Malaysian Internet users to become victims of Evidence Act; Rampant hacking puts online accounts at risk!

Hackers may cause Internet users to become victims of Evidence Act

Rampant hacking is putting numerous account holders at risk of being prosecuted for offensive material on their website which they did not publish with the newly-introduced Evidence Act putting the onus of proof on them.

According to Cybersecurity Malaysia, an average of eight personal accounts, blogs and websites are being hacked in Malaysia daily.

“It doesn't take an expert to hack into personal accounts such as Facebook, Twitter and e-mail,” said Cybersecurity Malaysia chief executive officer Lt-Col (Rtd) Prof Datuk Husin Jazri.

“Any computer literate person can learn how to do it.”

He added that Internet users who did not secure their personal accounts were the easiest targets.

By P. ARUNA and TASHNY SUKUMA, The Star/Asian News Network

Hackers have their ways to tap into accounts

A graphic designer was not aware that pornographic pictures appeared on his Facebook page until a friend alerted him.

The 25-year-old man, who wanted to be known only as Shan, said he had been asleep at home when he received the call from his friend.

“I found that I could no longer log in to my account as the password had been changed.

“Someone was using my account to post the content under my name,” he said, adding that he then contacted his friends and asked them to delete the compromised account from their list.

Cybersecurity Malaysia CEO Lt-Col (Rtd) Prof Datuk Husin Jazri said there were special devices in the market that enabled anyone to “sniff” WiFi networks.

Lawyers: Act will result in more cautious Net users

The newly-amended Evidence Act will potentially result in a wave of more cautious Internet users, say lawyers, as the onus is now on the person to prove they did not post or create offending material.

If one is hauled up, however, maintaining innocence might prove to be tricky unless Internet users are more thorough with safety measures, they said.

“Witnesses or documents would suffice, depending on circumstances.

“However, if you're a website owner and someone posts such comments, there's no way out,” said Bar IT Committee co-chairman Foong Cheng Leong.

> For more story in The Star today.

Related posts:
 

Warning to Malaysian Internet Users: an Amendment to Evidence Act 2012 May 27, 2012

Warning to Malaysian Internet Users: an Amendment to Evidence Act 2012

Onus on account owners as cyber bullies and stalkers often get away because of lack of evidence

PETALING JAYA: “It wasn't me.” That's the most common response from people when a hate or threatening message is traced to their Facebook or Twitter or any other Internet account.

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission says it is almost legally impossible to take action if all that a person has to do is to deny any responsibility.

“Think of the victims. People who have been slandered or whose lives have been threatened,” commission chairman Datuk Mohamed Sharil Mohamed Tarmizi said, adding that many a time cyber bullies and stalkers who often use “the cloak of anonymity” have got away because of lack of evidence.

“As more of the young are connected online, who is going to watch over these kids when there are real people who want to harm them?” he said in an interview on the amendment to the Evidence Act passed by the Dewan Rakyat last month.

Answering critics who said the amendment was unfair in pushing the burden of proof to the accused, he said that owners of Internet accounts where hate messages had originated could easily rebut charges against them if they were innocent.

“For example, if you can produce witnesses to say that you were nowhere near your computer or any other communicating device at the time the message was sent out, you can get off,” Sharil said.

He added: “It is not easy nailing offenders to the charge. Sometimes you can find evidence and sometimes you can't.

“At least now (with the amendment), a flat denial (from the accused) cannot work anymore.”

The amendment to Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act includes the following stipulations:

> If your name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting yourself as the author, you are deemed to have published the content.

> If a posting comes from your Internet or phone account, you are deemed to be the publisher unless the contrary is proved.

> If you have the control or custody of any computer which published any material, you are presumed to be the publisher unless proven otherwise.

Asked if the amendment infringed on Internet users' personal liberties, Sharil said the authorities would still have to carry out rigorous and thorough investigations before charging anyone.

“Then there is the trial processs to go through,” he added.

He admitted that the conviction rate of suspected cyber offenders was very low.

From 2009 to 2011, 625 cases of people making obscene or offensive comments via the Internet or phone were investigated.

Only 16 were brought to court and just three were convicted.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said it was difficult to prosecute offenders before the amendment to the Act.

“It was especially difficult to prosecute offenders because the servers were located overseas.

“Everything was in a mess,” he said, and denied that the amendment was to curb dissent.

“The Government does not want to stifle anyone. But we don't want people to slander or threaten others,” Nazri added.

By REGINA LEE  regina@thestar.com.my

Amendment not justified, say groups

PETALING JAYA: The amendment to the Evidence Act transfers the burden of proof to the accused, which is contrary to the principle of justice, said lawyers and Internet users.

“At any trial, whether criminal or civil cases, it is up to the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Now the burden will be shifted to the accused to disprove (the allegation against them),” said human rights lawyer Edmund Bon.

He added: “All around the world where there is Internet any reasonable person would be against the posting of hate messages. But whether the Government should step in and take such control is another matter.”

Disputing that the amendment will bring more people to justice, Bon said that it will instead reduce the need for the police and other enforcement agencies to be thorough in their investigations.

He believed that current defamation and sedition laws were enough to curb offensive and criminal messages on the Internet.

Intellectual property lawyer and Kuala Lumpur Bar Information Technology Committee co-chairman Foong Cheng Leong said the amendment would be a source of harassment to people whose identities have been abused to send offensive or threatening messages.

“Say it is an elderly person who subscribes to the Internet and does not know how to secure his wifi account.

“If someone uses that unsecured wifi to upload all these offensive postings, it's the elderly man who will get into trouble,” he said.

However, he agreed that it was difficult to trace the author of the offensive material, especially when international servers or public computers are used.

“But changing the law is taking the easy way out,” said Foong, who authored an extensive article about the amendment on the Loyar Burok website. ( See below:Grave repercussions for internet users)

Meanwhile, many have tweeted their disapproval for the amendment, claiming that people would have to “flip over backwards to prove their innocence”.

At the same time, some have voiced their support for the amendment, especially those who have been on the receiving end of hate messages.


“These anonymous writers of hate messages against me are gutless and stupid.

