Malaysia Today blocked – MSC Bill of Guarantees Violated


In my interjection during the debate on the DNA Bill in Parliament this morning, I had raised the blocking of popular website Malaysia Today on the directive of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) and the violation of the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) Bill of Guarantees as “a gift to the world” of no censorship of the Internet by the Malaysian authorities.

I quoted it as the latest example of the rampant abuses of power by the government which explains why there is so little public confidence in the independence, professionalism and impartiality of the various enforcement agencies with the vast powers as proposed in the proposed DNA bill.

Almost all key institutions of the state, whether the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Police, the Anti-Corruption Agency or the judiciary have come under a grave cloud and lost the high respect and public standing they were held by Malaysians in the early years of nationhood.

The MCMC directive to block Malaysia Today and the violation of the MSC Bill of Guarantees must be roundly and unanimously condemned by all right-thinking Malaysians, and the reasons cannot be more eloquently summarised by Jeffrey in another thread:

The government has a plethora of laws against Internet abuse and it has already brought sedition and criminal intimidation charges against website owner RPK so why the censorship?

Under point 7 of the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) Malaysia 10 Point Bill of Guarantees to the international community, the government promises to ensure no internet censorship.

Here government does the censorship ‘indirectly’ by invoking Section 263 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (1998) by pressuring license holders (such as ISPs) to take action against service user like Malaysia Today alleged to be contravening national laws. (Under of the Act, a licensee must “use his best endeavour” to prevent his/her facilities from being used to violate any law in the country”).

If they can block Malaysia Today they can block other blogs like this one too.

As mainstream media is controlled and used as a propaganda machine, the Internet is the last bastion of free speech and source of truths (as well as untruths) though it is up to readers to sift and separate wheat from chaff.

Please remind them on implications of breaching an international guarantee like MSC Bill of Guarantee and its effects on MSC, investments and gfenerally government’s credibility in the international arena.

  1. #1 by Loh on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 4:45 pm

    ///If they can block Malaysia Today they can block other blogs like this one too.///

    They have been reminded. It is now a matter of time.

  2. #2 by ahpiow on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 4:48 pm

    MalaysiaDtoday has been reborn. Those haven’t found RPK Jr, please go here
    http://mt.harapanmalaysia.com/2008/
    Syabas on DSAI’s official swearing in as head of opposition!

  3. #3 by haris01 on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 4:54 pm

    i dont know why they dont want to fight like a brave….
    everything and anything also YES or NO…….

  4. #4 by tan chi nam on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 4:56 pm

    haris…
    this is the art of loser….

  5. #5 by Captain on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 4:56 pm

    BN is a poor loser.

    The more BN tries to stiffle opposing views, let alone blogs that continue to dig truths and expose the rots in the BN leadership or Admin, the more the BN ship will sink.

    What we want to know is after Anwar wins Ptg Pauh, whose political carreer is going to be terkubur? Badawi? Khairy? Hisham? Hamid Albar?

    MCMC act against Malaysiatoday is an act of Cowardice.

  6. #6 by Toyol on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 5:02 pm

    Cyberspace is too big for their small brains.

    If what is published in MT is slanderous,incite hate and seditious, what about the waving of the kris and threatening the Chinese called?BN is scared shitless because they are guilty of all that is said in the blogs. Why not block porn websites, gambling websites and phishing websites because these cause more social problems. Don’t they know that websites cannot be blocked. How stupid? Their stupidity increases every day.

  7. #7 by k1980 on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 5:06 pm

    To paraphrase Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address:

    Two score and eleven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this land, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. But somehow, somewhere along the way, the men who are created equal became unequally treated, because someone thought that the men who are created equal need to be treated differently according to their skin colour.

  8. #8 by limkamput on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 5:12 pm

    We have Bill of Guarantees, but we also have the Communications and Multimedia Act (1998). Surely we cannot uphold one and overlook the other. Both probably exist for good reasons.

    We argued that other laws are available to prevent internet abuse. But the reality is people get influenced and people get hurt when half truth and lies are allowed to spread. Blog owners must exercise reasonableness and responsibility if internet is to remain a viable option for information dissemination and free speech.

  9. #9 by son of perpaduan on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 5:17 pm

    I’ve no objection if malaysia embrace to communism.

  10. #10 by Emily Pratt on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 5:21 pm

    Sorrylar…I am not so pandai wrt Computer-computer stuff, please allow me to ask:

    So if MT is blocked, and MT moves to a new url, won’t it be blocked again and again ad infinitum by the Authority?

    EP

  11. #11 by yhsiew on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 5:33 pm

    So one more added to the list: OSA, PPPA, ISA, MCMCA…..

    PR can capitalize on this issue during the next GE to get a bigger win.

  12. #12 by taiking on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 5:36 pm

    Only stupid fools will pick to greater of evils.

    Control MSM and block alternative media.

    What’s left?

    Yes. Rumours.

    That they certainly cannot shut down. Nor prevent.

    And rumours are worse and because they are rumours they spread pretty fast and are almost always accepted as true or at least as bearing some truth.

    Instead of fighting a enemy that at least has a recognisable form, UMNO decided to pick one without any form.

    Maybe Strawberry is really good at shadow thai kick boxing.

  13. #13 by riversandlakes on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 5:53 pm

    Yes, Uncle Lim, it is a blatant violation of the Bill of Guarantees. Please raise as much noise on this as possible. Foreign investors will bring the pressure that is required against the Barang Naik government.

  14. #14 by eloofk on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 5:55 pm

    The Pen is Mightier than the Sword!

  15. #15 by yhsiew on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 6:10 pm

    The government should not blame bloggers websites for its drop in popularity. As long as it practices transparency, accountability and impartiality, bloggers will be dumbfounded and have nothing bad to criticize on the government.

    The current seemingly negative comments on the government found in bloggers cyberspace were due to the government’s lack of transparency, accountability and impartiality in its administration.

  16. #16 by grace on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 6:16 pm

    It really goes on to show that the governmentis lost for directions.
    They could not even reduce Anwar’s majority. This shows that they lacked leadership.
    Why must they block MT? MT is doing a very good jobin exposing the dirts of BN leaders which no mainstream media would dare do.
    If you are clean , no one can ever slandwer you.

  17. #17 by wanderer on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 6:18 pm

    We should invite Mr Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, to see how vibrant a democracy Malaysians are enjoying…perhaps, democracy UMNO’s style.
    DPM commented, “Democracy is alive.” Mr Najib, what sort of democracy were you refering?

  18. #18 by StevePCH on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 6:38 pm

    they can stop him from blogging, so they think they can unplug it. If you look at the web, it’s kinda open. Confusing yet arousing. I know of so many RPK’s fan. Mirror n mirror n mirror ….. MT won’t die even if RPK is caught.

    Blocking MT is just like what BeEnd is doing to MSM. I do not buy newepapers nowadays. I don’t watch RTM and TV3 at all. Yeah just go around and ask how RTM fared on live telecast of Beijing Olympic. Pathetic. I rather not watch.

    BeEnd can block control internet but again and again …. it will backfire. Just like kena SUMPAH laknat !!!

  19. #19 by Samuel Goh Kim Eng on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 6:55 pm

    If anything on earth deemed ‘sensitive’ is blocked
    Then all blockheads should be the first to be blocked
    Often when the door is wrongly closed
    There’ll be a window still left exposed

    (C) Samuel Goh Kim Eng – 280808
    http://MotivationInMotion.blogspot.com
    Thu. 28th Aug. 2008.

  20. #20 by boh-liao on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 7:19 pm

    At this age of Information and Communication Technology, the BN government still wants to stop the free flow of information to rakyat. This is really dumb. The only reason why it wants to do it is because truth is being circulated. And truth hurts, but truth will eventually be transmitted to all.

    What next?

  21. #21 by firefox on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 7:47 pm

    The BN & Police are stupid moron that i ever seen. It’s not work to block Malaysia Today. RPK can create another or even more Blogs using WordPress or Blogger. It’s not about the Domain, it’s about the Articles even RPK can forward email to all. It’s so simple. How many blog they want to Block? Stupid!

