Posts Tagged ‘Crime’

Ustaz mocks Hinduism

July 30th, 2014
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


This guy who has an police report against him for assault (refer http://suara1umno.blogspot.com/2012/02/surat-laporan-serangan-ustaz-shahul.html ) courts controversy by providing false facts about another religion. Refer video below:

The video above is part of a 1.5 hour speech which can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAZlpwbs7V0&feature=youtu.be

Preaching is common among religion, but need to be careful on how its done. Not at expense of insulting other religion, or worse still providing wrong information. He is also in danger of being sued by those companies mentioned here for defamation, and even by JAKIM for questioning its halal status.

The crux of his speech is basically saying must support Muslim products and businesses to best of ability, as doing otherwise may be haram; directly/indirectly supporting non-Muslims; stifling Muslim business. Not sure if this strict view is their religious teaching or just a liberal interpretation.

Since MIC had its protest today and many police reports has been lodged, this guy now made an apology. Video below from his FB:

Among his points in the apology video:

1. the speech was in a closed function, for muslim only. [maybe acceptable in the pre-internet era. however God still exists in closed areas right?]

2. was uploaded without his consent, maybe (“mungkin”) with bad intention. [or maybe with good intentions to share his superb speech with other followers. Pls dont pre-judge the uploader and qualify it with “mungkin”].

3.  his speech based on his knowledge [well, this is unacceptable. if not sure, then can check with authorities or the people concerned. Why deity got tongue sticking out? go ask Hindu Sangam…or would that shake your belief? or you think its perfectly acceptable to make a joke of it?]

4. some words maybe (“mungkin”) cause unhappiness among Indian community. [ yeah right, maybe will create unhappiness.]

5. Hopes this issue is not prolonged. [of course, you are busy person, got many speech sessions to do, souls to save.]

6. will ensure this thing won’t be repeated. [what “thing” won’t be repeated? recording and uploading of speeches or insulting other religions?]

According to this FB page, he is also running a religious school and is known for giving speeches, so imagine how many “majlis tertutup” would have been conducted, spreading lies and hatred.  “Mungkin” kan. Need to also investigate his school. “Mungkin” got training for creating terrorists.  See, I also can use “mungkin”.

Let’s see how the police investigation turns out.

If you think this is first time incident, then refer to this video:

So how do you treat repeat offender? Should send him for some course on how to give speech without touching other religions or spreading lies?

PS: Hindu Sangam still drafting its press statement?

Section 203A of the proposed amendment to Penal Code

October 22nd, 2013
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


This is info I found for existing Act 574 Penal Code (source: http://www.agc.gov.my/Akta/Vol.%2012/Act%20574.pdf) :

 

Giving false information respecting an offence committed

203. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.

 

And this is the proposed amendment I found (source: http://www.labourlawbox.com/public/files/bills/pdf/2013/MY_FS_BIL_2013_09.pdf)

The Code is amended by inserting after section 203 the following section:
Disclosure of information
203a. (1) Whoever discloses any information or matter which has been obtained by him in the performance of his duties or the exercise of his functions under any written law
shall be punished with fine of not more than one million ringgit, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with both.
(2) Whoever has any information or matter which to his knowledge has been disclosed in contravention of subsection (1) who discloses that information or matter to any other person shall be punished with fine of not more than one million ringgit, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with both.”

 

There seems to be a whole lot of difference. The existing one talks about giving out information related to an offence that the person knows or believes to FALSE.  However the amendments in 203A doesn’t mention about anything on “knowing or believing offence being false”.

Or did I get the wrong Acts? Anyone can help?

Summary of PM Najib goodies during Unity Ponggal concert

February 3rd, 2013
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


I watched the Unity Ponggal event (organised by MIC and an NGO) via TV. The HD version was good. The performances were OK, but the theme of event totally spoilt by the speeches, especially by MIC leaders. Disgraceful comes to mind. Saying unity but talk about politics.

Anyway, the most anticipated moment is PM Najib’s speech as he is expected to announce goodies (remember last year event at Kapar?). The list below is what he had mentioned today:

1. He will discuss with Education Minister Muhyiddin on possibility of converting those partially-aided SJKTs, who agree to be converted, into fully aided ones in stage.