“They help justify the Government's proposal to amend the Evidence Act,” tweeted lawyer Roger Tan who had been criticised for writing a critique on the recent Malaysian Bar extraordinary general meeting.

Grave repercussions for internet users

The Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2012 was one of the bills rushed and passed by the Parliament recently. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz, when winding up the Evidence (Amendment) Bill 2012, said the use of pseudonyms or anonymity by any party to do cyber crimes had made it difficult for the action to be taken against them. Hence, the Evidence Act 1950 must be amended to address the issue of Internet anonymity.

The amendments introduced s. 114A into the Evidence Act 1950 to provide for the presumption of fact in publication in order to facilitate the identification and proving of the identity of an anonymous person involved in publication through the internet. In simple words, s. 114A introduces 3 circumstances where an Internet user is deemed to be a publisher of a content unless proven otherwise by him or her.

Men in masks, beware of s.114A.

Although it is stated that the amendment is to cover anonymous persons on the internet, the effect of the amendment is quite wide. You see, we, especially social media network users, generally do not use our real names on the Internet. We use nicknames and pseudonyms. Our home addresses do not appear on our account. We sometimes use fictional characters or even digitalized images of ourselves as our profile picture. All these are done to protect our own privacy. So, if none of my personal details appear on my account, does this mean I am anonymous? If someone’s identity cannot be directly ascertained from his account, I would think that he would be anonymous.

The new s. 114A(1) states that “A person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner, host , administrator, editor or sub-editor, or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved”. In simple words, if your name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting yourself as the aforesaid persons, you are deemed to have published the content. So, for example, if someone creates a blog with your name, you are deemed to have published the articles there unless you prove otherwise. If you have a blog and someone posts a comment, you are deemed to have published it. If you have a Facebook page and an user posts something on your wall, you are deemed to have published it!<.

Subsection (2) provides a graver consequence. If a posting originates from your account with a network service provider, you are deemed to be the publisher unless the contrary is proved. In simple terms, if a posting originates from your TM Unifi account, you are deemed to be the publisher. In the following scenarios, you are deemed to be the publisher unless you prove the contrary:-.

(1) You have a home network with a few house mates sharing one internet account. You are deemed to be the publisher even though one of your house mates posts something offensive online..

(2) You have wireless network at home but you did not secure your network. You are deemed to be the publisher even though someone “piggybacks” your network to post something offensive..

(3) You have a party at home and allows your friends to access your PC or wireless network.You are deemed to be the publisher even though it was a friend who posted something offensive..

(4) Someone use your phone or tablet to post something offensive. You are deemed to be the publisher..

As for subsection (3), you are presumed to have published a content if you have custory or control of any computer which the publication originates from. Here, you are deemed to be the publisher so long your computer was the device that had posted the content. So if someone “tweetjacks” you or naughtily updates your Facebook with something offensive, you are deemed to be the publisher unless you prove otherwise Admittedly, the amendments certainly saves a lot of the investigator’s time. It is very difficult to trace someone on the Internet. It will make prosecution for, among others, defamation, offences under the Communication and Multimedia Act 1998 and Computer Crimes Act 1997 and, election offences much easier. But it is not impossible to trace someone. There are many cases where perpetrators are caught and charged..

The new Bill: to like or not to like? | Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/birgerking/

I do not see the logic to deem someone to be a publisher. If an investigator is unable to trace the anonymous internet user, then why should the innocent Internet user take the rap? The onus of proof should always be on the prosecuting side. In the English case of Applause Store Productions Limited & Anor v Grant Raphael [2008] EWHC 1781 (QB), the claimants were awarded £22,000 in damages against Raphael, an old school friend, who had created a false personal profile of the claimants on Facebook. The claimants convinced the Court that Raphael was the person who created the fake profile even though he claimed that he had a party at his house and someone in that party created the account.

In summary, the new amendments force an innocent party to show that he is not the publisher. Victims of stolen identity or hacking would have a lot more problems to fix. Since computers can be easily manipulated and identity theft is quite rampant, it is dangerous to put the onus on internet users. An internet user will need to give an alibi that it wasn’t him. He needs to prove that he has no access to the computer at that time of publication and he needs to produce call witnesses to support his alibi..

Clearly, it is against our very fundamental principal of “innocent until proven guilty”. With general election looming, I fear this amendment will be used oppressively. Fortunately, the amendment is not in force yet. I strongly hope that the government will relook into this amendment.

Posted by Foong Cheng Leong

Being grateful is Love, the simple things?

Datuk Seri Idris Jala and the Kelabits have shown that being grateful is a way of showing real humility but it should not be mistaken as being subservient.

THERE was an elderly Kelabit man who had never seen a TV set in his life – not until he visited his son’s modern house.

He sat on the sofa and watched the news and his son noticed that the old man paid special attention to reports on the floods in Kelantan, especially the deaths due to drowning.

The father turned to his son and asked why there were deaths? He was shocked when he was told it was an annual occurrence.

“Why didn’t they just move away from the river? Our people would have just moved to higher ground,” he said.

This story was related to a group of about 30 analysts and journalists at a briefing on Thursday by probably the most famous Kelabit of all, Datuk Seri Idris Jala. The old man was his father Henry Jala.

“That’s how our people are. Our tribe has moved to near the Kalimantan border just to get away from the floods,” said Idris, who is the boss of Pemandu – the government unit set up to implement the New Economic Model and the various transformation programmes.

Pemandu is the acronym for Performance Management & Delivery Unit of which Idris is the chief executive officer. He is also a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department.

He readily admits his bias towards the rural transformation programme and the key initiative to build basic infrastructure for the rural folk.

“Till today, my village has no electricity supply. Fifteen years ago, our longhouse was burnt down because a woman forgot to put out a candle before going to sleep,” Idris told the audience as he expounded the virtue of the Government Transformation Programme and the Economic Transformation Programme.

(The acronyms of GTP, ETP and Pemandu has become synonymous with Idris.)

The Kelabits, numbering some 5,000, are probably the most successful bumiputra community in Sarawak.