  22. #22 by butul on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 7:48 pm

    Son of Perpaduan

    Communism shoots the corrupted in government. We protect them.

  23. #23 by Loyal Malaysian on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 7:58 pm

    To give the UMNOputras credit, they had tried to keep to the spirit of the guarantee till now.
    But they know thay are losing their hold on power , in particular their spin on events had all been torn to shreds especially by MT.
    So, I believe this is the first in a series of drastic steps taken by the UMNOputras to try to cling to power.
    Let’s hope the light we see at the end of the tunnel will soon turn into glorious daylight and the UMNOputras will be booted out soon.
    Anyway, the son of MT is up and running and I wish it many happy returns for the day.

  24. #24 by Joshua Tan Kok Hauw on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 9:09 pm

    The stupid BN can block Malaysia Today but BN cannot block the hearts of Malaysians who want changes.

    BN is actually blocking itself from the feelings and opinions of Malaysian, I should say true Malaysian.

  25. #25 by AA234567 on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 9:12 pm

    ahpiow Says:

    Today at 16: 48.17 (4 hours ago)
    MalaysiaDtoday has been reborn. Those haven’t found RPK Jr, please go here
    http://mt.harapanmalaysia.com/2008/

    ahpiow, thanks for the info.

  26. #26 by devilmaster on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 9:19 pm

    i am confused of this – can a bill be passed into becoming law with less than 2/3 majority? Or a 2/3 majority is only good for amendment?

    [A bill only needs a simple majority of MPs present in Parliament at the time of voting to be passed. Two-thirds majority of MPs (and not just MPs present) is required for any constitutional amendment to be adopted. – Kit]

  27. #27 by subject on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 9:38 pm

    Raja Petra is the only one hero who fight endlessly.

  28. #28 by kutlakut on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 10:01 pm

    So is Malaysia Today ‘a blog keep churning out stories that can not be proven or substantiated’ deserving blockage of access as directed by Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission? said limkamput.

    Sigh. Long sigh. Come on, let us not swallow this rubbish brandished by the so called MSM aka fourth estate that is the fifth column. Challenge it. We are able to distinguish curses in the bloggs from reports of what really happened.

    MSM don’t report on the truth, lie by not not reporting the truth, lie by telling half truths, lie by ommission and we become igonrant. Criminals are not confronted and the criminals continue to raid the pantry. You ask them why did they not report on something that the blogger got wind of? Reply: their source is NOT Verifiable.

    [email protected]! So convinient. The BN fellas had been hoodwinking us for half a century and they won’t want us to know. Thats why they control the press and the journalists become whores of the establishment. Their editors have to consult before publishing the editorias – worthless trash compare to RPK.

    Have faith in bloggers who stick their necks out for the sake of the country, so that we may know and do something to get back our country. If more people had known what was going on behind our backs, BN would have been swiped off the slate on March 8. Half the nation did not know! Half the nation did not think that we could have done it, viz shake the corrupt government that is filled with non professionals. We are being ruled by nincompoops, incompetants.

    If we had known more and much earlier, then even Mahathir would have been tsunamied out sooner.

    The MSM owes us a lot of confession.

  29. #29 by sabri on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 10:07 pm

    no problem if they are keep blocking. just download the freegate(v 6.76) at download.com and try it. u can access to the blocked pages.

  30. #30 by StevePCH on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 10:16 pm

    it also spells the end of MSC in principle.

    BeEnd flying kite very high now. saying Anwar’s victory does not represent anything. If it is not, why can’t you win. If it is not a trend, what is ?
    Mamaktir may sound hypercritical but the truth is Rakyat has loss confidence in not only AAB but whole of BeEnd.

    For PR… DSAI,LGE,LKS,Pas leaders please watch your back. There will be more traps in store and barely 5 months, some have fallen into it. Remember, we expect CAT !!! don’t fail us and wee won’t fail to support PR !!!

    Death for MSC , waste of public funds , incompetent governing … Budaya Lalang Negara …. flip flop !!!

  31. #31 by StevePCH on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 10:17 pm

    luckily we have expert like sabri to bypass these. MCMC M*rons

  32. #32 by drsd1665 on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 10:39 pm

    They can block any sites they like but we can learn lots from China’s internet censorship, and use their firewall circumvention tools, such as freegate (mentioned above by sabri) or ultrasurf.

    For Ultrasurf, you can download from:
    http://www.ultrareach.com
    http://www.wujie.net/downloads/ultrasurf/u.zip

    Then extract the file and run, that’s it.

    If you are using browser other than IE, then you have to manually change your proxy IP address to 127.0.0.1 with port :9666

  33. #33 by drsd1665 on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 10:52 pm

    In the event that MCMC decides to further implement a China-styled full blocking of websites or blogs perceived as being not friendly to UMNO/BN, the followings can be used as an effective way to circumvent internet censorship:

    1. Accessing a mirror site
    2. Using a non-censoring DNS-server
    3. Using a non-censoring proxy server

    More details here –> http://malaysian-today-net.blogspot.com

  34. #34 by limkamput on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 10:57 pm

    Kutlakut, I think you have to sort out who said what before you gave your comments.

    By all means condemn the msm and I agree with most of it. My question for you and for another fellow too proud to even mention my name when responding to my comment is this: is internet media also becoming like msm? If so, what difference will internet media be in the future?

    Don’t talk about naivety with me kutlakut. I saw the follies of mamakthir way before even PKR was born.

  35. #35 by Tulip Crescent on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 11:19 pm

    devilmaster Says:

    Today at 21: 19.14 (1 hour ago)
    i am confused of this – can a bill be passed into becoming law with less than 2/3 majority? Or a 2/3 majority is only good for amendment?

    *** ***
    devilmaster

    A Bill on any matter that is not entrenched needs to attract only a simple majority. This is called a simple Bill.

    A Bill that deals with entrenched matters requires a two-third majority.

    As to what is entrenched or what is simple, please refer to the Federal Constitution.

    Generally, when Bills are made, where clauses require a two-third majority and are therefore entrenched, these will be spelt out. Otherwise, a simple majority will do.

    I hope this explanation suffices.

  36. #36 by milduser on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 11:34 pm

    They can try and block the website but will never succeed. Why? Administratively, they can send as many orders as they like to ensure the ISP licence holders to comply but technologically they are not sophisticated enough. The only country in the world that has succeeded in blocking any site (other than wholesale blocking, eg YouTube) is China. In the latest tech report, China was able to prevent its citizens from downloading a specific song (deemed offensive) from the Apple iTune store. Precision missile targeting, I suppose.

  37. #37 by Samuel Goh Kim Eng on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 11:35 pm

    Get to feel the pulse of thinking people through their blogs
    Rather than to stifle the bloggers with any foolish block
    Daily read their blogs carefully and then take good stock
    To avoid getting from the intellectual bloggers any hard knock

    (C) Samuel Goh Kim Eng – 280808
    http://MotivationInMotion.blogspot.com
    Thu. 28th Aug. 2008.

  38. #38 by Tulip Crescent on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 11:39 pm

    Targetting a website or websites and blocking one or all of them is the way of the bully and the coward.

    If this is the way power is being exercise, it is way irresponsible because it goes against decency.

    The only sustainable way out is to fight an argument with a better argument. No sane person will try and sweep away an argument. Fight it.

    With all the powers at their disposal, I am wondering why they dare not counter an argument with a better argument. Why? Why? Why?

  39. #39 by de_Enigma on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 11:55 pm

    It’s been rather funny to the point annoyed by how ‘professional’ our government deals with problems.

    The Coalition Government without fail again demonstrate the ‘Boleh’ philosophy by taking such amateurish action. It doesn’t make sense to pressure the ISP(s) to block certain sites where they again can set up another similar operations. Watching a cat chasing his own tail is not funny at this level and certainly this action would further fuel the uproar among the opposition supporters.

    I thought they have learned not to underestimate the power of internet from the recent general elections. I guess they just ‘boleh’ make the same mistake twice.

