“The parliament spoke with one voice.” “Hmmm yes I agree it is kinda not usual.” “The understatement of the year. So the Prevention of Electronic Crime Act (PECA) was passed by both houses and…”
“I give full marks to the namers.”
“Namers?”
“The ones who name or give title to agreements – be they in parliament or without.”
“I don’t get you.”
“Well the words that we would want to hear are there - prevention and electronic crimes, and if you don’t look at the contents of the act then I reckon there should be no opposition.”
“Well, sometimes the dratted who would be affected read the document.”
“So what is the solution. I know, ban anyone reading the Act itself.”
“You being facetious.”
“No, good heavens’ no, I am just giving good advice. Remember the by now infamous National Reconciliation Ordinance where the very reconciliation was given a new meaning and this because it was allowed to be read!”
“Good point, so you reckon the prevention of electronic crimes may change the meaning of the word, prevention and electronic crimes.”
“What about the word Act? It is named PECA with A standing for Act?”
“Oh, that should be taken to mean the government will act and let’s call a spade a spade: even those opposed to in parliament are not likely to change it if they are ushered into power.”
“I don’t really know if you are right. I mean how many times have we followed a policy of namers and shamers and was anyone shamed at all?!”
“Hey, names do matter, otherwise why is there a ban on using the name or showing the face of The Man Who Must Remain Nameless and Faceless.”
“But in a news bulletin he is referenced at least once if not several times in no uncertain terms, and doesn’t that increase his mystique and…”
“So?”
“So isn’t the name everything in some cases and nothing in others.”
“You heard the phrase don’t judge a book by its title?”
“Cover not title is the actual phrase.”
“Not in the Land of the Pure – same page is OK, but same cover isn’t – it’s all in the title.”
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments