TEARS IN HEAVEN!!!

Heaven cries until it has no tears ...

Seeing his creation becoming schizophrenic ...

The Christians will pray, not for power, nor political position, but for a place in Heaven.

Blesphemy, and blasphemous creatures will suffer as schizophrenic, for the rest of their years on earth.

Let's listen to the same old song ... tears in Heaven!!!

False police report lodged against Malaysiakini

A movement calling itself Gagasan Melayu Perak (GMP) has lodged a police report against Malaysiakini over a news report which the website had not published.

In the police report, GMP president Mohd Hilmi Ismail claimed that Malaysiakini had published an article insulting the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, and Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Dr Nazrin Shah.

The said article, headlined ‘Raja Nazrin defends monarchy against ridicule’, was allegedly published by Malaysiakini on Tuesday.

GMP hoped that the Ministry of Information, Communications and Culture would take action against the website for abusing information technology without considering the implication on national security.

But a check revealed that no such report was published by the online news daily.

Malaysiakini contacted GMP this morning to seek clarification over the police report and was told by Mohd Hilmi that he was not aware if Malaysiakini had carried such a report before going to the police.

“I didn’t know about the said article. I was informed by my staff and I lodged a report,” he said.

When asked if he realised that he could have tarnished Malaysiakini reputation with his police report, Mohd Hilmi asked: “Isn’t Malaysiakini the same as Malaysian Today or some other blogs?”

About an hour after contacting Mohd Hilmi, GMP's legal advisor Nor Ali Nordin called Malaysiakini to apologise for their error.

"My president (Mohd Hilmi) just spoke to me and we would like to apologise to Malaysiakini for our mistake," he said.

GMP also blamed Utusan Malaysia for confusing the issue and naming Malaysiakini in its report.

"We have informed Utusan Malaysia to make the necessary corrections," said the unsigned statement from the movement's legal advisor.

Source: Malaysiakini.com

********************************************************************************

Is Malaysiakini the same as Malaysian Today or Malaysia Today? GMP didn't know!

But Malaysia Today is already dead! RPK had pronounced the death of Malaysia Today long time ago. The son of Malaysia Today is mt.m2day.org. How could a president of an organization not know this? How could he not know the difference between Malaysiakini and Malaysia Today? Did he know mothers are women, and wife are women too? Did he not know 1Malaysia or Negara Ku? Didn't we have Tanjung Rambutan and Tampoi? Didn't they have proper security for the people? Didn't .... ah, never mind lah!

Tuah dan Sial? Cheh!

Political writer Yahaya Ismail told Malaysiakini today he merely 'negotiated' with Khairy regarding the copyright of his book 'Tuah dan Sial Khairy Jamaluddin'.

He stressed that the meeting with Pak Lah's son-in-law was "strictly business".

'I told him that he can have the copyright (for the book) if he pays me RM100,000 and Khairy said 'I will tell you tomorrow'.

"When his people sent me back, they asked, 'Can't there be more negotiations (on the price)?'.

"I told them that the price was already low. The next day, his people returned the copy of the book and said 'Khairy has no money, so he is not buying'."

Source: Malaysiakini.com

**************************************************

Extortion and asking for copyright fees are not the same. In this case he is only asking for money to sell the rights to the debasing book.

What if he was writing about all the good things and singing praises of the son-in-law? RM100,000? That would have been cheap!

But he writes otherwise; and the RM100,000 is concocted as extortion.

Each day we learn new English and new definitions.

Who says Malaysians are weak in English?

What is important was to establish the mens rea - the intention of the person writing the book - whether there was undue influence or intimidation in the offer of sales of a copyright.

Extortion is defined as an act to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power.

***

Karpal Singh demands apology from Utusan

25th August, 2008

The Editor,Utusan Malaysia,
46M, Jalan Lima,
Off Jalan Chan Sow Lin,
55200 Kuala Lumpur.

Re: Notice of demand in relation to the libellous statements made against Y.B. Karpal Singh, Member of Parliament for Bukit Gelugor, and Chairman of the Democratic Action Party, in the article under the heading “ DAP diingati jangan bakar perasaan Melayu” in the edition of Utusan Malaysia dated 25.08.2008, at page 2.

________________________________________________________________

We refer to the above whereby we act for Y.B. Karpal Singh, MP for Bukit Gelugor and Chairman of the Democratic Action Party, a component party of the Pakatan Rakyat, who has handed us a copy of your newspaper dated 25.08.2008 which carries the following libellous words in the article under the heading “DAP diingati jangan bakar perasaan Melayu”:-

“Pengerusi DAP Karpal Singh ketika berucap pada perasmian Kongres Kebangsaan DAP ke 15 semalam menolak Islam sebagai agama rasmi Negara…”

(hereinafter referred to as the said words complained of)

We are instructed to state that the said words complained of are false and have no truth or basis whatsoever and are highly malicious in nature. Our client has not at any time whatsoever uttered the said words complained of.