2. TAFE college to be upgraded to technical university college

3. funding for pre-school education to be provided in SJKTs

4. funding to upgrade 15 crematoriums and community centres in areas where Indian community population is high.

5. to focus on reducing crime among Indian youths, increase equity to 3% and improve access to higher education.

The goodies were quite general in nature (and some like 3% equity is stale news), so expect the details to arrive…probably after GE13. I’m always wary of the (yet-t0-be-seen)  fine prints. The upgrading of TAFE is something MIC asked for, during the AGM.

Myself quite disappointed because PM (i) didn’t declare holiday for Ponggal, (ii) didn’t lift suspension on Vishvaroopam, and (iii) didn’t announce that places in matrikulasi and asasi IPTA will be open to all.

Oh yeah, he also mentioned something about “Indians, including Indian Muslims” when talking about money changers business. Struck me as odd.

Interestingly, PR also held a Ponggal function today in Klang, and yes, it was also politically-toned.

Abusing our festivals.

 

Madam Nagamah, her children and their religion status

August 24th, 2012
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Some facts gleaned from newspapers (the facts may change as more details are revealed):

  • Madam M Nagamah passed away on 14 August 2012 at Sg Bakap Hospital. She was 64 years at the time of passing. She was from Byram Estate, Nibong Tebal.
  • Eldest son of the deceased is M Kamasantheran, aged 46 [ meaning he was born when she was 18 years old].
  • Her body was taken back to home by the family for funeral preparation.
  • JAIPP officers came for the body, saying she was a convert. No documents were provided.
  • Family refused to give in. And the officers left [how ridiculous does this sound? You’d think that a such a serious matter would involve some documentation or proof]
  • Family proceeded with funeral (cremation) at Batu Berapit Crematorium.
  • JAIPP officers went to crematorium and took the ashes of the deceased. Family got to know about it from the crematorium staff.
  • According to Penang state Islamic Religious Affairs Committee chairman Datuk Abdul Malik Abul Kassim, the deceased had converted to Islam in November 2006 [Meaning she was aged about 58 at that time].  He said that  initial investigations as reported to him by JAIPP and the state Mufti Department showed that the 64-year-old had converted at the South Seberang Perai (SPS) Islamic Religious Department with registration number 11/06. The conversion was overseen by Ustaz Anuar Ismail.
  • Her name was registered as Nagamah @ Mariah Abdullah when she converted after marrying one Ibrahim Noyan and had nine children who were registered as Muslims by the National Registration Department.
  • Since both family and JAIPP had made police report, the EXCO said will leave it to police investigation.
  •  The family insists that the deceased has been a practising Hindu all this while and there’s not mention about her converting.
  • Family wants ashes back to conduct funeral rites on 14th day.

sources:

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/469470

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/470546

http://www.freemalaysiakini2.com/?p=43085

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/206890

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2012/08/20/no-dignity-in-life-or-in-death/

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/206819

http://www.mmail.com.my/story/nagamah-muslim-says-department-27661

If one does a search, can find documents back in 2007 related to the husband Ibrahim Noyan. Below are the facts from 2007:

  • 10 siblings (5 men and 5 women) were seeking to change their religion from Islam to Hindu. These 10 people were born to Ibrahim Noyan and M.Nagamah.  The 10 of them grew up as Hindus and even got married to Hindus.
  • On Feb 16 2007, the 10, all of them with Muslim names and listed as Muslims on their MyKad, submitted individual sworn declarations at the magistrate’s court in Jawi, South Seberang Prai, claiming that they had been practising Hinduism since birth and prayed at Hindu temples.
  • In their declaration, they said that they wanted to change the status of their religion from Islam to Hindu.
  • They also said they were married to Hindus – although none of them had their marriages registered – and took part in Hindu celebrations, including Thaipusam. Their children were also given Hindu names.
  • Their plight was highlighted at Bukit Mertajam MP Chong Eng’s service centre on that day.[ So she should be aware of this case by now as back then she “hoped that the authorities can settle this issue“].
  • Their father, Ibrahim Noyah, 67, said he first married a Muslim woman known only as Sabariah but she died in 1958. He then married M. Nagamah but did not require her to convert. “Nagamah was my neighbour and I fell in love with her when she took care of me after my wife passed away,” he said.
  • Ibrahim Noyan is visually impaired since 3 years old and Nagamah took care of him after his first wife died.
  • Ibrahim and Nagamah, 60, have 10 children and 30 grandchildren. Three of the grandchildren do not have birth certificates, while some have only one parent’s name in their birth certificates.
  • V. Rathiga, 27, an athlete married to Ibrahim’s son, Kamis, 27, said she left out Kamis’ name in the birth certificates of their daughters – three-year-old Prami and one-year-old Sakti – as Kamis wanted them to be recognised as Hindus. [that’s one solution! if the law hinders, then find a workaround.]
  • While the 10 children wanted to be Hindus, the parents didn’t (meaning Ibrahim and Nagamah). According to Ibrahim he was still a Muslim and that his wife M. Nagamah had converted to Islam in 2005 and assumed the name Mariah Abdullah.
  • “I know my children and my grandchildren are facing problems with their identity cards and I don’t mind if they want to change their names from what it is now in their birth certificates,” said Mariah.
  • Ibrahim had said he started following Hindu culture and customs after his marriage to Nagamah although all their children were given Malay names while being raised as Hindus and had never stepped into a mosque.
  • The Penang Islamic Religious Council has recognised the elderly couple as Muslims.
  • However, the council also accepted the fact that the couple’s children are Hindus. “As far as we are concerned, the matter is resolved as the man had returned to the Islamic faith and his wife has embraced Islam,” said religious council chairman Shabudin Yahaya. “The council has built a house for them in Kebun Baru and are living separately from their children.”
  • Shabudin said the couple were considered Muslim as they had married according to Islamic rites.
  • He said Ibrahim Noyah, 67, had returned to the Islamic faith and his wife, M. Nagamah, 60, embraced Islam in August 2004 and her Muslim name was Mariah Abdullah.
  • Their Muslim marriage was solemnised at the religious department on Aug 11, 2004 and had been issued with the relevant documents.
  • The couple’s eldest son, Jamal Ibrahim, 42, said he hoped the authorities would help resolve their problem.

sources:

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/2/24/nation/16965034&sec=nation

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/2/27/nation/16983857&sec=nation

NST article: Islamic department urged to check family background (25/2/2007)

NST article: Council: Children are Hindus (25/2/2007)

NST article: In a spot over religious status (25/2/2007)

 

So far I can’t find any article reporting the outcome of their application to change religious status.

Interestingly, the conversion date ranges from 2005 to 2006.  Anyway the religious department says the marriage according to Muslim rites were done in 2004,  meaning she converted after marriage.

Back then, these kind of marriages existed and registering them legally wasn’t a big focus, I guess.

Ok back to the issue at hand. The religious department had shown no respect for law and order. No empathy, no sympathy. No sense of respect. No sensitivity. If conversion happened, then should bring the documents and do it properly. They simply came and took the ashes away.

So, did the deceased marry another person? If not, then M Kamasantheran (or is he Johan Ibrahim?), the eldest son should also be a Muslim and his father should be Ibrahim Noyan. Its quite impractical that they don’t know the existence of the other 9 siblings nor of their father/step-father. It feels like the deceased lead a double life with the children not knowing what happened to her.

Maybe she converted but didn’t inform her children about it and continued to live as an Hindu.

There’s no mention about the husband.  Maybe he had passed away and she returned to her Hindu family?

In the above case, if the whole family is following Hindu religion (including the deceased), then might as well leave it to the family to perform the last rites accordingly.

If the families provides proof of the deceased being a practising Hindu (especially after 2006), does it make the conversion void?

I think to safeguard ourselves, a MyDaftar-like campaign should be conducted by government to provide opportunity for non-Muslims to reaffirm their religious status via a official document or statutory declaration.  We don’t want to be victims after passing away and cause misery for the family.

And what happened to the suggestion that future converts-t0-be must inform their families/next-of-kin? All quiet?

The silence from MHS is also deafening.

On a political note, since this happened in Penang, can expect brickbats for the PR government. But I wonder what can be done legislation wise to avoid this issue in the first place. Can the enactment be amended? Would need approval from MAIPP or King?