It has been reported that at least 90% of the Kelabits are literate and that some 10% of them have obtained diplomas, degrees, post-graduate degrees and professional qualifications. At least another 1,000 have sat for their Form Five examination.

Besides Idris, the community has got doctors, lawyers, police officers, engineers, millionaire businessmen and top state civil servants.

Ask any Sarawakian about Kelabits, and they will speak of them in a respectful tone with full admiration.
After all, many of the older ones are well-known warriors and war veterans.

One could even say that pound for pound, the Kelabits are the most highly successful community in the country despite their small number.

Idris had told another audience at a more informal setting at Tapis Rouge – a restaurant cum mini-theatre owned by celebrity Datin Seri Tiara Jacqueline – that his people who lived in the Bario Highlands, although led a simple life, were ambitious.

A widely travelled man, Idris told of his life in Holland and Britain and how our country was not that lacking.

“I have always considered my life very blessed. I constantly remind myself that Malaysia has got a lot going for it.

“While we look admiringly at the roses far away, we must not forget the roses that are in our own garden,” he told his audience at his Blues Jam session at Tapis Rouge.

Idris said his favourite quote on this came from management guru Dale Carnegie which went: “It is tragic when we put off living. We dream of a magical rose garden over the horizon and miss the roses blooming outside our windows”.

The strain of leading the Government’s charge to transform the nation into a high-income and developed nation shows on Idris face but his bubbly self seems to shine through whenever he gets his hands on a guitar.

In his closing remarks to the 300-odd friends and supporters who turned up to hear him sing and play the guitar, Idris reminded them that Malaysians must learn to count their blessing and “learn to love the simple things like music, family and roses”.

Come Monday, the 2011 annual reports of the ETP and GTP will be submitted to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak live on TV at 8.30pm.

> Executive Editor Wong Sai Wan is still looking forward to a trip to the Bario Highlands to see for himself the Kelabits in their own environment.

Related posts:
Malaysians, work hard to succeed ! 
Malaysia could go bankrupt by 2019?  

Malaysian politicians return of the silly season?

 The happening days are back in Malaysian politics but the seasoned ordinary Malaysians are not even batting an eyelid.

IT’S dubbed the silly season by the media and for good reasons. In the months ahead of the general election, politicians will say the silliest things as both sides of the divide fire at each other. Often, the media get caught in the crossfire.

Many see agenda when there is none, presumably because as politicians they are used to the murky world of self-interest and plots.

Unsure of whether they will get re-elected, or worse, dropped as candidates, many are understandably jittery and overly-sensitive as the pressure builds up. After all, much is at stake.

Wanting to get the attention of their party bosses, they start bombarding media offices with tons of press releases, many of which are hardly newsworthy.

The political minnows are unlikely to get their news across and that’s when news organisations are accused of sidelining them for purported political motives.

Then there are rural-based politicians who wonder why they do not get any coverage at all. They insist on the presence of the press even when most of the newspapers do not reach their constituencies, let alone read by the voters there.

There are politicians who blame everyone for their failings except themselves. Again, their critics and the media get the blame.

There’s another group of has-been politicians. They have held positions including Cabinet posts for what feels like forever but never seem to be able to fade away. They still refuse to find time to play with their grandchildren.

So, come election time, they will find a way to get some publicity, including trying to seek a seat to contest or to quit their party.

Retirement age, it would seem, is only for the ordinary citizens, not for politicians. We have got two generations contesting in polls. We have father-son teams, a husband-wife-daughter team, and with Malaysians increasingly living longer, we may end up having their grandchildren as fellow candidates too.

By now, Malaysians are used to the saying that there are no permanent friends and enemies in politics. So, last week, former Selangor PAS leader Datuk Dr Hasan Ali was accused of spending lavishly during his tenure in the state government, including “wasting” RM300,000 to renovate his office.

The allegation was made by PKR’s Azmin Ali, the Gombak Setia assemblyman, who also said more than RM500,000 was spent on a conference organised by the Selangor Malay Customs and Heritage Corporation.

Barisan Nasional rightly asked why Azmin was only making this revelation after Dr Hasan had left PAS and Pakatan Rakyat.

But politicians always have an answer for every question, no matter how illogical it sounds. Azmin replied that he only received the evidence recently and had asked PAS to probe the matter even before Dr Hasan was sacked.

The state executive councillors are located on the same floor at the state government’s office and no one is going to believe that no one knew renovations were being carried out in Dr Hasan’s office. It’s the same with the purported expensive conference.

Surely, there must have been meetings on the budget allocated for the conference and it is difficult to accept that no one knew about the allocated sum.

Barisan state assemblymen have rightly asked whether these would be exposed if Dr Hasan had remained in PAS and had not rebelled against the state government.

Dr Hasan, in any case, was supported and campaigned for by the same Pakatan leaders in the 2008 elections. The same people who criticised him now are the same people who had heaped praises on him then, persuading people to vote for him.

It’s never a dull day in Malaysian politics – on some days it is amazingly incredible – but at the same time, Malaysians are not getting surprised any more.

Are Malaysians really racists?

PUTIK LADA By RICHARD WEE

Race relations laws will assist the authorities to manage race relations, to clarify any uncertainty, but may to a certain extent suggest that Malaysians are, perhaps, racists.

IT is of crucial importance for the citizens of any growing nation to also grow intellectually. A mature nation is not just a nation of financial wealth, but a nation filled with people who can articulate their points intellectually and critically, and do so calmly and with poise.

In 2007 and 2008, the National Young Lawyers Committee of the Bar Council (NYLC) held a series of forums – known as “Siri Pemikiran Kritis” (SPK) – which encouraged open debates and discussions of issues which affected the people and the nation.

These debates and discussions included issues relating to the economy, civil liberties, and human rights. It was hoped that these forums would activate quality dialogues, over rhetoric and emotional outbursts.

The series was very well received. The panel of invited speakers ranged from national leaders to NGO members.

The attendees were mostly normal Malaysians who cared for the country and who were keen to hear the views of the panel speakers.

As the name of the series suggests, its purpose was to encourage critical thinking. The forums took a standard format.

