lastest edition The rising star in najib’governance Deputy Minister in the Prime Miniter’s Department Datuk T Murugiah said the bureau needed the reports to enable it to assess humanity losses incurred by the police
The New York TimesI am sure you will be kind enough to furnish us with ALL TRUTHyoutube.com/watch?v=1ZPjz-WdCbE
MALAYSIAN ARRESTS PUT IN QUESTION VOW OF RIGHTS← INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE TAN SRI MUSA HASSAN SAID POLICE WILL BE CALLING IN “VIPS” SUSPECTED CRIMINALS
BANGKOK — Soon after coming to power four months ago, Najib Razak, the Malaysian prime minister, vowed to temper the country’s repressive laws and respect civil liberties though they have often been ignored.But Malaysia’s honeymoon of liberalism hit the rocks over the weekend, when the police broke up a large rally in Kuala Lumpur, arresting nearly 600 people and reaffirming the governing party’s longstanding policy of zero tolerance toward street protests.
Opposition parties, which organized the rally, were calling for the repeal of a law that allows the government to jail its critics indefinitely without charge. The opposition is also pressing the government to expand an inquiry into the recent death under mysterious circumstances of a political aide after a late-night interrogation by anticorruption officials.
News services estimated that the rally on Saturday, which was broken up by thousands of police officers using tear gas and water cannons, drew about 20,000 protesters, making it the largest demonstration in two years.
“We can provide them stadiums where they can shout themselves hoarse till dawn, but don’t cause disturbance in the streets,” Mr. Najib said Sunday, according to the Malaysian news media.
Since taking office in April, Mr. Najib has gained favor with investors and businesspeople by partly dismantling a system of racial preferences that long caused resentment among the country’s minorities.
He also released 13 political detainees held without trial. An opinion pollconducted from June 19 to July 1 showed 65 percent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with his performance. The poll, by the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research, surveyed 1,060 voters.
More recently, Mr. Najib’s government has been criticized as reverting to the authoritarian tactics of previous administrations.
A former health minister and stalwart of the governing coalition, Chua Jui Meng, defected to the opposition in July, saying that Mr. Najib represented an “iron fist behind the velvet glove.”
Lim Kit Siang, a prominent opposition politician, said in a blog entry on Sundaythat the large number of people detained “underlines” that the “greatest violators of human rights are often the police and the law enforcement agencies.”
The death of the political aide, Teoh Beng Hock, in July has galvanized opposition parties and caused widespread outrage, especially among the minority Chinese.
Mr. Teoh, a legislative aide in the opposition-controlled state of Selangor, was found dead beneath the 14th-story window of the offices of the country’s anticorruption commission after a nightlong interrogation. A pathologist’s report said he died of internal injuries from a fall.
A government minister initially said Mr. Teoh, 30, committed suicide, but his belt and back pockets were torn, adding to speculation that he might have been forced out the window.
After initial resistance, the government bowed to public pressure and ordered an inquiry into Mr. Teoh’s death as well as the interrogation tactics of the anticorruption officers.
Deaths in police custody have increased in recent years, according to Suaram, a human rights group. According to the Malaysian Home Ministry, 1,535 people died in police custody between 2003 and 2007, the latest year for which data is available.
this is what the people’s government of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA belief about NAJIB’S GOVERNANCE
Arbitrary Arrest or Detention
The constitution stipulates that no person may be incarcerated unless in accordance with the law. However, the law allows investigative detention to prevent a criminal suspect from fleeing or destroying evidence while police conduct an investigation. Four laws also permit preventive detention to incarcerate an individual suspected of criminal activity or to prevent a person from committing a future crime. Such laws severely restrict, and in some cases eliminate, access to timely legal representation and a fair public trial.
Role of the Police and Security Apparatussjsandteam.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/m…
The Royal Malaysia Police is under the command of the inspector general of police, who reports to the home minister. The inspector general is responsible for organizing and administering the police force. The government has some mechanisms to investigate and punish abuse and corruption. There were reports that security forces acted with impunity during the year.mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/22922/…
Several NGOs conducted local surveys on government corruption and identified the police as among the country’s most corrupt government organizations. Additional data indicated 73 percent of those surveyed perceived the government’s anticorruption efforts as “ineffective or very ineffective.” Reported police offenses included accepting bribes, theft, and rape. Punishments included suspension, dismissal, and demotion. Police officers are subject to trial by the civil courts. Police representatives reported that there were disciplinary actions against police officers during the year.