  40. #40 by zak_hammaad on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 11:57 pm

    The MSC Bill of Guarantees is void and not applicable when someone violates national stability and provokes endless libellous, slanderous and defamatory material and comments.

    MT and other blogs and online activists are not above the laws of the country. They must understand their responsibility towards safeguarding cohesion and the laws that include the preservation of national security.

    The promise that there will be no censorship of the Internet in the country is not without conditions; especially when material is allowed that is insulting to one section of the community and can lead to civil unrest. No government can take chances with it’s internal security; especially in a uniquely diverse country as Malaysia.

    Section 3 of the Act, which reads: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet.” can not be understood independently of section 263 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, which states that an ISP must obey a written request from the commission “in the national interest.”

    Interpretations may vary as to what is construed as “in the national interest” and the MCMC has decided to act against the blog site within this scope. RPK’s seditious and insensitive and unwise nature is common knowledge, his blog almost always manages to incite.

    People must remember that MT has been in operation for years, therefore the latest action is not a crack down on “dissenting views”. RPK has been given ample warnings in the past to amend his unethical ways.

    The fact that sites like MT exist is proof of Malaysia’s sincerity in opening up cyberspace for one and all. Singapore, that is hailed as a model for Malaysia would never allow a site like MT to exist because they too understand the nature of their social make-up and internal security matters.

  41. #41 by milduser on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 11:57 pm

    If the gomen is so afraid of a handfull of bloggers, i think they really have a problem. It shows that what the bloggers are revealing are “true” except the ‘facts’ may not be easily verifiable. If the gomen thinks that what the bloggers write are a load of rubbish, they can also counter them with their arguments (like a debate) and challenge the bloggers to link the government’s rebuttal in their websites, with links of “facts” and “figures” if they wish. Use the same technology against the bloggers not to block but to counter their ‘revelation’. So, what’s the fuss? Because, I believe this corrupt government has NOTHING to counter – that’s why they are so afraid! VERY AFRAID!
    Anyway, everybody (including the gomen) has his rights – to sue for defamation. But why violate the Law (BILL of Guarantee) and stifle the freedom of expression. STUPID gomen, shooting its own two feet, esp that Hermit bald chap!

  42. #42 by tunglang on Thursday, 28 August 2008 - 11:59 pm

    Write no evil(BN), Read no evil(BN), Blog no evil(BN).
    Just be like Monkeys of BN.
    Hooff, Hooff, Hooff, Hooff, Hooff, Hooff, Hooff,
    Eeeeekkk, Eeeeekkk, Eeeeekkk, Eeeeekkk, Eeeeekkk, Eeeeekkk,
    Eeeeekkk, Eeeeekkk, …..

  43. #43 by zak_hammaad on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 12:03 am

    milduser, the government is not afraid of the bloggers in and of themselves, they are afraid of the fall-out from their promotion of libellous, slanderous, misinformed, defamatory material and comments. The very type of material that has a very real danger of spiraling out of control. Why is it so hard for you people to understand this? The preservation of many by restricting the actions of a few is not nonsensical!

    Night night.

  44. #44 by milduser on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 12:07 am

    Who says the Singapore gomen do not allow freedom of expression? The only difference in Singapore is that the bloggers there are “STUPID”. The reverse of BOLEHLAND. The get caught with their pants down. They talk “rubbish” withot ‘facts’. With one scoop the gomen corner them and they are dead. Why? Because the government is “CLEAN”, like its city, STUPID.

  45. #45 by kutlakut on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 12:08 am

    ‘is internet media also becoming like msm? If so, what difference will internet media be in the future? Don’t talk about naivety with me kutlakut. I saw the follies of mamakthir way before even PKR was born.’ limkamput said.

    I was not criticising you. I picked your paragraph as lead to my message regarding internet blogging and that it is largely trust worthy. People should trust internet bloggers more, and not be misled by those bad mouthing of it.

    Say, tell why is the internet becoming like the msm? When you substantiate this part then we may go on to ‘what difference will intermet media be in the future.’

    Internet blogging is not in competition with the msm. In other countires, reputable and reponsible journalists have turned to blogging to get the message out to the public because the msm refused to do its duty of informing the people of issues that affect their lives intimately. Internet blogs exist to fill in a vacuum created by the irresponsible bought up media moghuls.

    The fourth estate has the role of examining issues, both side of the pros and cons so that the public may see both sides and make an informed judgement. They owe us that much for the simple reason they are in the business of the media. If it can’t fulfill this condition, get lost. Make way.

    Take for example the DNA bill – why has not TV talk shows call up the legalists to tell us both side of the story? Do you understand what it is all about? I don’t know.

    As it is, they admit your right to an opinion and they have their right Not To Allow You to get heard. You have the right to know but they have the right not to tell you, as they think it is not important. They own the press.

    We know that msm in most countries, including Malaysia, have lost its ideals and serve the unseen masters. So internet blogging grows more and more the vehicle that is replacing the traditional media of print and audio and video. My advice is that we must not be led by the nose that internet blogging is unreliable, un believeable, don’t trust its reporting is false and other such accusation.

    Our source of real and true information comes from bloggers like uncle Lim and RPK just to name two. Responders like you and I may not be believed. We are not bloggers.

  46. #46 by zak_hammaad on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 12:20 am

    milduser Says:

    >> Who says the Singapore gomen do not allow freedom of expression?

    Err, I thought we were talking specifically about online blogging!? Singapore has strict guidelines for bloggers otherwise they are out. Some no no’s are race and religion. Figure out why?

    Adios.

  47. #47 by The Enforcer on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 12:33 am

    Hei silly GOONS!

    Why don’t create a law that says ownership of a computer, PC or laptop is an offence! Ban internet in Bolihland lah!
    This way you can be sure nothing is exposed, stupid GOONS!

  48. #48 by AsalUsuLMalaysiaHacked on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 1:52 am

    zak_hammaad Says:

    Yesterday at 23: 57.04

    “MT and other blogs and online activists are not above the laws of the country: violates national stability and provokes endless libellous, slanderous and defamatory material and comments.

    Blablaablaablaaaa…”
    ______________________________________________

    And….

    AS WELL AS TRUTH AND EVIDENCE MUST BE CONSERED Ya RIGHHHT! WOOOT IM ON INTERNET!

    http://mafrel.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/dr-ng-yen-yen-distributing-money-to-senior-voters/#more-282

    Whats that link above are not above the laws no?

  49. #49 by AsalUsuLMalaysiaHacked on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 1:54 am

    i mean “CENSORED” sry… typo error heheh

  50. #50 by lchk on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 2:11 am

    zak_hammaad posted:

    “The MSC Bill of Guarantees is void and not applicable when someone violates national stability and provokes endless libellous, slanderous and defamatory material and comments.”

    Utter rubbish.

    Don’t assume the folks here are dumb enough to believe that what you wrote is gospel truth.

  51. #51 by lchk on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 2:21 am

    zak_hammaad doesn’t make use of his grey cells, what gives MCMC the right to determine what is libel and what should and should not read by netizens?

  52. #52 by yhsiew on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 5:58 am

    Should a snap election be called after 16 September, PR should include the followings in their manifesto:

    1. The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) will be dismantled to protect freedom of speech.

    2. Collection of DNA database from the public will be outlawed as it infringes on personal freedom and privacy.

    It is timely that UMNO created this “convenience” for PR to score credit.

  53. #53 by lopez on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 6:54 am

    Every body yearns for HOPE and OPPORTUNITIES when under siege

    Are we under siege and for 50 years and still is, Bee end is the end, it’s exisitence is because of emerging neccessity to carry us off into a nation, it is a formula of coexistence among all races of neighboring nations who has convene on this land because they were motivated and driven by economic wealth and prosperity or mere survival from hardship and political disasters of their previous homelands.

    It is time to go to the next level of maturity of a nation, lets move forward, lets change , it is time to change, there is no better time then the present

    DAP please guide us.