The NYLC would invite a few speakers who were well versed with the topic, and have a moderator to host.

After each speaker presented his thoughts on the topic at hand, the floor would be open for the attendees to pose queries and sometimes debate with the panel speakers.

The very first SPK was held on Jan 11, 2007, and the topic was the New Economic Policy. It was a good start, and eventually, eight further forums were held.

This year, the NYLC is reviving the SPK series. This is part of the NYLC’s on-going community programme, which includes not only offering people legal and non-legal assistance, but also to educate and engage via public forums such as the SPK.

The idea of public forums where Malaysians can gather and listen to the ideas and views of others, and partake in open dialogues, drove the current NYLC team to re-visit the successful SPK.

To kick start the 2012 version of the SPK, the NYLC will host a forum on the issue of the proposed race relations law in Malaysia – “Race Relations Laws: Backwards or Forwards?”

Law Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Nazri Aziz, announced that a Bill would be presented in Parliament, which would be in similar vein with the race relations laws of other countries.

What are race relations laws? In its simplest sense, race relations laws govern the relations of different races in a country. In the United Kingdom and the United States, laws governing race relations were passed and are used to manage the different races.

Do we need such laws in Malaysia? Does Malaysia not already have a sufficient legislative framework to govern race relations? How have we been governing race relations since 1957? Is our Federal Constitution a sufficient guide on race relations? Is it not enough for race relations be governed by honest and benevolent government policies?

Perhaps the new laws would assist the authorities to manage race relations. Arguably, there is an opportunity to clarify any uncertainty.

To a certain extent, the proposed race relations law suggests that Malaysians are, perhaps, racists. Only in countries where racism is rampant, or where it is damaging the roots of the society, would such a law be necessary.

Are Malaysians really racists?

That would be a question which only the Malaysian people can answer.

It is possible that this country is not, by majority, filled with racists, but instead that Malaysia has been subjected to unfortunate and sometimes insidiously enforced policies, which gives the impression that we are racists.

Taking a general view of Malaysian society, there is hardly any open, blatant racism.

For example, in the US, at the peak of racism, African Americans were not allowed to share seats in buses with White Americans in some states.

That was a dark moment in American history and their Senate had to intervene with laws to legislate that.
Policies in America also changed to discourage segregation.

Unlike in the US, any Malaysian can hitch a ride on a bus and share seats with people of different races. This is, of course, a simplistic example. Perhaps Malaysians may feel otherwise.

People may feel that we need such laws. Malaysians may also feel that we should discuss and perhaps debate on this proposed law.

So, do we need race relations laws in Malaysia? Or do we actually need race relations policies instead? And if we do introduce race relations laws, what would they contain?

So many questions. So many issues.

That being the case, we invite you make your way to the upcoming SPK Forum, which will be held on Saturday, March 31, at the Bar Council Auditorium in Kuala Lumpur from 10am to 2pm.

The forum will be initiated by Senator Gan Ping Sieu who is also Youth and Sports Deputy Minister. The speakers will be Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, Farish Noor, and Faisal Moideen. It will be moderated by Syahredzan Johan.

Please register with the Bar Council by contacting Janet Nathan, the Executive Officer in charge at janet@malaysianbar.org.my, as seats are limited.

> The writer is the chairperson of the National Young Lawyers Committee. PutikLada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column – a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, visit www.malaysianbar.org.my.

Malaysian big GLCs headed by foreigners, how dismay!

 GLC head the subject of row

By SIRA HABIBU sira@thestar.com.my

PETALING JAYA: The British citizenship of Raja Idris Raja Kamarudin (pic) who has headed two powerful Selangor government-linked corporations since April last year has become an issue of controversy.

Selangor Umno secretary Datuk Seri Mohd Zin Mohamed has questioned why and how Raja Idris, 58, was picked to be the chairman of Kumpulan Perangsang Selangor Bhd (KPSB), Kumpulan Hartanah Selangor Berhad (KHSB) and executive consultant and adviser of Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Berhad (KDEB).

KDEB is the investment arm of the Selangor Govern­ment while KPSB is a full-fledged water services provider. KHSB is an investment company with many land assets.

Mohd Zin said Raja Idris, the brother of fugitive blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin, was listed on the official website of KHSB as a British subject.

“Raja Idris is a British citizen. It raises a big question as to why he is selected to head several big GLCs. Can’t Khalid, who is from the corporate circle, find any local talent to run the show?” he asked.

In an immediate reaction, Raja Idris admitted that he was still a British citizen but said he assumed that his appointment was in line with the country’s initiative to bring back Malaysians from abroad.

“Well, I thought that was why Talent Corp was set up – to bring back Malaysians who have left Malaysia and have taken up other jobs and obtained new citizenship in other countries,” he said, adding that he was a non-executive director.

Mohd Zin said there was much unhappiness about how Selangor GLCs are being run, including the removal of senior officials.

He was referring to the sacking of two KHSB company secretaries in relation to the ongoing controversy over the “loss” of a 234ha piece of land in Gombak worth RM250mil belonging to a fully-owned subsidiary of KHSB. Two other officials have also been given show cause letters.

Malaysian Trades Union Congress president Mohd Khalid Atan said it would not be fair to others if the appointment was politically motivated, adding that “priority should be given to locals”.

“Why trust outsiders more than locals? This is an insult to locals,” he said.

MCA central committee member Loh Seng Kok urged Raja Idris to give up his British citizenship, asking whether it was wise for him to have access to so much information invol­ving state assets.

Related post:

Don't have experience to lead, appoint a British?

NFCorp Boss Charged With CBT in 'Cowgate' scandal!

Day in court: Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail (above) leaving the courthouse after being charged. Also present were his wife Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil and their son Wan Shahinur Izmir Salleh (below).

By MAIZATUL NAZLINA and TERENCE TOH newsdesk@thestar.com.my

KUALA LUMPUR: The executive chairman of the National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd has claimed trial at the Sessions Court here to two counts of committing breach of trust and two counts of violating the Companies Act 1965 involving RM49.7mil.

Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail, 64, arrived in court at 2.15pm accompanied by his wife Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, their eldest son Wan Shahinur Izmir and other family members.

The charges were read to Dr Mohamad Salleh at 2.27pm before judge S.M. Komathy Suppiah in a packed courtroom.

The proceedings yesterday marked a new chapter in the NFCorp controversy which arose after the Auditor-General's 2010 Report highlighted the failure of the National Feedlot Centre to achieve its target, and which grew with revelations that the company had used the government-funded soft loan for purposes not related to cattle breeding.



Dr Mohamad Salleh was charged with dishonestly misusing funds amounting to RM9,758,140 through four cheques to partly finance the purchase of two units of One Menerung Condominium in Block B here for the National Meat and Livestock Corporation Sdn Bhd, which he owns with one of his sons.



According to the charge, he committed the offence in his capacity as an NFCorp director entrusted with control over the company's assets.

He is said to have committed the offence at CIMB Islamic Bank Bhd in Jalan Burhanuddin Helmi, Taman Tun Dr Ismail, here between Dec 1 and 4, 2009.

Dr Mohamad Salleh was charged under Section 409 of the Penal Code which carries a jail term of up to 20 years, a fine and whipping.

He is also accused under Section 132(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1965 of committing the offence without approval from an annual general meeting of NFCorp to gain profit directly.

He is also accused of transferring NFCorp's funds of RM40mil through a cheque into the National Meat and Livestock Corporation's account at the same bank from May 6 to Nov 16, 2009.

For this, he faces charges of criminal breach of trust and violating the Companies Act.

Deputy Public Prosecutors Dzulkifli Ahmad, Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud and Azimul Azami prosecuted while the defence was led by Badrul Munir Bukhari.

Pleading for a lower bail, counsel Badrul Munir said Dr Mohamad Salleh had given his full cooperation to the police and prosecution, and his client was in court to clear his name. He applied to release the accused on a RM50,000 personal bond for each charge.

Dzulkifli said the prosecution had no objection to the application as they did not see why Dr Mohamad Salleh would flee the country. He, however, said the accused should surrender all his travel documents to the court.

Dzulkifli applied to the court under Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code for a single trial for all the charges.

Judge Komathy agreed to a single trial and set bail of RM500,000 with one surety for all four charges.
She also ordered Mohamad Salleh to surrender his passport pending mention of his case on April 13.

Wan Shahinur Izmir paid the bail.

Shahrizat was impassive in court and declined to speak to reporters after the proceedings.

Malaysian minister to step down in midst of 'Cowgate' scandal
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, right, is greeted by Malaysian Minister of Women, Family, and Community Development Shahrizat Abdul Jalil before a town hall event at the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization on Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. (EVAN VUCCI / AP)

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — A Malaysian minister said Sunday she will step down amid accusations that her family misused a 250 million ringgit ($83 million) government loan meant for a cattle project to purchase condominiums, vacations and a Mercedes. 

The scandal, dubbed "Cowgate,'' has greatly embarrassed Prime Minister Najib Razak ahead of general elections widely expected to be called by June. 

After months of resisting calls from critics to step down, Shahrizat Abdul Jalil said she will resign as minister of women, family and community on April 8 once her term as senator ends. 

Shahrizat said her decision had nothing to do with the cattle project run by her husband and three children but that she is stepping down as a "responsible member of the government.'' She will, however, stay on as chief of the women's wing of the ruling Malay party. 

The scandal emerged last year after the auditor-general's annual report said the National Feedlot Center run by Shahrizat's family had not met its goal of making the country 40 per cent self-sufficient in beef production by 2010. 

Since then, opposition parties have accused the company of using a government loan allocated for cattle rearing to purchase property including luxury condominiums in Malaysia and Singapore and other personal items. Shahrizat's family has denied any wrongdoing, saying the company was allowed to use the loan at its discretion and that the properties would earn it rental income. 

Police have recommended that the company's directors be charged with criminal breach of trust but the attorney-general has asked police to conduct further investigations. 

Najib said Shahrizat's resignation was a sacrifice in the interest of the government and party. 

"Although there is no proof so far that she had committed any offence in terms of law, because the (project) has drawn controversy and dispute, she was willing to withdraw from the government,'' the national Bernama news agency quoted him as saying. 

Analysts said Shahrizat's resignation wasn't surprising as Najib isn't likely to renew her senatorship. 

"Cowgate is a big blow to Najib as it shows he is slow to act on allegations of high-level corruption,'' said James Chin, a political science lecturer at Monash University in Malaysia. 

Najib's National Front coalition suffered its worst performance in 2008 polls, losing more than a third of Parliament's seats to a resurgent opposition amid widespread discontent over the government's handling of problems such as corruption and racial discrimination. 

While the ruling coalition isn't expected to lose power in upcoming polls, scandals such as Cowgate make it tougher for Najib to consolidate his power. General elections are not due until 2013 but are widely expected in the next few months.

Related Stories:
Muhyiddin commends Shahrizat's brave decision
Shahrizat absent from opening of Parliament  

PAS will dominate if Pakatan gains power in Malaysia's sarong politics!

Most MBs will be from PAS if Pakatan gains power, says Chua

By FOONG PEK YEEpekyee@thestar.com.my

KUALA LUMPUR: The majority of Mentris Besar will be from PAS if Pakatan Rakyat takes state power in the coming general election, MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said.



The Prime Minister would also be from PAS if Pakatan were to take federal power, he added.

Dr Chua said the coming general election was a do-or-die battle for Barisan Nasional and Pakatan, not just MCA.

Given due recogniti on: Boon Kim Lian receiving an award from Dr Chua while his deputy Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai looks on during the ceremony Saturday. 

“There is no room for complacency because Pakatan will do anything to gain control of the country after making some inroads in the last election.

“Pakatan now is very organised and has the resources to take control,” he said at the MCA long service medal presentation ceremony here last night.

Dr Chua said MCA's number one enemy would still be DAP in the elections.

He also stressed the need to expose the party's tactics, so people would not be conned.

”Unlike previous elections, a vote for DAP is a vote for PAS and PKR,” he added.