The government continued to focus police reform efforts on improving salaries, quarters, and general living conditions of police officers. However, the status of other reforms, including the formation of an independent police complaints and misconduct commission, remained pending at year’s end. NGOs complained that the government’s reform efforts lacked transparency.
The police training center continued to include human rights awareness training in its courses. SUHAKAM conducted human rights training for police once during the year.
Security forces failed to prevent or respond to some incidents of societal violence. During the year, the police accompanied demonstrators and allowed them to forcibly disrupt a Bar Council forum on religious conversions.
The Home Ministry relied primarily upon RELA to conduct raids and detain suspected illegal migrants. In November the home minister announced that RELA members would undergo police and military training to expand their capabilities and become a “respected organization.”
Reported abuses by RELA members included rape, beatings, extortion, theft, pilfering homes, destroying UNHCR and other status documents, and pillaging refugee settlements. In January RELA members allegedly looted a makeshift Burmese refugee camp, taking anything of value, including money, cell phones, blankets, and crafts made and sold by the refugees to earn money; burned the camp down; and detained 23 persons and took them to IDCs.
In May RELA detained a foreign diplomat even though he presented his diplomatic identity card. RELA officials held him for two hours until the diplomat’s embassy intervened and validated his credentials.
On September 12, the High Court ordered RELA member Mohamed Tahir Osman to pay a women detained during a 2003 raid RM100,000 (approximately $29,400) as damages for taking a photograph of her when she was forced to relieve herself in the truck used to transport the detainees.
The government did not release information on how it investigated complaints against RELA members or how it administered disciplinary action.
Arrest and Detention
The law permits police to arrest individuals for some offenses without a warrant and hold suspects for 24 hours without charge. A magistrate may extend this initial detention period for up to two weeks. Although police generally observed these provisions, a 2005 police commission report noted that police sometimes released suspects and then quickly rearrested them and held them in investigative custody. The law allows an arrested individual the right to be informed of the grounds of his arrest by the police officer making the arrest. Police must inform detainees that they are allowed to contact family members and consult a lawyer of their choice.
Police often denied detainees access to legal counsel and questioned suspects without giving them access to counsel. Police justified this practice as necessary to prevent interference in ongoing investigations, and judicial decisions generally upheld the practice. The commission stated that an “arrest first, investigate later” mentality pervaded some elements of the police force and recommended that detention procedures be reviewed to prevent abuse. On some occasions law enforcement agencies did not promptly allow access to family members.
The law allows the detention of a person whose testimony as a material witness is necessary in a criminal case if that person is likely to flee. Bail is usually available for those accused of crimes not punishable by life imprisonment or death. The amount and availability of bail is determined at the judge’s discretion. When bail is granted, accused persons usually must surrender their passports to the court.
Crowded and understaffed courts often resulted in lengthy pretrial detention, sometimes lasting several years. In May the de facto law minister reported there were 903,000 pending civil cases in the lower courts and more than 91,000 cases in the high court. Other sources estimated there were approximately 10,000 criminal cases backlogged in lower courts and 900 in high court.
On September 6, immigration officials released Rajeswari, a Malaysian citizen, from the Lenggeng IDC after 11 months detention. Immigration authorities arrested the six-month pregnant woman on suspicion that she was an undocumented Sri Lankan migrant when she was unable to present her identity card (MyKad), unable to remember her MyKad number, and spoke only basic Malay. Authorities allegedly refused to confirm her citizenship status even though she provided her address and the name of the elementary school she attended. The law requires citizens to carry their MyKad at all times.
Four preventive detention laws permit the government to detain suspects without normal judicial review or filing formal charges: the ISA, the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance, the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act, and the Restricted Residence Act.
The ISA empowers police to arrest without a warrant and hold for up to 60 days any person who acts “in a manner prejudicial to the national security or economic life of Malaysia.” During the initial 60 day detention period in special detention centers, the ISA allows for the denial of legal representation and does not require that the case be brought before a court. The home minister may authorize further detention for up to two years, with an unlimited number of two-year periods to follow. In practice the government infrequently authorized ISA detention beyond two two-year terms. However, in one case, the government has detained the longest-held ISA detainee for approximately seven years. Some of those released before the end of their detention period are subject to “imposed restricted conditions.” These conditions limit freedom of speech, association, and travel inside and outside the country.
Even when there are no formal charges, the ISA requires that authorities inform detainees of the accusations against them and permit them to appeal to a nonjudicial advisory board for review every six months. However, advisory board decisions and recommendations are not binding on the home minister, not made public, and often not shown to the detainee.
