happened. But let me ask you now; do you think the media wants freedom of press to be curbed?

No no hear me out. Everybody condemned the pictures. Me too. They drew analogy to peeping toms being arrested and not magazine editors. Well criminal laws are targeted at specific individual. If they know who took the photos, of course arrest must be made because criminal laws is about individual accountability and therefore punishment for that particular known offender. Ah Kiu's situation is complex. I am sure you must say it is very simple. Arrest the editor. On what grounds? Is there a law against indecency? I don't think so, not in HK so Ah Kiu has to apply for an injunction to stop the publication and then sue the editor and magazine for millions of dollars not in a criminal court but in a civil court. So now the legislature in HK is coming up with laws to curb such inavsion of privacy problems but don't forget, in the same vein, Watergate incident was also in the same league. The question now becomes how wide should the power be? Can it be limited to only Ah Kiu's situation? So then what about footages of people of public interest engaging not necessarily in criminal offence but is considered immoral offence that the public has a right to know? It is no longer whatever happens in my bedroom stays in my bedroom in these days of cyberage. The protection of privacy and the curtailing of freedom of speech and in the same way freedom of publication and dissemination of information must be balanced between individual rights (Ah Kiu in this case) and public interest (the media, the public in general).

You must think so what has this got to do with Ah Kiu's problem? It is such a straightforward case. Ban peeping toms and taking of indecent photos. Easier said than done because when drafting the laws, it may be intended for this but if drafted too narrowly may defeat the purpose and drafted to widely in the end some unscrupulous individuals or group of people may use the wide meaning of the law and abuse it.

Now the artistes are begging the government to intervene. Which is exactly what China would do and if curtailed too much and complaints pour in, China and like the rest of the government of the world will justify curtailing essentially freedome of speech ( in a way Ah Kiu's situation can be seen as such) as "Well you don't know how to regulate yourself, so let the government regulate" and this would in the end become an abusive power.

So I really think the HK government should look into this whole privacy issue and freedom of speech in a very narrow and yet objective way and come up with a law that benefits both sides without in the long run becoming a hassle. It is difficult but can be done. At the meantime Ah Kiu can sue the hell of the magazine, the editor, Genting Highlands if exists breach of such duty and of course boycott the magazine and its group of sister publications.

If this is America I can sense a heavy duty lobbying between the artistes and the media because I am sure the media has a vested interest in this, even if they condemn the way the pictures were taken.

Law is complex, made more complex by a bunch of people thinking way too ahead in the future. But if law is enacted for now and for the spur of the moment and yet the effect is to last until it is repealed, it can be very dangerous too.

But getting back to Ah Kiu's predicament, I think the papers published that she is seeking an injunction and suing the magazine. Nothing hurts more than huge monetary compensation and I hope one judge in HK is brave enough to award her a disgustingly huge sum. After all she is not those 3rd rated artiste. She has a reputation and an image to take care of and half naked pictures or not must somehow hurt her big in some ways although I doubt her fans will say she is a wanton woman changing in full view of people. I believe this was said by the magazine. Good, another big monetary compensation for libel aka defamatory remarks.

What do you think of this whole Ah Kiu-gate in light of this press conference?