  54. #54 by khairi ali on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 8:22 am

    Yes, DAP should guide us. But if the issue is DNA, and you raised the case fo MToday, will this be considered as right-thinking? It doesnt look professional.

  55. #55 by Bigjoe on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 8:37 am

    Violating the Bill of Guarantee is very bad in terms of driving away foreign investor confidence as well as in terms of building back confidence in our laws. But that is not the worst part of it.

    Its just stupid. Malaysia today cicumvented it with a keystroke. Its readership only experienced a slight drop temporarily. There is a million and one way to get around censorship on the internet. All it does it makes readers angry at the govt.

    If they can be stupid about this. They can be stupid about many other things. Take the DNA bill they are rushing through. Even if they get it through, if they apply it to Anwar, it will never fly. At this point it does not matter what the evidence says DNA wise. The only prove people will accept is Anwar doing the act in front of them. PAS and Keadilan grassroots will take to the streets possibly sending our grassroots into chaos if they continue with this line of persecution. I half suspect those pushing moves like these are a few powerful people that don’t care for the stupidity because of their own self-interst. They fear Anwar and rather destroy the country then risk it.

    No its not even the violation of our basic rights, our institutin we need to fear immediately. Its the stupidity and there seem to be plenty around…

  56. #56 by yhsiew on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 8:55 am

    The DNA bill in US is to free prisoners whereas the DNA bill in Malaysia is to arrest politicians from the opposition party.

  57. #57 by Jeffrey on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 9:13 am

    Except for clear cases of pornography and pedophilism about which there is international consensus to censor, in other cases like political content of Malaysia Today (“MT”), the stance of a government is one that either embraces Freedom of Internet or its censorship (as China & Korea), it being difficult to opt for a position between, especially when technically the filtering and blocking out of that site by ISPs can be circumvented by mirror sites being repeatedly created, for eg RPK has created a temporary mirror site here – http://mt.harapanmalaysia.com/2008/content/view/11912/84/

    As always the best ways to deal with something that :-

    1. is defamatory or seditious is to enforce the many laws one has in relation to such offences against the perpetrators; and
    2. one disagrees with is to argue against it using the same Internet medium.

    Here we have a strange situation of Minister of Home Affairs justifying a ban of MT which the proper minister of Energy, Water and Communications – Deputy Minister Joseph Salang – said that he was unaware of! (Source Malaysiakini Report of Aug 28, 08 2:11pm.

    In ordering ISPs to block MT. does Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (“MCMC”) take order from Home Ministry or Energy, Water and Communications Ministry?

    The MCMC is promulgated under the Communications and Multimedia Act (“Act”).

    To invoke Section 263 of the Act to pressure license holders (such as ISPs) to take action against service user like MT for contravention of national laws, it is a condition precedent that it must first be proven that the national laws have been contravened by that site, which can only be proven by final court judgment – none so far has been obtained either against MT or RPK.

    That being the case the overarching Section 3 of the Act to which MCMC must adhere will apply : “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet”.

    To the extent Section 3 of its own founding charter has been contravened by MCMC’s directive to ISPs it can be said that MCMC’s action is ultra vires and outside legal authority of its founding charter.

    Besides, it is also a contravention of the commitment to ensure Internet freedom as promised in paragraph 7 of the MSC Bill of Guarantee to the MSC and International Community.

    The reneging of a national commitment by authorities is no small matter : it goes to the heart of credibility and sovereign rating in the government’s or country’s dealings with the international community….

    It is signal that one cares not for the MSC project anymore – I wonder what TDM has to say about this another blow to his pet project (after the crooked bridge and Proton controversies)…..

    Weighing pros and cons, the move to ban MT is ill advised.

  58. #58 by kutlakut on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 9:15 am

    zak_hammaad wrote: The MSC Bill of Guarantees is void and not applicable when someone violates national stability and provokes endless libellous, slanderous and defamatory material and comments.

    MT and other blogs and online activists are not above the laws of the country. They must understand their responsibility towards safeguarding cohesion and the laws that include the preservation of national security. unquote.

    This the above paragraphs are valid BUT It Does Not Apply here. You are telling us to look the way ‘not without conditions’ and lose sight of the issue, why block the site.

    If RPK had been libellous, let Najib sue him. Even you may sue him on Najib’s behalf. Let Rosmah sue him! Why not if he had bellous?

    Syed Albar can explain all he wants, but if the reasons don’t make sense, it is another futile attempt at denying the public the right to find the fact of the matter. Another silly side tracking that leads nowhere. In deed, it becomes another act to induce more detestment for the BN. Zak, you are not doing the BN a favour, on the contrary.

    Get smarter.

    BTW, pertaining to the topic ‘internet bloggers,’ I say that we have the same amount of disgust for the MSM like we do for the BN. Editors please take note.

  59. #59 by Jeffrey on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 9:21 am

    A bill only needs a simple majority of MPs present in Parliament at the time of voting to be passed. Two-thirds majority of MPs (and not just MPs present) is required for any constitutional amendment to be adopted – YB Kit.

    Whilst generaly true, if I were not mistaken, the 2/3 majority is required for the more important constitutional amendments, this threshhold of 2/3 being not required for the less significant of the constitutional amendments.

  60. #60 by cancan on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 9:40 am

    Such an act is under trait No.5 of “The traits of the Malaysian Politicians”

    Link: http://www.kingsmary.blogspot.com/

  61. #61 by r-ptr on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 9:41 am

    It goes to show what kind of IDIOTS are running this country.
    How tech savy this bunch of monkeys know about cyberspace.
    How to have good internet speed???

  62. #62 by scorpian6666 on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 9:46 am

    Zak said…….

    “The very type of material that has a very real danger of spiraling out of control. Why is it so hard for you people to understand this?”

    Please tell us which “material” you like most of the BN politicians talk about “national stability and provokes endless libellous, slanderous and defamatory material and comments”

    BUT

    Tell us which materials from MT causes national instability and provokes endless libellous defamatory material and the bla bla bla…

    From where I see, Malaysia is still bloody peaceful … in fact too peaceful after years and years of MT existence.

    The ways you talk … we would shut down the internet !!

    and someone said ..
    If you are not guilty why should you be afraid of the defamatory material ….

    Hey Zak …. night night …. go to sleep and have a bad dream and dont wake up peeing your bed.

  63. #63 by TheWrathOfGrapes on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 9:55 am

    /// # Emily Pratt Says:
    Yesterday at 17: 21.54
    So if MT is blocked, and MT moves to a new url, won’t it be blocked again and again ad infinitum by the Authority? ///

    EP – Within Malaysia, yes. And then you can play a game of cat and mouse. You set up a new site and the government tries to block it, ad nauseum.

    But what RPK has done is to set up the mirror sites outside Malaysia. If the ISP/servers are outside Malaysia, the Malaysian government cannot do anything except kwai-kwai ask the foreign entities to tolong-tolong block those sites, and the foreign entities will probably tell Malaysia to go fly layang-layang.

  64. #64 by TheWrathOfGrapes on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 9:59 am

    /// zak_hammaad Says:
    Yesterday at 23: 57.04

    The MSC Bill of Guarantees is void and not applicable when someone violates national stability and provokes endless libellous, slanderous and defamatory material and comments.

    MT and other blogs and online activists are not above the laws of the country. They must understand their responsibility towards safeguarding cohesion and the laws that include the preservation of national security. ///

    Zak, there are existing laws, and tons of them, to deal with those violations that you spoke of. You have libel laws and sedition laws. Heck, in fact RPK had been served with those and have been jailed, charged and harassed with those laws. In fact, RPK is waiting for his day in court so that he can expose even more wrong doings. Why is the government afraid to let him have his day in court?

    If you would just for a minute take off your UMNO-coloured, rose-tinted glasses, you will know who are the ones telling lies.

  65. #65 by zak_hammaad on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 11:15 am

    lchk Says:

    >> utter rubbish

    Instead of making cheap general remarks, maybe you should provide a reason why you think it is wrong? It’s the least a person of your intellectual ability can do :^)

    As I said before, the fact that sites like MT exist is proof of Malaysia’s sincerity in opening up cyberspace for one and all. Singapore, that is hailed as a model for Malaysia would not even allow a site like MT to operate from within it’s shores because they too understand the nature of their social make-up and internal security matters.