As a result of the said words complained of being published, especially on the eve of the polling day of the Permatang Pauh by-election, our client has been made to suffer serious public odium, contempt and ridicule, and has as a consequence suffered serious loss and damages.

In view of the highly defamatory nature of the said words complained of, we write to you to unconditionally retract the said word complained of and apologise to our client in your edition of the Utusan Malaysia tomorrow, (26.08.2008).

Kindly note that the said retraction and apology must be published in a prominent part of the front page of your edition of the Utusan Malaysia tomorrow, (26.08.2008), failing which we have firm instructions to commence legal proceedings against your newspaper for, inter alia, damages and an apology without any further reference to you.

Kindly note our demand to you to retract and apologise is without prejudice to our rights to commence legal proceedings against you in respect of the above.

It would be in your interests to retract and apologise immediately so as to mitigate the damages which will be ultimately ordered against you.

Yours faithfully,


KARPAL SINGH & CO.

Source: karpalsingh.net
*****

It is sad for all Malaysians that we have a newspaper who would sell their souls and betray their own conscience in order to destroy the national aspiration, the aspiration that our Prime Minister Abdullah propagated in the Merdeka message:

[quote]

"A united people is the country's strongest line of defence in facing any situation both internally and externally."

"No one citizen is recognised as being of a higher position than another in this nation. This nation belongs to all of us. Whether we rise or fall depends on all of us," he said.

[unquote]

A united people? That's not what Utusan Malaysia is propagating as evidenced above?That's false accusations which could incite hatred. I had been observing Utusan news for years and we know what is the political motivations of those writers within. It's sad that our Prime Minister had kept a blind eye on such bigotry. It is sad that MCMC and Information Minister had also kept a blind eye and ears to such bigotry. Yet, we heard of so many others who were charged for sedition and ISA-ed for similar propagations.

National unity? Dear PM, talking about it isn't sufficient; actions and behaviors must be exemplary.

Anwar bisexual?

It's news! A new accusation from Umno. They accused him of sodomy. Now they are accusing him of womanising. That's bisexual characteristics.

Big News!

Deputy Housing and Local Government Minister Hamzah Zainuddin accused Anwar of making a move on his wife.

I wonder if Hamzah would also go to the Federal territory Imam to swear.

Hamzah had been quoted in the Kwong Wah Jit Poh newspaper as saying that Anwar had in 1998 tried to take advantage of his wife even though they were best of friends then.

He told the newspaper that Anwar had "kacau" his wife.

In view of this, the deputy minister told the daily that the people of Permatang Pauh should not vote for the opposition leader.

According to Anwar's lawyer, Hamzah's words have "(1) directly and/or indirectly and/or by innuendo, given an impression and the perception that Anwar is engaged in illicit sexual activities and/or habitually engages in similar activities, (2) is a man of low morals; (3) is a man of no Islamic values and (4) is of bad character."

Anwar has demanded an apology from Hamzah or face a RM10 million lawsuit.

Hamzah, who is former state agency Felcra chief, was embroiled in a sensational divorce settlement in 2004 where he was ordered by the Perak Syariah Court to pay his ex-wife, Nooraini Abdul Rashid, a whopping RM11.2 million in cash and assets.

The judge also ordered Hamzah to transfer one-third of his 63 million shares to Nooraini or pay her RM10 million.

Nooraini brought the suit after Hamzah divorced her in 1996. Hamzah has since re-married and it was his new wife who was allegedly harrassed by Anwar.

Source: Malaysiakini

Hahahaha... Anwar is not a backside king. Umno members are now accusing him of womanizing. Womanizing is possible because he has so many children.

Would we also hear from other MPs and Umno leaders that their wives have slept with Anwar too?

Before 1998 Anwar is a powerful man. Umno leaders and members were working hard to rub his shoulders and balls, and probably the dick too. Now we have come to know that they were even prepared to loan their wives in exchange for favors from Anwar. But I think their wives are not so stupid to betray their own conscience. But we don't know!

A-G drop charges on 31 Hindrafs

31 demonstrators acquitted and discharged of attempted murder

The Sessions Court here today acquitted and discharged 31 people charged with attempting to murder a police officer during an illegal assembly organised by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) in front of the Sri Subramaniam temple in Batu Caves, near here, on Nov 25.


Judge Nursinah Adzmi made the decision after allowing the application by Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail to withdraw the charges against them.

Prior to this, all the 31 claimed trial to a number of charges, including attempted murder under Section 149/307 of the Penal Code.

However, out of the 31, only six including five college students were acquitted and discharged of all charges while the rest are still facing other charges.

