22/08/2026

SATURDAY | AUG 22, 2026

READ OUR

HERE

18

Malaysian Paper

/thesun

Forget drones. Look at the toilets I CAME to Taipei expecting to be impressed by technology. After all, Taiwan is home to some of the world’s most advanced technology a certain quietness inside them. People don’t generally speak loudly across the carriage or turn the train into their personal living room. P O T T U O N P O I N T

In Taipei, public toilets are clean. Roads are orderly. Drivers follow traffic rules. People queue. Pedestrians cross where they are supposed to.

Even phone calls are handled differently. If someone needs to take a call, there are designated areas where they can do so without disturbing everyone else. Again, seemingly small things. But multiply these small acts of consideration by millions of people every day and you begin to understand why a city functions the way it does. Take the queues. Nobody seems to have received the memo that they should find a way to get ahead of everyone else. You wait. Your turn comes. You move. Simple. Perhaps the biggest test of any society is how people behave when nobody is watching. A public toilet is a good example. It is a shared space. Someone has to clean it, but everyone who uses it has a choice: leave it as they found it, or leave the next person with a mess. Here, there seems to be an understanding that shared spaces require shared responsibility. And that made me think about Malaysia. Not as a Malaysian pointing fingers at Malaysians. Quite the opposite. My time in Taipei made me appreciate something we already have – our warmth, our hospitality, our willingness to help strangers and our strong sense of community. But it also made me wonder how much better we could be if we brought some of that same spirit into the way we share public spaces. We can be a little more patient in queues. A little more disciplined on the roads. A little more mindful of the person sitting next to us on public transport. We can keep a public toilet clean not because someone might fine us, but because someone else has to use it after us. We can stop at a red light at midnight even when there is no car in sight.

companies and my visit has involved conversations about drones, healthcare, semiconductors and innovation. What I didn’t expect was to be so impressed by something far less glamorous: a public toilet. Yes, a toilet. After a few days in Taipei, I found myself noticing the little things. Public toilets are clean. Roads are orderly. Drivers follow traffic rules. People queue. Pedestrians cross where they are supposed to. Public spaces are treated with respect. And nobody seems particularly miserable about it. That last part struck me. Sometimes we talk about rules as though they are an inconvenience imposed on us by people in authority. Queue here. Don’t park there. Stop at the red light. Don’t litter. Keep the toilet clean. In Taipei, it feels less like someone is constantly telling people what to do and more like people have collectively decided that this is simply how things should be. One thing that really caught my attention was the traffic light. It doesn’t matter if it is the middle of the afternoon or close to midnight. If the light is red, cars stop. Pedestrians wait. At first, I found myself almost expecting someone to ignore the light because, well, there was hardly anyone around. But no. Red means stop. Even when there appears to be nobody watching. That, to me, says something about civic culture. Rules are not only followed when there is a traffic officer nearby or a camera overhead. They are followed because people understand that the rule exists for a reason. Then there is public transport. Taipei’s trains can be busy, yet there is Social media platforms have democratised public discourse, allowing citizens to comment, critique and scrutinise matters of public interest. While this can strengthen accountability, it has also exposed a troubling reality: public reactions are increasingly driven by emotion, identity and bias rather than facts and reasoned analysis. One of the most noticeable features of online discourse is the obsession with the identity of those involved in a case. Before discussing the facts, many netizens immediately ask for the perpetrator’s “type” – a coded inquiry into race, ethnicity or religion. The implication is clear: the gravity of an act, or the public response to it, is often filtered through the lens of identity. If the alleged offender belongs to a group perceived as “other”, condemnation is swift and uncompromising. If they belong to one’s own community, excuses and justifications are often readily available. This phenomenon reflects a deeper and increasingly worrying trend of societal polarisation. Rather than evaluating actions based on universal principles, many individuals interpret events through tribal loyalties. Facts become