The Bar Council called for the repeal of the ISA, which does not allow judicial review of ISA decisions in any court, except for issues of compliance with procedural requirements.ANWAR STARTED STREET DEMO CULTURE,you ke
On July 16, authorities arrested political opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim for alleged consensual sodomy with a former aide and held Anwar overnight for questioning. The Bar Council and other civil society groups objected to the police use of intimidating tactics to arrest Anwar one hour before Anwar was due at the police station for voluntarily arranged questioning. On July 28, the police reportedly questioned and briefly detained a medical doctor who found no evidence of sodomy when examining the complainant, which the Bar Council described as “very troubling.” On August 7, prosecutors charged Anwar in court under the penal code for “consensual carnal intercourse against the order of nature,” which carries a potential sentence of 20 years in jail. The court released Anwar on bail, and the case remained ongoing at year’s end.
Despite official affirmations that Anwar’s arrest and prosecution were not politically based, senior government officials made repeated public comments prejudicial to the case. Government officials also highlighted the charges during a late-August by-election, which resulted in Anwar’s election to parliament. Civil society groups, including human rights organizations, and international Muslim figures raised concerns over the political motivation of the government’s prosecution of Anwar; they drew parallels between Anwar’s arrest during the year with Anwar’s arrest in 1998 and subsequent conviction for sodomy, which was overturned on appeal in 2004.
On September 12, police detained Raja Petra Kamaruddin, a blogger and critic of the ruling government, under the ISA. On September 23, the home minister ordered Raja Petra to be detained for two years, claiming that his writings posed a threat to national security by creating racial tension and insulting Islam. On November 7, the High Court ruled Raja Petra’s detention was unconstitutional and the judge ordered his release from ISA detention. The judge ruled that the home minister’s decisions regarding ISA detention could not be “unfettered and arbitrary,” which allowed the court to consider whether the minister’s ISA detention order was in “accordance with the act.” The judge ruled that Raja Petra’s detention was invalid because none of his alleged infractions fell under the scope of the ISA. The government appealed the ruling, and the appeal remained pending at year’s end.
On October 17, police detained for 19 hours human rights activist Cheng Lee Whee, from the local NGO SUARAM. Police claimed she was “spreading information that could cause fear among the people” against the police. Cheng alleged that police abused their power when they used water cannons and the Federal Reserve Unit (special riot police) to forcibly evict residents of the Kampung Baru Plentong Tengah squatter settlement. She was questioned and released on bail the following day after police failed to obtain a three-day remand order against her from the magistrate’s court because of “insufficient evidence.”
The government’s appeal of the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s 2007 decision to award former ISA detainee Abdul Malek Hussin RM2.5 million (approximately $735,000) for his arrest and torture in 1998 remained pending at year’s end.
In December the home minister stated that there were approximately 46 persons in detention under the ISA. According to a local NGO, the 46 detainees included 29 suspected of involvement with terrorist groups, five ethnic Indian civil rights activists, and 12 held for falsification of documents or other offenses. According to SUARAM, authorities had not formally charged any of these detainees with a criminal offense.
Under the Emergency Ordinance, the home minister may issue a detention order for up to two years against a person if he deems it necessary for the protection of public order, “the suppression of violence, or the prevention of crimes involving violence.” A local NGO reported that more than 1,000 individuals were detained under the Emergency Ordinance and other preventive measures. The authorities used the Emergency Ordinance on suspected organized crime figures.
Provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act give the government specific power to detain suspected drug traffickers without trial for up to 39 days before the home minister must issue a detention order. Once the Home Ministry issues the detention order, the detainee is entitled to a hearing before a court, which has the authority to order the detainee’s release. Authorities may hold suspects without charge for successive two-year intervals with periodic review by an advisory board, whose opinion is binding on the minister. However, the review process contains none of the procedural rights that a defendant would have in a court proceeding. Police frequently detained suspected narcotics traffickers under this act after courts acquitted them of formal charges. According to the National Anti-Drug Agency, the government detained 805 persons under the preventive detention provisions of the act during the first eight months of the year, compared with 798 persons during all of 2007.
The Restricted Residence Act allows the home minister to place individuals under restricted residence away from their homes. These persons may not leave the residential district assigned to them, and they must present themselves to police on a daily basis. As under the ISA, authorities may renew the term of restricted residence every two years. The minister is authorized to issue the restricted residence orders without any judicial or administrative hearings. The government continued to justify the act as a necessary tool to remove suspects from the area where undesirable activities were being conducted.
e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
Three constitutional articles provide the basis for an independent judiciary; however, other constitutional provisions, legislation restricting judicial review, and additional factors limited judicial independence and strengthened executive influence over the judiciary.