    Singapore has strict guidelines for bloggers otherwise they are out. Some no no’s are race and religion, even at their coveted “speakers corner”. Libellous and defamatory remarks often end with a legal writ (i.e. you can say it, but be prepared to pay for it!)

    Example: In 2005, a 17-year-old Singaporean Chinese student pleaded guilty to sedition for posting anti-Muslim remarks on his weblog. A Malay lady commented on a blog discussing dogs that ride on taxis and she pointed out that Malay drivers should be able to refuse carrying passengers with dogs as they are considered impure in Islam (dog saliva).

    He was the third person that month to be convicted under the Sedition Act. Full story can be googled by typing in “Third Singapore blogger pleads guilty”.

    Singapore government thought is serious enough to warrant such action.

  66. #66 by AsalUsuLMalaysiaHacked on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 11:17 am

    Ask that senile child to check on “PembelaMelayu.com” and see if the element of what he claims are not excluded.

    Our country practice democracy and this monkeys from ur BN are playing dictatorship to run this country.

    Thats the KEY they fail miserably.

    You can stay denial being ignorant as u wish, block information etc. Last thing u ever do is create conflict to divide the Nation into state of violent.

    On the other hand you can do is, embrace.
    “If you can’t beat them join them”, were not afraid of ur evil forces.

  67. #67 by zak_hammaad on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 11:26 am

    scorpian6666 Says:

    >> Tell us which materials from MT causes national instability and provokes endless libellous defamatory material and the bla bla bla…

    As a Muslim, I can tell you that almost all material relating to Islam and Muslim matters is highly offensive and warrants strong action against the fame-seeking RP. His ignorance on Islam is inherent and using his logic to explain what he does not understand epitomises his arrogance. I can see how it can easily lead to inflaming community relations and inciting intolerance. I don’t care much on the politics that is discussed and have no sympathy for UMNO dinosaurs, but I do find it funny that RP on one hand reveals information pertaining to the Altnuya case and on the other is not willing to take the case against DPM and avoids revealing the sources. If this is not slander and libellous, tell me what is?

    I recall posting a comment on this blog a couple of days ago on a previous thread. My comments were sent for moderation and were never published, I know I did not write anything sensitive but I assume this is what they mean by “self-regulation” :^)

    Good day.

  68. #68 by lchk on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 11:27 am

    zak_hammaad posted:

    “Instead of making cheap general remarks, maybe you should provide a reason why you think it is wrong? It’s the least a person of your intellectual ability can do”

    The only cheap remarks here are yours.

    The issue is straigtforward – the MCMC is exercising dictatorial powers and telling netizens what should or should not be read or seen.

    And dredging up Singapore does not excuse the violation of the Bill of Rights of the MSC.

    Face it, you UMNO types are AFRAID of the truth!

  69. #69 by lchk on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 11:40 am

    The likes of zak_hammaad purposely ignore this fact that was highlighted by another person here which is that no case was proven in a court of law against Raja Petra of being dematory and libel.

    Hence, a contradiction of a NATIONAL Bill of Guarantee highlights the UMNO govt for what it is – a bunch of hypocritical flip-floppers. Ironically, Mahathir the idol of zak_hammaad was the one who motioned for this Bill to be passed in Parliament.

    Now it’s only so much scrap paper.

    And the mentally challenged ones like zak_hammaad do not even know that libel and slander has to be proven in a court of law with a final judgement and is not even aware of the laughable and idiotic stance of the MCMC over-stepping its boundaries.

  70. #70 by lchk on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 11:43 am

    Instead, UMNOputra wannabes and the Tun Dr M worshipper called zak_hammaad attempts (in vain) to divert the very serious issue of reneging a NATIONAL COMMITMENT by continually bringing up Singapore knowing full well that this is a Malaysian matter and has nothing whatsoever to do with Singapore or any other country.

  71. #71 by lchk on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 11:46 am

    Diverting the issue on hand to non-sequitur areas such as the freedom of the internet in Singapore and personal opinions about libel, slander and defamations clearly shows that zak_hammaad has NO objective basis whatsoever to support this draconian move by the MCMC.

  72. #72 by lchk on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 12:00 pm

    One good thing that did arise from the sorry stunt pulled by MCMC and the UMNO cohorts is that it backfired on them almost immediately as the Malaysia Today website was accessible from a mirror site a few hours after it was blocked.

    Also, it’s a big slap to their own UMNO faces when the world is laughing at idiots who contravene their own commitments and have no inkling whatsoever in understanding and promoting a net and technology savvy society.

  73. #73 by AhPek on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 12:10 pm

    ‘………………………….,this threshold of 2/3rds being not required for the less significant of the constitutional amendments.’.jeffrey.

    Is that right? Perhaps this could be the explanation for the 500 (I think)
    amendments made by Malaysia in her 51 years of existence as a nation state compared to the case of 25 amendments made by US in her 300 years of existence and not the more sinister design by these thieves being the reason for such a difference between the two nations??

  74. #74 by zak_hammaad on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 12:14 pm

    Ichk, looks like you are falling over self to respond, but you haven’t done a very good job in selling your “argument” to me. The bottom line remains that blogs are not above the law and they must remain sensitive to culture and religion.

    >> zak_hammaad has NO objective basis whatsoever to support this draconian move by the MCMC.

    You remain blind to my previous comments and are also choosing to ignore the support that MCMC has from those who have been insulted by MT and it’s breach of section 263. What other “objective basis” do you need?

    I’ll leave your reply to the judgment of the discerning readers here.

  75. #75 by lchk on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 12:17 pm

    zak_hammaad posted:

    “You remain blind to my previous comments and are also choosing to ignore the support that MCMC has from those who have been insulted by MT and it’s breach of section 263. What other “objective basis” do you need?”

    Prove it in a court of law then.

    Until a final judgement is issued from a court of law, MCMC has no objective basis to ban Malaysia Today.

    Being “insulted” by Malaysia Today or any other website which you find offensive is a pathetic attempt and a mere excuse for censuring the Internet.

  76. #76 by AsalUsuLMalaysiaHacked on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 12:21 pm

    Azk u “fail to respond” quote had slap on ur own face, read my previous post 10hours ago… u totaly ignored or tying to deny?

  77. #77 by lchk on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 12:22 pm

    zak_hammaad posted:

    “The bottom line remains that blogs are not above the law and they must remain sensitive to culture and religion.”

    It seems that this is not getting drilled into that thick skull of yours – I repeat, prove it in a court of law.

    It’s not up to the whims and fancies of you or any UMNO dimwit to determine which blog or website is deemed offensive and which is not.

    The Netizens are the final judge of that and will pick and choose accordingly.

  78. #78 by AsalUsuLMalaysiaHacked on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 12:22 pm

    Azk u “fail to respond” quote had slap on ur own face, read my previous post 10hours ago… u totaly ignored or trying to deny?

  79. #79 by AsalUsuLMalaysiaHacked on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 12:31 pm

    respond to this Zak…

    zak_hammaad Says:

    Yesterday at 23: 57.04

    “MT and other blogs and online activists are not above the laws of the country: violates national stability and provokes endless libellous, slanderous and defamatory material and comments.

    Blablaablaablaaaa…”
    ______________________________________________

    And….

    THE TRUTH AND EVIDENCE MUST BE CONSERED YA RIGHHHT!

    http://mafrel.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/dr-ng-yen-yen-distributing-money-to-senior-voters/#more-282

    * What makes you think the link above are not above the laws no?
    * What law is there in this country then zak… dictatorship that is!

  80. #80 by m.hwang on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 1:00 pm

    zak,

    No one is above the law. That’s why there’s a case pending against RPK right now. Further, RPK cannot take any action in court on the Altantuya case coz he has no legal standing in the case. The only way is thru his website.