B

R I

Y

H

T

A

H

S

S

I

H

V

I

N

A

I

K

– HASHINI KAVISHTRI KANNAN/ THESUN

about Taipei is not the technology that is so visible everywhere. It is the invisible technology of everyday life – the habits and choices that allow millions of people to share the same roads, trains, pavements, toilets and public spaces without constantly getting in each other’s way. No drone can do that. No semiconductor can do that. No artificial intelligence system can quite replicate it. As I leave Taipei, I know I will remember the meetings, the technology, the food, the skyline and the conversations. But I suspect the things that will stay with me longest will be much smaller. A clean public toilet. A driver stopping for a pedestrian at midnight when there is barely another car on the road. People waiting patiently at a red light when nobody seems to be watching. A quiet train carriage. Someone stepping aside to take a phone call rather than making an entire carriage listen. And the quiet realisation that perhaps a country’s progress is not only measured by how advanced its technology is. Sometimes, it is measured by how people behave when nobody is asking them to behave. Maybe that is the real technology worth bringing home. Hashini Kavishtri Kannan is the news editor at theSun. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com discussion requires a degree of civic literacy that is often lacking in online spaces. Citizens must be encouraged to distinguish allegations from proven facts, recognise their own biases, understand the complexities of criminal investigations and appreciate the importance of due process. More importantly, there is a pressing need for greater public education on issues such as sexual violence, cognitive bias, media literacy and critical thinking. The ability to evaluate information objectively is no longer merely an academic skill; it is a civic necessity. In an era where opinions can spread faster than facts, societies cannot afford to allow prejudice and emotion to become the primary drivers of public judgement. The court of public opinion will always exist. The question is whether it will be guided by evidence, fairness and principle or by identity, emotion and prejudice. The answer will determine not only the quality of our public discourse but also the kind of society we choose to become. Dr Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid is a criminologist and senior lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

We can ask ourselves, before doing something in a public space: Would I want someone else to do this to me? These are not uniquely Taiwanese qualities. They are choices. And Malaysians can make them too. That is why Taipei did not leave me thinking, “Why can’t Malaysia be like Taiwan?” It left me thinking, “We can do better too.” Because no government can put a policeman beside every rubbish bin. No traffic officer can stand at every pedestrian crossing. No cleaner can follow each of us into a public toilet. At some point, civic responsibility stops being the government’s job and becomes ours. What I found particularly refreshing was that all this order did not make people unfriendly. Quite the opposite. The people I’ve encountered have been warm, helpful and patient. I’ve watched strangers help visitors with directions. I’ve seen people patiently navigate language barriers. There is an interesting combination here – discipline without coldness, order without losing humanity. Maybe that is the lesson I’m taking home. Following rules doesn’t have to make us robotic. Being considerate doesn’t mean losing spontaneity. And a well ordered society does not have to be a cold one. Perhaps the most impressive thing

“There is an interesting combination here (Taipei) – discipline without coldness, order without losing humanity. Maybe that is the lesson I’m taking home.

COMMENT by Dr Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid

When emotion replaces evidence IN today’s hyperconnected world, the court of public opinion often delivers its verdict long before the actual courts have had an opportunity to examine the evidence. secondary to identity. Wrongdoing is condemned or defended depending on who committed it, rather than what was committed. Such selective outrage undermines the very notion of equality before the law and corrodes social cohesion.

of the perpetrator, public attention frequently shifts towards scrutinising the victim’s behaviour, clothing, lifestyle or personal choices. Questions are asked about why the victim was in a particular location, why they trusted the accused or why they did not report the incident sooner. Such reactions reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sexual violence. Trauma affects individuals differently, and victims often respond in ways that may not align with public expectations. Yet, many netizens continue to rely on myths and stereotypes, effectively watering down the seriousness of these offences while subjecting victims to a second round of judgement and humiliation. The consequences extend far beyond online debates. Public attitudes shape social norms. When victim blaming becomes normalised, victims become less likely to come forward. When identity determines guilt or innocence in the minds of the public, trust in institutions erodes. When emotional reactions consistently overshadow evidence, society becomes more vulnerable to misinformation, prejudice and manipulation. This is not an argument against public discussion. Healthy debate is essential in any democratic society. However, meaningful

Religious identity also plays a significant role in shaping public reactions. Individuals perceived to be pious or religious frequently receive the benefit of the doubt, even in the face of serious allegations. Their public image as a “good person” becomes a shield against scrutiny. Supporters rush to defend them, portraying criticism as an attack on faith itself rather than an examination of personal conduct. This tendency is particularly dangerous because morality cannot be determined solely by outward displays of religiosity. History repeatedly demonstrates that people from all backgrounds, professions and belief systems are capable of wrongdoing. Elevating certain figures beyond criticism simply because they appear religious undermines accountability and creates an environment where legitimate concerns can be dismissed. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in public discussions surrounding sexual violence. Cases involving sexual offences often attract an alarming degree of victim blaming. Rather than focusing on the alleged conduct