The constitution does not directly vest judicial powers in the courts but rather provides that Parliament confers judicial powers. The constitution also confers certain judicial powers on the attorney general, including the authority to instruct the courts on which cases to hear, the power to choose venues, and the right to discontinue cases. The attorney general controlled and directed all criminal prosecutions and assumed responsibility for judicial assignments and transfers. Session and magistrate court judges report to the Attorney General’s Office. The prime minister’s recommendation determined senior judge appointments, subject to concurrence by the Council of Rulers, the traditional Malay rulers of nine states.
Members of the bar, NGO representatives, and other observers expressed serious concern about significant limitations on judicial independence, citing a number of high-profile instances of arbitrary verdicts, selective prosecution, and preferential treatment of some litigants and lawyers.
On May 9, the royal commission, which had been formed to investigate the 2002 videotape of a purported conversation in which a senior lawyer and senior judge discussed arrangements for assigning cases to “friendly” judges, released its findings and determined that former Prime Minister Mahathir, UMNO Secretary General Tengku Adnan, and former Chief Justice Eusoff Chin among others were involved in manipulating judicial appointments and improperly influenced the promotion of judges. On May 22, the attorney general announced his office would investigate the allegations, but there was no progress in the investigations at year’s end.
Sessions courts hear minor civil suits and criminal cases. High courts have original jurisdiction over all criminal cases involving serious crimes. Juvenile courts try offenders below age 18. A special court tries cases involving the king and the sultans. The Court of Appeal has appellate jurisdiction over high court and sessions court decisions. The Federal Court, the country’s highest court, reviews Court of Appeal decisions.
Indigenous groups in the states of Sarawak and Sabah have a system of customary law to resolve matters such as land disputes between tribes. Although rarely used, penghulu (village head) courts may adjudicate minor civil matters.
Shari’a laws, administered by state authorities through Islamic courts, bind all Muslims, most of whom are ethnic Malays. The laws and the degree of their enforcement varied from state to state.
The armed forces have a separate system of courts.
Trial Procedures
English common law is the basis for the secular legal system. The constitution states that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law. Trials are public, although judges may order restrictions on press coverage. Juries are not used. Defendants have the right to counsel at public expense if requested by an accused individual facing serious criminal charges. Strict rules of evidence apply in court. Defendants may make statements for the record to an investigative agency prior to trial. Limited pretrial discovery in criminal cases impeded defendants’ ability to defend themselves. Defendants confronted witnesses against them and presented witnesses and evidence on their behalf, although judges sometimes disallowed witness testimony. Government-held evidence was not consistently made available. Attorneys are required to apply for a court order to obtain documents covered under the Official Secrets Act. Defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty and may appeal court decisions to higher courts. The law limits a defendant’s right to appeal in some circumstances. The government stated that the limits expedite the hearing of cases in the upper courts, but the Bar Council declared that they impose excessive restrictions on appeals.
In firearm and certain national security cases, a lower standard for accepting self-incriminating statements by defendants as evidence is in effect. Regulations also allow the authorities to hold an accused for an unspecified time before making formal charges.
In criminal cases police sometimes used tactics that impaired a defendant’s due process rights. For example, police used raids and document seizures to harass defendants.
Shari’a courts do not give equal weight to the testimony of women. Many NGOs complained that women did not receive fair treatment from Shari’a courts, especially in matters of divorce and child custody.
Political Prisoners and Detainees
The government continued to hold five political prisoners at year’s end, claiming that the men were security threats to the country. The prisoners’ families and lawyers had regular access to them. The government detained an opposition member of Parliament (MP) for one week.
P. Uthayakumar, M. Manoharan, R. Kenghadharan, Ganabatirau, and T. Vasantha Kumar, leaders of the Hindu Rights Action Front (HINDRAF), remained in ISA detention at year’s end for organizing protests in 2007 against the alleged marginalization of ethnic Indians. Although Manoharan remained in detention, in March he was elected to the Selangor State assembly.