    But till today after all evidence being provided the police have not done anything to question those named in MT. Instead action is taken against RPK for sedition, criminal defamation etc.. Najib has not taken any civil action against RPK.

    RPK and other bloggers know they are not above the law, but they have to do what they do coz no one else dares to do it. They see injustice and the fear or failure of the authorities to act against one of their own. When there is grave injustice and the people are in deep shit financially, a cry for change normally occurs.

    This is just the beginning.

  81. #81 by limkamput on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 2:52 pm

    Someone is saying that we should say whatever we want to say and let the law takes its course later. Well and good, the msm and the government should continue doing whatever they are doing now and we should not be complaining because if we are aggrieved, we can always argue it out and we can take legal action against the government or the msm. I know many are not happy with the BN government. But in recent months I am seeing those critical of BN behaving like BN.

  82. #82 by lchk on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 2:56 pm

    Looks like zak_hammaad is in a fix, his hero Tun Dr M is blasting the MCMC for censuring the internet.

    LOL!

    http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/88790

  83. #83 by m.hwang on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 3:12 pm

    ‘limkamput Says:
    I know many are not happy with the BN government. But in recent months I am seeing those critical of BN behaving like BN.’

    Care to elaborate?

  84. #84 by Jeffrey on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 3:22 pm

    Regarding what TDM has to say – he condemned the government for reneging on its long-held promise of not censoring the Internet – a policy in which he was the architect.”When a government makes a promise to the country and then reneges on its promise, then not only will the government lose credibility but also any respect that the public may have for it.” The former premier, who implemented the no-Internet censorship policy in the mid-1990s, said the government’s action shows “a degree of oppressive arrogance worthy of a totalitarian state”.

    “I do not often agree with Malaysia-Today.net and (website editor) Raja Petra Kamaruddin. He had been sometimes quite irresponsible,” said Mahathir in his Chedet blog.

    “But court action had already been taken against him. He is not above the law and if he is found guilty there are already adequate punishment that can be passed against (him).”
    (source : Malaysiakini)

  85. #85 by limkamput on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 3:45 pm

    Ya, it is not mahathir supportive of RPK, it is he disagreeing more with the present leadership in the government. He can now talk like hero now and it is naive of others to quote him and use him to further their argument. Put it this way, if mahathir is still in power today, and if he is confronted with similar situation today, I think he will not have any qualm to shut down Malaysia Today. I can’t prove I am right, but you can’t prove I am wrong also.

  86. #86 by zak_hammaad on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 3:59 pm

    lchk Says:

    >> I repeat, prove it in a court of law.

    Err, prove what? That bloggers must remain sensitive to culture and religion of Malaysia? Are you stupid with all due respect?

    Race and religious issues remain a tinderbox in this country. If you are happy to light this tinderbox, I would be more than happy for the ISA to be used on you.

    >> It’s not up to the whims and fancies of you or any UMNO dimwit

    Now I know that you really are stupid. I am as much pro-UMNO as you are!

    >>The Netizens are the final judge of that and will pick and choose accordingly.

    Nope, the law of the land is the final judge as to what it regards as matters of national security. If you think this is exeggeration on their part, maybe you should look towards our southern neighours; examples have been provided.

    Dancing to the whims of “netizens” while the country is in danger is an argument I find most amusing. Do you think citizens should be accorded the same rights and freedoms as netizens? I dare you to go to the centre of your town and start shouting obsenities against your object of hate and start throwing accusations at one and all. I want to see how far you can go.

    The response to such a scenario is pretty global as no country would tolerate such behaviour. Yet you want bloggers to be accorded exemptions?

  87. #87 by zak_hammaad on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 5:05 pm

    limkamput Says:

    Yes, it’s moreso a violent shaking of UMNO than any real support for Pakatan.

    >> I can’t prove I am right, but you can’t prove I am wrong also.

    Tough internet laws to control bloggers did NOT come into effect during Mahathir’s time. This is the first time such curbs have been used against a non-pornographic website by Malaysian authorities; prior to 2003, this has never been the case.

    Mahathir remains a staunch promoter of the MSC Bill. Whatever he wrote in his latest entry of chedet is his opinion that blogs should not be prevented from writing what they want. Obviously I for one disagree with him on this issue as spreading seditious material and lies would be intolerable for any country let alone any individual.

    A high court previously ordered RPK to reveal the source for one of his many allegations if indeed he is truthful; he continues to fail to deliver. You cannot claim to have evidence on one hand and refuse to reveal the sources of the evidence on the other, this would be rejected in a court of law. It is a waste of legal resources to entertain every seditious comment a blogger makes without evidence, but the law must take it’s course.

    Have a good weekend ya all.

  88. #88 by TheWrathOfGrapes on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 5:22 pm

    /// Jeffrey Says:
    Today at 15: 22.06 (1 hour ago)
    Regarding what TDM has to say – he condemned the government for reneging on its long-held promise of not censoring the Internet – a policy in which he was the architect.”When a government makes a promise to the country and then reneges on its promise, then not only will the government lose credibility but also any respect that the public may have for it.” ///

    Jeff – TDM is as usual the consummate hypocrite and speaking from both sides of his mouth.

    TDM has no compunction in disregarding the water agreement with Singapore when he wanted to unilaterally change the terms.

    TDM has no compunction when he wanted to build the crooked bridge and demolish the causeway in breach of the Separation Agreement.

    TDM has no compunction when he reneged on the Points of Agreement signed by Daim with Singapore on the resolution of the KTM land, water, etc.

    TDM has no compunction when he clobbered CLOB.

    TDM has no compunction when he re-drew the Malaysian maps and raised the heckles of all ASEAN members who shared boundaries with Malaysia as suddenly many islands became “Malaysian” overnight.

    The list goes on…

  89. #89 by lchk on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 6:56 pm

    “zak_hammaad: Err, prove what? That bloggers must remain sensitive to culture and religion of Malaysia? Are you stupid with all due respect?”

    You don’t have much grey matter between your ears do you?

    Prove it in a court of law that RPK has been guilty of libel and slander.

    Just because you and some UMNO morons find his articles to be distasteful and you think it is right to censure him – that’s not a legal right and you know it.

    “zak_hammaad:Race and religious issues remain a tinderbox in this country. If you are happy to light this tinderbox, I would be more than happy for the ISA to be used on you.”

    Piss off, loser. Malaysia does not need the likes of self-declared foreigners like you (which I doubt you are) threatening draconian laws on Malaysians. Kicking you out of Malaysia would be the best solution.

    “zak_hammaad:Now I know that you really are stupid. I am as much pro-UMNO as you are!”

    Ah, you are a Dr M fanatic who gets a boner when you see his photo, aren’t you?

    “zak_hammaad:Nope, the law of the land is the final judge as to what it regards as matters of national security. If you think this is exeggeration on their part, maybe you should look towards our southern neighours; examples have been provided.

    Dancing to the whims of “netizens” while the country is in danger is an argument I find most amusing. Do you think citizens should be accorded the same rights and freedoms as netizens? I dare you to go to the centre of your town and start shouting obsenities against your object of hate and start throwing accusations at one and all. I want to see how far you can go.”

    You are even more dim than a fading lightbulb in a public toilet.

    The issue on hand is that the MSC Bill has been violated and there is NO national security threats except only in your addled mind.

    If there is a threat, PROVE it in a court of law. Just because some dimwits like you believe that RPK’s blog is a national threat, it deserves to be censured?

    Your dare is as dumb as one can get – all abuses are rightly settled in a court of law of which you have avoided mentioning.

    “zak_hammaad:The response to such a scenario is pretty global as no country would tolerate such behaviour. Yet you want bloggers to be accorded exemptions?”

    No is exempted from being hauled up to a court of law. If bloggers are making defamatory statements, sue them then.

    The fact that the UMNOputras can’t is a clear indication that they don’t have the balls to do so and are afraid that RPK has things up his sleeve to expose them if it graduates into a legal setting.

    Who are you to decide what is libel and what is not?

  90. #90 by Vidya Young on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 10:01 pm

    Road-rolling the DNA Bill through Parliament. Are BN goons aware of what they are asking for?

