It seems that Penang CM Dr Koh Tsu Koon has finally discovered he had twin … (something), which allowed him to slam the president of the Penang Island Municipal Council, Abu Bakar Hassan, for his sexist remarks. Well, good for Koh, my compliments!
Abu Bakar had blamed NST reporter Melissa Darylne Chow for showing too much of her thighs because of her 'sexy' dress. According to Abu Bakar the ultra-exposed thighs were what had made the security person neglect his duties and misuse the council's security CCTV to zoom spot on Melissa's lower appendages, and for a solid whole 15 minutes. In Abu Bakar's value-system it was neither the lust nor voyeuristic misconduct of the security personnel; no, it was naughty Melissa’s ‘sexy’ dress that caused the misconduct.
Koh TK said of Abu Bakar’s comments: "It was improper of the council president to make a statement which implied it was the victim's fault. He should be focusing on the investigation instead of blaming others."
Good on Koh for identifying Melissa as the victim, and not the provocateur as Abu Bakar had insensibly accused her. Unfortunately, Koh then spoilt it by leaving it to the council (headed by none other misogynist Abu Bakar) to carry out their investigations, even though he (Koh) said action would be taken against the person found to have misused the CCTV equipment. Koh should have given the investigation to a impartial body.
Anonymous to my earlier posting He's sexist, we're sexy! commented: “This only some sort of ‘Cause and Effect’. The statement stress that this incident should not happen if she dress decently(???). I believe it just a preventive opinion to avoid this kind of incident again. Of course punitive action along not resolve any issue as it will happen again. He react[ed] accordingly about the ‘cause’. also he need to punish his guard as well.”
The way I read it, Anon agreed with Abu Bakar that Melissa’s ‘sexy’ dress was the ‘cause’. He averred that Abu Bakar brought it out [issue of the ‘sexy’ dress] to prevent further voyeurism [meaning that women should stop dressing so ‘sexily’, or face the threat of being ogled through enlarged images ion CCTV], and that the punishment per se of the guard (which Anon agreed should be done) won’t solve future such occurrences.
Do you agree with Anon?
Do you believe that Melissa’s ‘sexy’ dress was the cause of the security personnel neglecting his duty and misusing public property to obtain an enlarged view of Melissa’s thighs for his private scrutiny?
Do you reckon that the guard had no choice in such matters, that no one could resist the temptation to ‘play’ with the CCTV’s lens?
Let's take it further - is it alright for the person manning the CCTV to re-position the camera, at some later stages, in front of and in line with seated women so that he could zoom in between their legs for a viewing?
OK, one more step - would such a person be then justified (hey, not his fault,afterall the women wore those 'sexy' dresses!) to position mirrors on the floor so that he may survey 'what's above' when a woman stands over it, unaware of the peeping device?
Do we have a right to use telescopes to intrude into the bedroom of someone (hey, their fault, they didn't draw the curtains!)?
Would there be a difference between KTemoc admiring Melissa’s thighs as a normal sight/conmponent of her complete physical self and the guard’s use of the CCTV to zoom in particularly on her attractive lower appendages? Wouldn't the next step be for people like Abu Bakar to argue that, given the exposed thighs, it's only natural for the guard to want to physically check the texture of Melissa's thighs after viewing them with such magnified intensity?
Would there be a difference between KTemoc or any males in public admiring her thighs as magnificent versus a sneaky viewing via a CCTV in magnified malignance?
I invite (particularly) ladies to comment, because your views are important.
I also invite Melissa Darylne Chow to post her comments here if she happens to read this blog.
After this, as a bonus, I’ll relate the story of my friend, Olivia and her thighs !
I read that in Australia there is an audit of police monitored public security CCTV to see whether such focussing a la the Penang Municipal Council case has been mischievously conducted, with severe penalties for the offenders including sacking.
In most Western countries there are audits to check that personal details of public members, such as names, addresses, age, etc held in government agencies like Immigration, Police, etc or even banks (accounts) are not even viewed by Departmental officers who have no cause (in their course of duty) to see them. Any viewing would be automatically and electronically logged for subsequent audits.
Such details and personal images are protected under a legislation known as the Privacy Act.