On September 12, police detained MP Teresa Kok, a senior Selangor State cabinet minister, and senior member of the opposition Democratic Action Party, under the ISA for “causing tension and conflict among races.” Police officials claimed Kok created religious tension by organizing a petition to lower the loudspeaker volume for the Muslim call of prayers (azan); made a statement that 30 percent of the Selangor Islamic Department’s allocation for religious funding be given to non-Islamic religious groups; and opposed the use of Jawi, the Malay language written in Arabic script, on street signs. Prior to her arrest, the UMNO-owned Malay language newspaper, Utusan, pursued a two-week campaign highlighting these allegations against her. She was the first female MP and the most senior politician since 1998 to be detained under the ISA. Upon her release Deputy Inspector General of Police Ismail Omar stated the “police’s investigations offered no reason to continue her detention.” Subsequently, in October Utusan published a fictional article condoning the assassination of a female Chinese politician who supported anti-Malay policies. Teresa Kok filed a lawsuit against the newspaper in December, claiming the article was a veiled smear campaign against her that endangered her life.
Civil Judicial Procedures and Remedies
The structure of the civil judiciary mirrors that of the criminal courts. A large case backlog often resulted in delayed provision of court ordered relief for civil plaintiffs. The government and government officials can be sued in court for alleged violations of human rights.
f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
Various laws prohibit arbitrary interference with privacy rights; however, authorities infringed on citizens’ privacy rights in some cases. Provisions in the security legislation allow police to enter and search without a warrant the homes of persons suspected of threatening national security. Police also may confiscate evidence under these provisions. Police used this legal authority to search homes and offices; seize computers, books, and papers; monitor conversations; and take persons into custody without a warrant. The government monitored e mails sent to Internet blog sites and threatened to detain anyone sending content over the Internet that the government deemed threatening to public order or security.
The Federal Islamic Development Department’s (JAKIM) guidelines authorize JAKIM officials to enter private premises without a warrant if they deem swift action necessary to conduct raids on premises where it suspects Muslims are engaged in offenses such as gambling, consumption of alcohol, and sexual relations outside marriage.
In corruption investigations, after a senior police official involved in the investigation submits a written application, the law empowers a deputy public prosecutor to authorize interception of any messages sent or received by a suspect. Information obtained in this way is admissible as evidence in a corruption trial. Security forces have broad authority to install surreptitiously surveillance devices on private property. In addition public prosecutors may authorize police to intercept postal and telecommunications messages if a prosecutor judges these likely to contain information regarding a terrorist offense. Intercepted communications from such efforts are admissible in court.
The law permits the Home Ministry to place criminal suspects under restricted residence in remote districts away from their homes for two years.
The government bans membership in unregistered political parties and organizations.
Certain religious issues posed significant obstacles to marriage between Muslims and adherents of other religions.
Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:
a. Freedom of Speech and Press
The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, in practice the government restricted freedom of expression and intimidated journalists into practicing self censorship. According to the government, it imposed restrictions on the media to protect national security, public order, and friendly relations with other countries.
The law provides that legislation “in the interest of security (or) public order” may restrict freedom of speech. For example, the Sedition Act prohibits public comment on issues defined as sensitive, such as racial and religious matters. The government used the ISA, the Sedition Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Printing Presses and Publications Act, criminal defamation laws, and other laws to restrict or intimidate political speech. Nevertheless, individuals frequently criticized the government publicly or privately. However, on some occasions the government retaliated against those who criticized it.
In addition the election law makes it an offense for a candidate to “promote feelings of ill will, discontent, or hostility.” Violators could be disqualified from running for office.
The government directly and indirectly censored the media by using the Printing Presses and Publications Act, which requires domestic and foreign publications to apply annually to the government for a permit, making publication of “malicious news” a punishable offense, and empowering the home minister to ban or restrict publications believed to threaten public order, morality, or national security. It also prohibits court challenges to suspension or revocation of publication permits. According to the government, these provisions ensured that the media did not disseminate “distorted news” and were necessary to preserve harmony and promote peaceful coexistence in a multiracial country. During the year the ministry continued to review, censor, and confiscate many foreign publications. In February SUARAM listed 57 books banned by the government. Among the banned books was a Tamil-language book, March 8, which discussed the 2001 Kampung Medan racial clashes between Malays and Indians. In August the Home Ministry banned Muslim Women and the Challenge of Extremism, a book published by a local NGO, for “containing twisted facts on Islam that could undermine the faith of Muslims.”
Parties in the ruling coalition owned or controlled a majority of shares in two of the three major English and all Malay daily newspapers. Businesspersons well connected to the government and ruling parties owned the third major English-language newspaper and all four major Chinese-language newspapers.