    Goons, don’t be smug thinking you can use this to get DSAI. Be forewarned Najis, this Act could turn out to be a double-edged sword. It could bite you in your rear for Altantuya’s murder.

  91. #91 by undergrad2 on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 10:31 pm

    Guys,

    What do you expect from a government which is in its death throes?? An animal in its death throes would lash out at anything that moves.

  92. #92 by undergrad2 on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 10:36 pm

    zak_hammaad Says:

    Yesterday at 23: 57.04
    The MSC Bill of Guarantees is void and not applicable when someone violates national stability and provokes endless libellous, slanderous and defamatory material and comments.”

    Only a nuthead would make statements like this!

  93. #93 by undergrad2 on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 10:37 pm

    …it is not worth my time to respond!

  94. #94 by mateRealWorld on Friday, 29 August 2008 - 10:52 pm

    I’d have to fully agree with lchk. A site is not seditious until proven so in the court of law. MCMC has overstepped its boundary in closing down MT.

    Now it seems that the government not only has full discretion to throw whoever it wants to Kamunting under the veil of ISA, it also enjoys the absolute authority to close down whichever site it wants at its whims or fancies.

    Regarding Mr. Zak’s comparison of netizens vs. citizens, and his dare to go to the centre of one’s town and start shouting obscenities against one’s object of hate and start throwing accusations, well, I can only say that Najib, Hishamuddin and Ahmad Ismail have gone much farther than that, and they are pretty much safe, sound, alive and kicking as of now.

  95. #95 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 30 August 2008 - 2:28 am

    TheWrathOfGrapes : I am not defending TDM against allegations of being “consummate hypocrite”. I have quoted what he said on the issue as published in Malaysiakini for benefit of readers who are not subscribers of that online bulletin. However even a hypocrite could say the right things on the issue of MCMC’s action in directing ISPs to block MT. It is his message that was raised here : not the character of the messenger- whether he is inclined towards to hypocrisy.

    On the subject of hypocrisy, whether or not he would have himself refrained from directing MCMC to block and censor MT had he encountered during his time the likes of RPK and had been target of RPK’s ire and expose, this is of course speculative –
    maybe no or maybe or even likely yes.

    Having said that, I have no recollection that he had during his watch done a thing like blocking a web site.

    Sometime in January 2003, UMNO Youth lodged a police report against Malaysiakini for publishing a letter made by one of its readers under the pen name of Petrof (I think). Petrof ‘s letter was critical of Malays in general as well as the Malaysian government in particular linking Umno Youth with the white supremacist group Ku Klux Klan of the US. (Mahathir then was abroad). There were demands made by police that Malaysiakini disclosed Petrof’s internet protocol but Malaysiakini declined on grounds of journalistic provilege as well as the contents being not seditious. Police seized Malaysiakin’s computers. When TDM returned he asked for a copy of Petrof’s letter. Malaysiakini faxed it to PutraJaya. No action was taken further against the online bulletin. The computers were eventually returned.

    Whatever might be said of TDM being hypocritical regarding the sale of sand to S’pore/crooked bridge issues, privatisation vs piratisation, Proton or Judiciary/Rule of law/sacking of judges and other issues, there is, correct me if I were wrong, no example of him reneging on the Bill of Guarantee for Internet Freedom.

  96. #96 by limkamput on Saturday, 30 August 2008 - 8:36 am

    It is so easy to tailor one’s argument to suit one’s convenience. When push comes to shove, Mamakthir was known to have done worse things than shutting down a blog. If one does not know that, then that person does not deserve to be here writing long stories. Corruption can take many forms – intellectually corrupt is one of them.

  97. #97 by taiking on Saturday, 30 August 2008 - 12:47 pm

    The malaysian government launched the multimedia supercorridor with a list of promises which was titled as the “Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) Malaysia 10 Point Bill of Guarantees”? The opening paragraph to the 10 Points Bill of Guarantee were worded as follows:-

    “As part of its commitment to ensure the success of MSC Malaysia Status companies, the Malaysian Government promises to fulfill the following Bill of Guarantees:”

    And the 10-point guarantee that follows the opening para are:

    “1. Provide a world-class physical and information infrastructure.
    2. Allow unrestricted employment of local and foreign knowledge workers.
    3. Ensure freedom of ownership by exempting companies with MSC Malaysia Status from local ownership requirements.
    4. Give the freedom to source capital globally for MSC Malaysia infrastructure, and the right to borrow funds globally.
    5. Provide competitive financial incentives, including no income tax for up to 10 years or an investment tax allowance, and no duties on import of multimedia equipment.
    6. Become a regional leader in intellectual property protection and cyberlaws.
    7. Ensure no Internet censorship.
    8. Provide globally competitive telecommunications tariffs.
    9. Tender key MSC Malaysia infrastructure contracts to leading companies willing to use the MSC Malaysia as their regional hub.
    10. Provide an effective one-stop agency – the Multimedia Development Corporation.”

    The Bill of Guarantee was designed as an attraction for setting up IT companies in malaysia (by malaysians as well as foreigners). It in effect amounts to a promise by our government to provide them with a conducive business, financial and working environment.

    However, the 10-point promise in the Bill has no automatic application because IT companies must first procure the requisite MSC status. So whilst the promises are general, the scope of application of the promises is limited, and is specific to MSC status companies only.

    So much for an outline on the Bill. Next, the legal status of the Bill.

    The Bill is not an Act of Parliament. It is not a piece of statute law; and hence it cannot be enforced as such against the government. It is a mere promise by the government made to MSC status companies. And mere promises do not carry any legal force or effect and they too cannot be enforced in the court of laws.

    However, if the promises were acted upon by a party in a way which the law recognises as sufficient to impose a contract, then that party would be able to enforce those promises against the government as contractual obligations. So if say Microsoft Corp, in reliance upon the promises came and invested money here to set up Microsoft Corp Sdn Bhd (MSC), then Microsoft Corp Sdn Bhd (MSC) would be entitle to enjoy the benefits of those promises as a contractual obligation on part of the malaysian government.

    It should be apparent by now that the scope of application of the Bill is very narrow and very specific.

    With the foregoing as backdrop, lets peek into the issue on internet censorship with regards to blogging.

    Blogs are actually a sub-species (or an offshoot) of online discussion forums which began life sometime in the mid-90’s. Both blogsites and discussion forums are interactive sites because visitors are allowed to post their comments and views. However, blogsites were developed more for the individual who wants to share some of his personal info (like photos of his climb to the peak of Himalaya) and views (on say saving the whales) with the net community. Since visitors are allowed to post their comments freely, often blogsites would turn into discussion forums.

    Following on from above it can be seen that unless a msc status company is incorporated as a vehicle for operating a blogsite, the individual who owns and maintains the blogsite concerned would not get to enjoy the “No Internet censorhip” promise in the Bill of Guarantee. And if the blogsite owner sets up his own web-server to host his blogsite then for him the whole story would end right here with this note – no “no internet censorhip” promise.

    What if the blogsite is hosted in a computer which is owned by a msc status web hosting company? The hosting company has a right to the “No Internet censorhip” promise. This is quite clear. The question is the actual extent of that right. The hosting company may publish its own information online without any fear of censorship but may those customers whose websites the company host do so? Putting it another way, can customers of the hosting company ride on the rights of the hosting company?

    The contract (in which the promises in Bill of Guarantee are turned in contractual obligations) is a private legal arrangement between the hosting company and the government. Hence, customers of the hosting company, not being a party to that contract, would have no right to enforce those obligations directly against the government. They can do so only through and in the name of the hosting company. In which case, willingness of the hosting company to cooperate in such enforcement action and to lend it name for the purpose is a matter of paramount import.

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the hosting company agrees to cooperate. The question whether the right of the hosting company may be extended to customers of the company still remains to be answered.

    Unlike the Constitution which would be given a broad and generous interpretation by the courts, the actual meaning of contractual provisions would be gathered strictly from reading the words used and where appropriate (in limited circumstances only) suitable implied meanings may be applied.