Dr Chua said Pakatan was only keen to gain power and had no concrete plan for the people or the country's development.

For example, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng had not been able to reply when asked on Pakatan's socio-economic development model for the country.


“All he (Lim Guan Eng) said was money, money, money, and money makes money,” Dr Chua said on the high-profile debate between him and Lim last Saturday.

Apart from exposing DAP's ploy, Dr Chua said MCA must continue to stay united and work hard to face the next election.

He said the party must also adopt a high profile apart from serving the people well.

“I dare say no party can beat us in terms of service to the people since the party's inception 63 years ago,” he said.

Dr Chua said this was one of the reasons MCA was giving out long service medals starting this year.

Meanwhile, MCA secretary-general Datuk Seri Kong Cho Ha said the party's never-say-die attitude, as reflected in its continued service to the people after its dismal performance in the last general election, was commendable.

Related posts:

MCA do-or-die at 63 in sarong politics

Malaysian Sarong Politics: Two-Party-System becoming a Two-Race-System is a question of one or two sarongs!!

Judges, Throw the book at Hoslan!

ON THE BEAT By WONG CHUN WAI 

By not taking action against him, the judges have sent a wrong message to Malaysians.

IT’S incredible that an imam who threw his slippers at judges was not cited for contempt of court on the spot. If we talk about respecting and upholding the law, the judges should have just thrown the book at him, so to speak. 

The imam, Tuan Haji Hoslan Haji Hussain, got himself in the limelight last week when he lost control after his application for the Federal Court in Putrajaya to hear his appeal was rejected. He said he was frustrated when documents he had tendered were rejected as they were not sent within the stipulated time.

Hoslan’s problem started when he was removed as the imam of Masjid Al-Rahimah in Kampung Pandan in 2008. Then, in June last year, the Federal Territory Religious Council obtained a court order forcing him to vacate the imam’s quarters where he had been staying for a decade with his seven children.

The FT Religious Council obviously had a disciplinary problem with this former al-Arqam follower but Hoslan, in turn, claimed he had tendered documents alleging irregularities in handling mosque funds.

When the panel of judges heard this case on Wednesday, Hoslan threw a slipper, followed by the other one, at the judges. He then threw his ihram (a piece of white cloth) on the floor and performed the sunat prayer. His actions caused more than a stir.

Police later escorted him out of the court and he was told the judges had decided not to take action against him.

There was only one reporter who witnessed the incident and the judges sought his cooperation not to publish it. So, if not for the online news portal The Malaysian Insider, we would all have missed this unprecedented incident.

Calls by the other media to the offices of the registrar and judges were not returned when they tried to follow up on the report the following day. Only Hoslan seemed to enjoy the attention he was getting from the media.

The three-member panel of judges comprised Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, who is Chief Judge of Malaya, Datuk Suriyadi Halim Omar and Datin Paduka Zaleha Zahari.

Obviously, the judges have shown compassion, tolerance and liberalism by not wanting to punish the guy. But in doing so, they have sent a wrong message to Malaysians.

They could at least have reprimanded him instead of pretending the incident did not happen and hoping that the media would not become aware of it.

It’s as good as telling us that it was okay for Hoslan to throw his slippers at the judges and then bad-mouthing them to the media outside the court.

It was only after this unfortunate episode became public knowledge that deputy registrar Jumirah Marzuki lodged a report against Hoslan – on Friday, two days later.

More incredibly, she was quoted as saying that she lodged the report because the second slipper which Hoslan had flung towards the Bench had hit her!

Come on, I am not sure whether she expected Malaysians, including the police, to share her disappointment or to laugh at her decision.

Justice Zulkefli has told the media “to let the police investigate”.

Let’s hope the police will not have to take a decade to investigate this open-and-shut case involving an irate man who really needs to have his head examined.

Zulkefli is spoken about affectionately by most court reporters, who describe him as a “kind person”. So they were not surprised when he said “the panel did not make any decision to cite Hoslan for contempt of court as it does not serve any purpose. We do not want to get into the drama. It will complicate the matter further.”

But there are some fundamental issues here. First, the Federal Court is the highest in the country. Two, the panel was led by the second highest judge.

Hoslan does not deserve to be treated like a hero for throwing his slippers at these top judges. By not taking action on the spot, our honourable judges may send the message that they did not mind the action of this man.

No one should be allowed to go scot-free for throwing things at the Bench because they are unhappy, angry, sad or insane. In law, students rely on past court cases or precedents. Well, this is one precedent of a man who threw his slippers at the judges and got away with it.

There is no other way in this case. Hoslan should be taken back to the court and punished. The fact that he is a religious figure should also be taken into consideration. He should have been more composed and exemplary instead of behaving in an outrageous manner.

Throw the book at him!

Frustrated imam ‘bares his sole’

By SIRA HABIBU and M. MAGESWARI newsdesk@thestar.com.my

PETALING JAYA: The imam who threw his slippers at judges claimed that he did it out of frustration.

Hoslan Hussain, 46, said he was extremely frustrated because documents he had tendered at the Federal Court had been rejected because they were not sent within the stipulated time.

“But there was no objection earlier during the case management. The case was rejected because the respondent MAIWP (Federal Territory Religious Council) objected,” he said.

Hoslan, a former Al-Arqam follower, created a stir when he threw his slippers at the panel of judges at the Federal Court on Wednesday.

“I became angry. I threw a slipper. I do not know who was hit.

“Then I threw another slipper. And after that I threw my ihram (a piece of white cloth) onto the floor and performed sunat prayer,” he said.

Hoslan said the police later escorted him out of the court and told him the judges had decided not to take action against him for contempt of court.

“I walked out barefoot,” he said.

Hoslan had tendered the documents alleging irregularities in handling mosque funds.

MAIWP had removed him as the imam of the Masjid Al-Rahimah in May 2008, and in June last year, obtained a court order forcing him to vacate the imam quarters where he had been staying for a decade with his seven children.

The Appeal Court and the Federal Court had upheld the High Court decision.

The three-member panel of judges comprised Tan Sri Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, Datuk Suriadi Halim Omar and Datin Zaleha Zahari.