The six are L. Thiyagarajan, 31, K. Thinagaranpillay, 23, A. Vasantarao, 19, S. Ramesh Kumar, 22, S. Mugilan Dever, 20, and G. Suman, 20.

Of the remaining 25, 16 changed their plea to guilty to the charge of causing damage to seven cars and two gates of the temple under Section 149/440 of the Penal Code.

Eight of the 25 also changed their plea to being in an illegal assembly under Section 27 (5) (a) of the Police Act 1967 while another accused, to an alternative charge of displaying criminal force to put fear into the police officers during the illegal assembly.

Nursinah also allowed them to be freed on bail of RM500 each in one surety.

It was clear under Criminal Law theory that the charge of attempted murder could not be sustained and all of them would be free. However, if the full trial is to take place, it may take several years with several postponements, as was the usual cases, and that by itself will cause tremendous hardship and stresses on the families and the victims.

The A-G knows, and this is the strategy... by arrest and charge them for attempted murder, it is an unbailable offence, and they would have to be sent to Sg Buloh jail till the dispensation of the case at the court, who is facing serious backlogs on criminal and civil cases.

This is what Mohd Kamal Abdullah said in his Blog Kamal-Talks:

[Quote]

"The fabricated charge of causing hurt to the police officer seems really absurd. The government and attorney-general has stooped so low in prosecuting these innocent people just to prove that they are strong, powerful and can do anything. From this episode, it is clear that there is no justice for the poor, ordinary rakyat. The rich and powerful can create any situation to cause harm to these poor souls." [unquote]

Thank God! Now they can go home and be their families and also take care of their families.

In a separate case, Six murder accused were freed by the High Court without their defence being called.

Justice Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim threw out the case against the six because he found that the prosecution had not done enough to locate two crucial witnesses to justify the use of their police statements in their absence from the trial.

The judge said the prosecution had therefore, failed to prove a prima facie case against Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, Muruges Arumugam, Tiagurajan Sinnasamy, Arul Krishnasamy, Siva Munusamy, and Munisvaran Ramachandran.

"Without their statements, there is no proof that the First to Sixth Accused are involved in this case,'' the judge ruled.

The six were alleged to have killed Regka Singh, 45, at a vacant house in Kampung Semangat, on Feb 21, 2003, between 11am and 6pm.

The judge also said the prosecution could not prove that the injury sustained by the victim had led to the victim’s death.

This case is 2003, and now it's 2007. So, it takes 4-years to dispensed off a case. So, whether those arrested are guilty or not, they had to be staying at Sg Buloh for 4-years before they know their fate.

This is a murder case; someone had died. The 31 Indians were facing a charge for attempted murder where no one died or had schemed to kill someone. It was supposed to be an assembly of people to peacefully sent a petition to the British Embassy. The police came to Batu Cave and the various acts by the police led to the outcome. What a case!!!

Jeff Ooi implicated for defamation & Sedition

I was in the plane and having the NST, I found this article...it's damn bewildering; I just can't believe it. Here's what it says:

3 police reports were lodged against blogger Jeff Ooi for alleging defaming the country, government and police force. The reports were lodged by the Malaysian Islamic Consumer Association, Malaysian Indian Muslim Congress and Pertubuhan Seni Silat Ikatan Kalam Malaysia against a statement issued by Ooi to Al Jazeera reporter.

The complainant want Jeff Ooi to be investigated alleging that the interview given to Al Jazeera not only tarnished the image of the country but also seditious and caused racial tension. Jeff was alleged to have given inaccurate information to Al Jazeera in stating that the police used unnecessary force in dispersing the demonstrators.

First and foremost, "Defamation" comes under the Law of Tort, a civil action between the wrongdoer and the victim, and the aim is to compensate the victim for the harm done. Defamation is a civil action, not a criminal action, and thus no police report is needed. You just get a lawyer and file a suit against the party who commits libel or slander. Since it was alleged that Jeff Ooi spoke, then it's slander. The "victim" must prove that the defendant had committed the relevant act or omission, and that "Damage" had been caused as a result, and in this case, it is also necessary to prove the state of mind have the necessary "Intention", "Negligence" or "Malice."

Definition of Defamation:
Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person.

With the above definition, I am puzzled as to why the 3-groups are alleging defamation. Furthermore, the 3-group is suing on behalf of the government, police, and the country; that's frivolous! In defamation, local authorities and government cannot sue for libel or slander, unless in their personal capacity (see: Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspaper (1992)). The Court of Appeal states that, "to allow such actions to be brought by democratically elected bodies, or any government body, would be against public interest in free debate about the actions of elected authorities. Political parties are also unable to sue for libel because of the public interest in free speech concerning those who put themselves forward for public office.

So, the only probability to make that police report is to get the A-G to act against Jeff for sedition.