    A strict literal reading of the promise would yeild a meaning which excludes the possibility of customers enjoying the rights of the hosting company. However, given the general manner in which the promise is worded (i.e. “No Internet censorship”) it may be possible to widen the coverage of this promise to benefit blogsite owners. The basis for this view is derived from looking at the whole objective of the Bill of Guarantee which is to encourage and promote the growth of the IT industry. Employing a restrictive meaning to the “No Internet censorship” promise would be contrary to that objective. In my view the latter construction of the promise is the more probable of the two.

    Be that as it may, fortunately the no censorship promise is reflected in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (the CMA). The CMA is about regulating and controlling access to the Internet and the Internet industry. So in order to remove any confusion one may have that the CMA could be applied to censor the Internet, Parliament saw it proper to insert an overriding declaration in section 3(3) to the effect that “[n]othing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet.” The CMA has a total of 282 sections and a schedule; and it has also been extended by a number of Rules and Regulations made under it. None of these i.e. the 282 sections (minus section 3(3)), the Schedule and the Rules and Regulations shall be construed as permitting Internet censorhip.

    That is also to say, the application of all these 282 sections (minus section 3(3)), the Schedule and the Rules and Regulations is subject to the no Internet censorship declaration in section 3(3). Section 3(3) is therefore an important provision and it is a clear proclamation by the government of its commitment to the “No Internet censorhip” promise made in the 10-point Guarantee.

    Section 263 of the CMA is no exception and like the rest of the Act, its application too must be subject to the declaration in section 3(3). Section 263 imposes on licence holders (e.g. ISPs) the duty to prevent the network facilities they own or the network services they provide from being used in the commission of any offence under the laws of Malaysia. The same section also empowers the Commission (a body incorporated under the CMA and charged with the statutory duty to oversee the application and enforcement of the CMA) to issue written request to licence holders for assistance to prevent the commission of offence under the laws of Malaysia, and for preservation of national security.

    And Parliament, in enacting that section, must have in its contemplation crimes which are related to or concerning information, whether in its character as a property or as information, purely. Crimes involving or concerning information in the context of CMA would include criminal defamation, theft of personal data, hacking, etc. etc. And so section 263 is primarily a provision for preventing crimes of these nature and for good measure the section is also coupled with the precautionary provision on preservation of national security.

    A quick word about preventive provisions for criminal activities. No crime need actually be committed. The preventive provisions would spring to action on suspicion (which to my mind must be based on reasonable grounds) so that the anticipated criminal activity could be foiled before its completion or before its commencement. In the case of an uncompleted criminal act we could (arguably) have an attempt to commit a crime, which by itself is an offence. The preventive measures taken in such cases, I believe, can be justified. However, the same cannot be said of suspected criminal act which has yet to commence. Great care is needed for otherwise the rights of law abiding citizens would be infringed unnecessarily and unlawfully.

    Coming now to the main issue: Does section 263 empower the Commission to request ISPs to block the Malaysia Today blogsite?

    The Minister for Information in news report appears to have said that the freedom to post information online is subject to and restricted by section 263 and that the Commission has authority under that section to direct ISPs to block an offending site. The decision to block Malaysia Today is, according to the Minister, based on alleged misreporting by the site, which if true could give rise to the offence of criminal defamation.

    In my view, the Minister is wrong in several aspects.

    First, his observation that Internet freedom (by which I mean freedom from censorship) is subject to section 263 of the CMA is incorrect. The CMA says clearly that “Nothing in [section 263] shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet.” Internet freedom was made paramount by Parliament and section 263 cannot be used or applied in any manner which results in a derogation from that freedom.

    Secondly, section 263 does not dress the Commission with an all embracing authority to block a website. The site owner has freedom (section 3(3), CMA) to post information online. But lets say some of those information were posted maliciously by him, of a person, and are factually wrong and so could amount to criminal defamation of that person. Using section 263 to block that site would clearly result in a breach of the site owner’s right under section 3(3) to post his other harmless information online. So the decision to block Malaysia Today using section 263 can be justified only if all the information carried by the site are wrong, and were maliciously posted. The Commission must not ignore section 3(3) of the CMA when applying section 263.

  98. #98 by TheWrathOfGrapes on Saturday, 30 August 2008 - 4:39 pm

    Jeffrey – no, I am not saying that you are defending TDM. I am just pointing out that TDM is a hypocrite and should be the last person to cry about the no censorship over-tune. He is doing it purely out of self preservation and self serving purpose. Those examples that I pointed out are to show his utter contempt for international laws. So, he is forked tongue. Sorry if you thought I thought you were defending him. That guy should just retire…

  99. #99 by zak_hammaad on Saturday, 30 August 2008 - 7:12 pm

    Ichk and Undergrad2, you both have shown your inability to discuss or justify your view-points here. You seem to get self-gratification from cheap name-calling. Provide something substantial and I may entertain you in the future.

    In conclusion, I would also like to add that there remain hundreds of other blogs and websites that continue to criticise the Government. The commission has not blocked access to those sites. Continue to wonder why.

    Adios.

  100. #100 by yhsiew on Saturday, 30 August 2008 - 7:13 pm

  101. #101 by lchk on Sunday, 31 August 2008 - 2:43 am

    zak_hammaad posted:

    “Ichk and Undergrad2, you both have shown your inability to discuss or justify your view-points here. You seem to get self-gratification from cheap name-calling. Provide something substantial and I may entertain you in the future.”

    If you had the brains to comprehend what I wrote, the justification is that the government has broken its own national commitment in ensuring no censorship in cyberspace and MCMC has acted inconsistently with this commitment – moreso since Shaziman Abu Mansor has stated that MCMC “runs on its own”.

    MCMC is NOT a political watchdog nor is it the judge and jury of what is right and wrong.

    Malaysia Today was blocked for one reason – it is by far the most popular anti-UMNO blog and the most widely read. That ruffles quite a few feathers amongst the UMNO bigwigs and UMNOputra wannabes or mamak worshippers like yourself.

    Name-calling is nothing compared to raising THREATS of calling for the ISA on contributors here who point out flaws in your arguments. That is intolerable, more so from a self-proclaimed foreigner.

    In short, piss off if you don’t have the brains and data to form an objective argument.

  102. #102 by lchk on Sunday, 31 August 2008 - 2:47 am

    undergrad posted:

    “zak_hammaad Says:

    Yesterday at 23: 57.04
    The MSC Bill of Guarantees is void and not applicable when someone violates national stability and provokes endless libellous, slanderous and defamatory material and comments.”

    Only a nuthead would make statements like this!”

    You seem undergrad, only a dimwit would state something which is totally untrue, moreso when there are no “national stability” issues has ever been proven in a court of law as a result of RPK’s postings in his personal blog.

  103. #103 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 - 8:06 am

    taiking, thanks for sharing with forum here your comprehensive analysis of troublesome provisions of CMA in relation to guarantee of Internet freedom.

    Having regard to the overarching provisions of section 3(3), the CMA is dedicated to protect the sanctity of Internet Freedom leaving it to (1) domestic laws (Penal Code or ordinary civil law) to punish its abuse by sedition and libel (2) MCMC acting on provisions of CMA to punish and prevent cyber crimes like hacking etc. This implies neither CMA nor MCMC should by themselves operate to undermine Internet Freedom per se by blocking a predominantly political site like MalaysiaToday.

    Regrading this point about privity of contractual relations that subsist only between hosting company and the government raised by you, it would be MSC Companies’ interest to ensure that the regulatory and political climate is free as far as Internet freedom goes in relation to its users and hence the government as promisor and guarantor of that freedom to MSC’sa companies should abide by its commitment or else the government loses credibility whether one is talking of MSC or the various Corridors under 9MP!

  104. #104 by taiking on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 - 8:36 am

    Yes Jeffrey, yes.

    Legal niceties aside, what we would really face is a composite trouble of political correctness and business expediency. Which way to lean? That would be a difficult one for msc companies to work out.

You must be logged in to post a comment.