In Kuala Lumpur, a deputy registrar of the Federal Court lodged a police report yesterday over the slipper-throwing incident.

Deputy registrar Jumirah Marzuki lodged the report against Hoslan as the second slipper which he had flung towards the Bench had hit her.

Justice Zulkefli confirmed that the report had been lodged. “Let the police investigate,” he said.

Asked about the incident, Justice Zulkefli said the panel did not make any decision to cite Hoslan for contempt of court as “it does not serve any purpose. We do not want to get into the drama. It will complicate the matter further”.

Head of corporate communications and international relations Mohd Aizuddin Zolkeply said the Chief Registrar’s office of the Federal Court denied any allegations by Hoslan, including that he had been denied his right to be heard fairly.

“It is unfounded. Our office has all recordings for hearings at the Federal Court,” he said.

Mohd Aizuddin said the judiciary took seriously matters which could tarnish its image.

MCA do-or-die at 63 in sarong politics

MCA faces its biggest challenge

By FOONG PEK YEE pekyee@thestar.com.my

EVEN as the 3,000-odd MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) delegates celebrate the party's 63rd anniversary at Wisma MCA  tomorrow, their minds are already on how next year's celebration will fare.

The reason for that is the do-or-die battle awaiting the party in the coming general election, and many see this as the biggest ever challenge faced by the party.

MCA, which won 46 seats in the last election less than half of what it used to win in the past elections will be deemed irrelevant if it slides further.

MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek, who described the current political scenario as totally different from the past, said there should be a sense of “crisis feeling” in the party to take on this challenge.

“We are talking about an Opposition which is more organised and committed and out to replace the Government.

“They will do anything and everything to wrest power,” he said when asked about his message for the delegates at the celebrations.

Of late, Dr Chua has made it a point to unmask DAP, its number one political enemy.

While the two Chinese-based parties have been arch rivals for decades, the war this time around is on a very different platform.

“The DAP today, which is a Pakatan Rakyat ally, is different from the DAP of yesteryears.

“It is not just working together with its Pakatan allies PAS and PKR to win seats but is also set to change the fate of the Malaysian Chinese,” Dr Chua noted.

He stressed that a vote for DAP is a vote for PAS.

To begin with, he said the DAP had always evaded the question of what would happen if Pakatan wrested federal control because DAP knew well that it would not have much say in the coalition.

For instance, he pointed out that DAP, which won 18 of the 31 state seats in Perak in the last election, had supported a PAS leader, Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin, to be the Mentri Besar, adding that PAS only won six seats while PKR won seven.

“DAP is nothing more than a political eunuch to PAS,” Dr Chua said.

He said the DAP had been planting hope in the minds of some 6.5 million Malaysian Chinese that the DAP's feat in Penang which saw its secretary-general Lim Guan Eng's ascension to the Chief Minister's post was possible in other states.

He reminded the Chinese that the Penang feat would not be possible in other states at the moment due to the demography of voters in the country.

Dr Chua also has a message for the delegates tomorrow the need to publicise what the party has done for the people and also what it can continue to do for them.

“I have the party's report card ready,” he said of the various people-oriented programmes implemented by the party since he took over the helm about two years ago.

And perhaps the Chinese saying chuang ye nan, shou ye gen nan (to build an empire is tough, to maintain an empire is even tougher) best sums up what the 63-year-old party is going through now.
The event will be broadcast live from MCA's internet platforms.

Those wishing to view the celebration can browse the MCA website at http://www.mca.org.my; official Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/MCAHQ or Ustream Home at http://www.ustream.tv/user/mcatv. 

 Councillors go easy on Jessie

GEORGE TOWN: Penang municipal councillors have decided not to pursue legal action against Selayang Barisan Nasional coordinator Jessie Ooi for making baseless allegations against the council.

Selangor MCA Beliawanis chief Jessie Ooi >>

Their representative Ong Ah Teong said the councillors had unanimously decided not to pursue the matter and instead focus their time and energy on serving Penangites.

Ooi had made the allegations du-ring the recent televised debate between MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary general Lim Guan Eng.

She had during question time alleged among other things that there were not enough parking lots in Lebuh Pantai and that enforcement personnel had assaulted people while performing their duties.

She had also accused the council of towing away cars at 10.30pm.

The council had clarified that 12 vehicles were towed away for illegal parking since the ruling was implemented in June last year.

Based on the council’s record, no vehicles were towed at 10.30pm and none in Beach Street as alleged by Ooi.

The council had explained there were 829 parking bays on Beach Street and adjoining streets and that its enforcement personnel had not assaulted anyone.

Meanwhile, Ooi in a statement said she regretted the “misunderstanding and confusion” caused by her.

“I admit that during the debate, the time for questions was limited and it was an intense affair resulting in me being emotional and not able to convey my message properly,” she said.

She said the council had the right and responsibility to correct or refute her remarks, but it should not prosecute her.

Ooi said the council’s threat to take legal action against her was an attempt at preventing the rakyat from expressing their views.

Society lacking even after 55 years

MALAYSIA, despite almost 55 years of nation-building, has degenerated into an intolerant and prejudiced society. Progress in education and economy has not made us think liberally and outwardly.

Oddly, we are not isolated from the world at large. We embrace globalisation, multi-racialism and world peace. Yet many of us remain parochial, as though shuttered from the changing times and new challenges.

There are still inward-looking people in our midst who are fond of objecting to a variety of things without justification or reason.

Perhaps it is their inbred attitude to complain, protest and threaten.

For example, even before the 1Care programme is finalised, there are already protests.

Against what?

In their insecure, selfish world, these objectors jump the gun by stirring up a storm in the teacup.

The 1Care programme will be conceptualised and proposed in a year or two.

At the moment, it is mere discussion and brainstorming. So why the hullabaloo?

There is this fear that workers will have their salaries deducted to fund the scheme.

The thinking is that 1Care should be offered free without any contribution by the employers and employees.

Any thought of this nature is only a pipe dream. Not everything is free in this world, not even water, clean air and nature’s abundance of crops.

Before Valentine’s Day, there was also strong objection to its celebration.