Journalists were subject to arrest, harassment, and intimidation due to their reporting. For example, Tan Hoon Cheng, a journalist for the Chinese-language paper Sin Chew, reported on a speech by Ahmad Ismail, a local UMNO party leader, in which he described Malaysian-Chinese as “squatters” and “immigrants.” On September 12, police detained Tan under the ISA because “her life was threatened,” according to the home minister. The public reaction, including the Malaysian Chinese Association’s threat to leave the ruling National Front coalition, forced the government to release her within 18 hours of her detention.
Criminal defamation is punishable by a maximum of two years in jail, a fine, or both. This, along with the government power over annual license renewal and other policies, inhibited independent or investigative journalism and resulted in extensive self-censorship. Nonetheless, the English-, Malay-, and Chinese-language press sometimes provided alternative views on sensitive issues. Following the March general election, the mainstream press increased its coverage of the opposition’s views and the number of articles critical of government policy. The media also asked government officials more difficult questions regarding policy issues than prior to the general election.
On November 24, the High Court acquitted Irene Fernandez, human rights activist, of her 2003 conviction for “publishing false news” in a memorandum to journalists and the government on the abuse, detention, and treatment of migrant workers in IDCs in 1995.
The government continued to censor the media by controlling news content, requiring the annual renewal of publishing permits, and limiting circulation to an organization’s members only. Printers often were reluctant to print publications that were critical of the government for fear of reprisal. However, publications of opposition parties, social action groups, unions, and other private groups actively covered opposition parties and frequently printed views critical of government policies.
Radio and television stations were as restricted as the print media and were predominantly supportive of the government. News of the opposition was tightly restricted and reported in a biased fashion. Opposition party leaders alleged that during the national election the mainstream media provided minimal coverage for their candidates, intensely negative reporting about their party’s senior figures, and extensive reporting on the ruling party candidates.
Internet television faced no such restrictions, and the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) continued daily Internet television broadcasts.
Television stations censored programming in line with government guidelines. The government banned some foreign newspapers and magazines and occasionally censored foreign magazines or newspapers, most often for sexual content. The government maintained a “blacklist” of local and foreign performers, politicians, and religious leaders who were not allowed to appear on television or broadcast on radios.
The government generally restricted remarks or publications, including books, it judged might incite racial or religious disharmony.
Internet Freedom
Although there were no government restrictions on access to the Internet, during the year the government blocked access to some Web sites and arrested several prominent bloggers for comments that were critical of the government. Internet access was widely available, except in East Malaysia, where the Internet was often not available beyond urban centers. Internet subscriptions totaled approximately 14.9 million at the end of June 2007. Criminal defamation and preventive detention laws generated some self-censorship from local Internet content sources such as bloggers, Internet news providers, and NGO activists.
Raja Petra and Syed Azidi Syed Aziz were the first individuals to be charged under the Sedition Act 1948 for Internet postings.
On May 6, police arrested Raja Petra for sedition. On July 17, authorities charged Raja Petra with three counts of criminal defamation over a statutory declaration, published on his Web site, which linked the deputy prime minister to Altantuya Shaaribu’s 2006 murder. The court released Raja Petra on RM10,000 (approximately $2,940) bail. Later, Raja Petra posted the examining doctor’s statutory declaration and medical report relating to the ongoing sodomy case against opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. On August 23, police raided Raja Petra’s house and confiscated his computer and other materials. From August 27 through September 11, the government blocked access to Raja Petra’s Web site, Malaysia Today.
On September 11, the energy, water, and communications minister announced the government would no longer block access to any Web sites or blogs in the country, including that of Malaysia Today. The minister stated there were other “harsher” laws in the country, including the ISA, to “control the irresponsible dissemination of information over the Internet and to bring those irresponsible Web sites and blogs to book.”
On September 19, blogger Syed Azidi Syed Aziz, also known as “Kickdafella,” was arrested under the Sedition Act for posting allegedly seditious statements on his website, including urging people to fly the national flag upside down as a sign of protest towards certain government policies. Police released him three days later.
The Communications and Multimedia Act requires certain Internet and other network service providers to obtain a license. Previously the government stated that it did not intend to impose controls on Internet use but that it would punish the “misuse” of information technology. The act permits punishment of the owner of a Web site or blog for allowing content of a racial, religious, or political nature that a court deems offensive.
On September 23, the police summoned Whee Meng Chee, a Malaysian university student attending school overseas, to the commercial crime headquarters for questioning for releasing a YouTube video making a parody of the national anthem. He was released on the same day, and police continued the investigation at year’s end.
No comments:
Post a Comment