Section 114A of the Evidence Act 2012

August 14th, 2012
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


The controversial section 114a of the Evidences Act (2012)

Presumption of fact in publication

114A. (1) A person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner, host, administrator, editor or sub-editor, or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved.

(2) A person who is registered with a network service provider as a subscriber of a network service on which any publication originates from is presumed to be the person who published or re-published the publication unless the contrary is proved.

(3) Any person who has in his custody or control any computer on which any publication originates from is presumed to have published or re-published the content of the publication unless the contrary is proved.

(4) For the purpose of this section—

(a) “network service” and “network service provider” have the meaning assigned to them in section 6 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 [Act 588]; and
(b) “publication” means a statement or a representation, whether in written, printed, pictorial, film, graphical, acoustic or other form displayed on the screen of a computer.”

source: http://www.parlimen.gov.my/files/billindex/pdf/2012/DR162012E.pdf

[click for larger view]

In the cartoon above, I think only the second scenario is acceptable. As administrator, you have authority to remove the comment and can do so. But for the other cases, the amended Act will brand the ignorant/unprepared/trusting as criminals.

I can understand the problems faced by authorities in solving cases involving online postings/comments.  And this is not only limited to those “seditious” crimes, but can cover scams, online theft, and other cybercrimes. Its not easy to prove you are the one who did it. Yes, we can trace via IP addresses, mobile phones, cameras, email headers etc. But, the ICT technology evolves fast. Those intent on doing criminal stuff can find ways to circumvent or “hack” their way and hide their tracks.  Its impossible for every person to protect themselves fully.

If this Act comes into play, you can’t claim ignorance easily. You’ll need to protect your internet access, mobile phones, laptops, tablets, PCs from unauthorised use. Not easy. You need to be vigilant and don’t simply borrow your things to others. Don’t share passwords or access codes. Don’t set your accounts to “always logged in” or “remember my password”. There’s so many “don’ts” that you may as well close your internet account and throw away your tablets/laptops!

Perhaps we can find that restaurants and other business may stop providing free Wifi as anything you do may implicate them. Anyone in the chain of providing network service can be charged. Imagine, robbers used your house area to enter another house and rob the owners. Are you an accomplice because robbers made use of facilities provided by you? This may well be the problems faced by kopitiams, for example.

Yes,  these kind of stringent laws can help reduce the fraud and lies, but at what expense?

Do you expect the citizen to be IT savvy? Do you expect him to be ace investigator who can prove he did not do it? By shifting the burden of proof to the accused, the accused is now a policeman who is to find prove of his innocence? Perhaps he need to enrol in ICT Security courses in order to be vigilant.

Do you notice the word “presumed” in the amendments? So, one is presumed guilty instead of presumed innocent. If you retweet or share a FB status that’s deemed a criminal posting, yes, you are part of the criminals. If you forward emails, same too.

DNAs and fingerprints can be used to nail criminals. Are user accounts, IP addresses, MAC addresses, email address etc.  now considered as  DNAs and fingerprints? Are these tamper-proof?

In our overzealousness to solve crimes, hopefully we don’t punish the innocent.

An article in the Star today:

Things looked vastly different Tuesday on several popular websites that had pledged their support to the campaign against the controversial Evidence Act amendment (no. 2).

Black pop-ups on their main pages greeted website visitors, explaining to them about the recently gazetted Section 1114(a) of the Act which presumes guilt on the part of Internet users.

Bloggers such as The Star columnists Marina Mahathir and Niki Cheong also took part in the Internet Blackout Day, posting up the pop-ups and banners which plainly said “Stop 114A”.

News portals Malaysiakini and Free Malaysia Today as well as the Bar Council website also put up the pop-ups on their websites, together with online journal Loyar Burok.

Scores of local Internet users changed their profile pictures on their Twitter and Facebook accounts to a black “Stop 114A” button.

The Internet Blackout Day is coordinated by the Center of Independent Journalism as part of the “Stop 114A” campaign.

It called for Internet users to show their displeasure by blackening out their websites and profile pictures in protest of the amendment, which would automatically presume guilt on Internet users for offensive postings made using their identities or devices.

However, some Internet users opted for a harder approach and going offline completely.

source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/8/14/nation/20120814122218&sec=nation