Isn’t love natural and universal? It is madness to stifle love. The world needs love, lots of it, to attain peace, harmony, unity and growth.

Politics and religion cannot be allowed to stamp out love, a force that is too powerful to be subdued or crushed. Love has existed long before political parties were created.

Like communism, Nazism and terrorism, the “ism” concepts and practices can do more harm than good.

Extremism is a good example of its negative, sometimes destructive, effects. So is racialism.

We must be on guard against false prophets, pretenders and campaigners with personal agendas.

They are dissenters motivated by self-interest and misguided beliefs. Their aim is to plant the seeds of doubt, suspicion and rebellion.

Fear is a commonly used weapon to create panic and opposition. It becomes a medical and social issue when it leads to phobia.

In some cases, fear triggers national disunity, family discord, social strife and violence.

Malaysia has witnessed many “anti” crusades – anti-dam construction, anti-Lynas, anti-highway building and anti-temple removal.

Sometimes, one wonders whether the resources can be channelled to more meaningful purposes like charity, community development and education advancement.

Another widely-employed strategy is rumour-mongering intended to damage integrity, harmony and unity.

Strangely, many Malaysians accept rumours as the gospel truth, not realising that the wagging tongues strive to spread fear and malice.

Years ago, Tun Abdul Razak once advised: “Don’t listen to rumours.” Not much has changed since then. Many people are still gullible, easily swayed, and outright ignorant.

The rumour mills have expanded from coffee shops, markets and taxi stands to factories, community halls and new townships.

When nothing works, objectors and opponents threaten to institute legal proceedings. The “I will sue you” mentality is quite widespread. It seems to be the final answer to one’s frustrations, grievances and selfish interests.

Bad habits die hard, Negative attitudes linger. We are not an enlightened, liberated society. Do we need to wait for another 55 years to see positive change in our mindset?

ROSELINA, Batu Caves, Selangor.


Related posts:

Malaysian Sarong Politics: Two-Party-System becoming a Two-Race-System is a question of one or two sarongs!!
 
Is the Two-Party-Sytem becoming a Two-Race-System? Online spars started before Chua-Lim debate!

Malaysian Sarong Politics: Two-Party-System becoming a Two-Race-System is a question of one or two sarongs!!

A question of one or two sarongs

The following is a commentary in Sin Chew Daily written by its columnist Lim Fang. 

THE debate between Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and Lim Guan Eng deviated from the topic “Chinese at a Crossroads: Is the Two Party System Becoming a Two-Race System?” and turned out to be just a summary of their previous press statements but with a difference — the two leaders were face-to-face.

Considering that this was the first debate in this path of democracy, there were some unavoidable shortcomings. The next debate, either in Malay or English and expected to be held next month, should be able overcome some of these weaknesses.

The last time leaders from these two parties squared off was in 1982 when Lim Kit Siang challenged the then MCA president Tan Sri Lee San Choon to contest in a Chinese majority area to prove which party had the support of the community.

Lee took up the challenge and contested in Seremban in the general election that year. Lim did not contest in the seat but instead the then DAP chairman Dr Chen Man Hin did and lost to Lee.

Thirty years on, this debate has given the new generation of voters a chance to observe the performance of two political foes facing off again. For years, the DAP has had the advantage in the Internet with the MCA being seen there as its whipping boy.



The debate thus gave Dr Chua a chance to prove his “iron man” prowess, as well as use live television to state the stand of the MCA clearly and rebut the DAP.

Some master debaters may question the quality of the debate but this is not a university-type competition as the two were delivering their speech, arguing their political stand and giving a political ceremah. This is different from the political debates in Taiwan.

Lim is good at giving ceramahs but in the debate he avoided the audience’s questions and was embarrassingly tongue-tied when tough questions were thrown at him.

He spent some time reading from his prepared notes and this showed he lacked confidence to expound a convincing argument and concentrated only on voicing out his own political views.

Dr Chua was the first to speak and may not have warmed up at the start, that is until after Lim started attacking him. He then showed his “fighting cock” style and replied sharply.

Without having to read from his notes — a no-no when debating — Dr Chua showed he was confident as well as calm and collected. One could see who was sharp and who was blunt in the debate.

As usual, Dr Chua attacked DAP for not being able to do anything about PAS wanting to implement the Islamic state policy. He said the Rocket badmouthed its opponents just to create an image for itself. He said the DAP was only capable of talking about issues relating to the country, community and people but did not do anything. He accused Lim’s party of misleading the people with lies.

On Lim’s side, he harped on corruption by Barisan Nasional and the MCA’s inability to do anything when Umno shouted out Malay supremacy. Lim also claimed credit for the achievements in Penang under his administration.

When Lim was stressing on Penang’s achievements, he was merely debating as the Penang Chief Minister. Lim forgot that he was also the DAP’s secretary-general. This showed that Lim did not step into the main political arena but confined himself to a regional political stage.

In fact, the debate topic did not apply to the country’s real situation, as the Malays comprise 65% of the population while Chinese make up 24%. Such vast difference in numbers makes it impossible for the two races to go head-on with each other in terms of strength.

The Umno-led Barisan had been practising the two-race system for quite some time to strengthen their position by complementing each other’s strength. It will be no different if Pakatan Rakyat were to come to power, the DAP, which mainly depends on the support of the Chinese community, has to abide by the policies drawn up by PAS and Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

Before this, the DAP used to ridicule the MCA by saying it was hiding inside Umno’s sarong. Today, they dare not repeat such statements because if the Pakatan comes to power, DAP would have one more sarong than the MCA. The conclusion of the debate between the MCA and the DAP is whether there will be one or two sarongs, and which the Chinese community felt more comfortable with.

Video: How to Tie a Sarong Knot? 

How to Tie a Sarong Knot -- powered by ehow

Related posts:
Is the Two-Party-Sytem becoming a Two-Race-System? Online spars started before Chua-Lim debate!
Malaysian Chinese at a Political Crossroads forum; Chua-Lim Debate, all hype but no climax
Malaysian Politics: Chua-Lim Debate Sets New Standard