Section 4 of the Sedition Act specifies that anyone who "does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do" an act with seditious tendency, such as uttering seditious words, or printing, publishing or importing seditious literature, is guilty of sedition.

The act defines sedition itself as anything which "when applied or used in respect of any act, speech, words, publication or other thing qualifies the act, speech, words, publication or other thing as having a seditious tendency".

Under section 3(1), those acts defined as having a seditious tendency are acts with a tendency:

“ (a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;

(b) to excite the subjects of the Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;

(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;

(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or

(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of part III of the Federal constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.
”
Exceptions:

Section 3(2) provides certain exceptions, providing examples of speech which cannot be deemed seditious. It is not seditious to "show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures", nor is it seditious "to point out errors or defects in the Government or Constitution as by law established". It is also not seditious "to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the territory of such Government as by law established" or "to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of the Federation". However, the act explicitly states that any matter covered by subsection (1)(f), namely those matters pertaining to the Malaysian social contract, cannot have these exceptions applied to it.

How is it possible that the statement made to Al Jazeera can be seditious if the same words were also expressed by so many, including the reporters at the scene of the demonstration? The funny thing is that, why did it take the 3-group, namely, Malaysian Islamic Consumer Association, Malaysian Indian Muslim Congress and Pertubuhan Seni Silat Ikatan Kalam Malaysia to lodge this police report? In fact, the police and the A-G, without these 3, can take up an action if they are convinced that what was said was in fact seditious. Did this 3 had something in mind?

Finally, Anwar decide to sues Khairy

Oh shit! Khairy needs a million dollar to engage a lawyer.

He is being sued by Anwar Ibrahim.

“Khairy mempunyai niat jahat semasa membuat kenyataan-kenyataan tersebut yang sebenarnya adalah fitnah tanpa mempunyai sebarang asas dan kebenaran,” tambah Anwar.

(source: Suara Keadilan Online )

Sebelum ini, Anwar melalui surat peguamnya bertarikh 15 Ogos lepas menuntut agar Khairy, dalam masa tujuh hari memberi fakta dan asas mengenai kewajaran beliau menyatakan dan menyiarkan perkataan-perkataan tersebut tetapi sehingga kini gagal berbuat demikian.

Finally, not only bloggers are sued for defamation. Those who called bloggers by insulting names are sued too. Hi Malik Imtiaz and Haris, you are needed by Khairy. Cecil Abraham has migrated to Fiji. He is now the Lord Justice at the Fiji Court of Appeal.

Democracy & Justice

I love what he said.

The statement is fair and reasonable.

Democratic practices and fairness require that anyone defamed be given a chance to seek legal redress.

Those who had made "defamatory" statement can defend themselves by providing factual justification or substantiate that they are entitled for qualified privilege.

Statements that would lower someone in the estimation of right thinking member of society is defamatory. If it expose the claimant to hatred, ridicule or contempt, it could be held defamatory even though it did not impute disgraceful conduct or lack of professional skill. Most of all, the defamatory statement must refer to the claimant and that the ordinary sensible reader in the light of the special facts understood the words as referring to the claimant.

The court would apply the objective test, ie, What would right thinking member of society think (see: Byrne vs Dean)

To be defamatory, there are three criteria that must be fulfilled:

1. The statement complained about must be defamatory and refer to the claimant;
2. The statement must lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking member of society; and
3. The statement must be published.

Authorities as representatives of democratically elected government bodies and statutory corporations are open to uninhibited public criticism and will not be entitled to bring a claim for defamation unless the individual wants to sue in his own name. This principle is to uphold freedom of expression (see:Derbyshire County Council vs Times Newspapers Ltd)

The defenses available to the defendants are:

Justification - that is, true statement of fact and is accurate. The defendant need not prove that each charge is true, as long as the words do not materially injure the claimant's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charge (see: Alexander vs North Eastern Railway)

Fair Comment - statement made was a fair comment on a matter of public interest is a defence. It must be an opinion that was fair and honest. It must be made without malice. The test: "Is whether the opinion, however, exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced, was honestly held by the person expressing it (see:Reynolds vs Times Newspapers Ltd).

Qualified Privilege - this is a defense based on public interest. Qualified Privilege is defined as "where a person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty, legal, social or moral, to make it to the person to whom it was made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. This reciprocity is essential (see: Adam vs Ward)

Innocent Dissemination - this defense is available to those who have no control and had no reason to suspect there was libel. In Godfrey vs Demon Internet (1999), the court held that the defendants were not authors, editors or publishers but they did not take reasonable care with regard to its publication when they failed to remove it once they knew it was there.

Apology - is not a defense. It will reduce damages claimed. Apology must be offered before defamation action began or as soon as possible afterwards.

Volenti non fit injuria - express or implied consent to the publication.