Blogger Milosuam jailed two years for posting “leaked’ police memo

There’s an issue of jurisdiction as Milosuam stays in Selangor where his blog posting was written. However, he was charged in Sabah.

FMT

KOTA KINABALU: Milosuam, Pro-Pakatan Rakyat blogger Yusuf Siddique Al-Suratman, 29, was jailed the maximum two years on Monday under Section 505 (b) of the Penal Code on a charge of causing fear and public alarm with a blog posting in 2013.

He’s the second pro-Pakatan blogger to be jailed in the last two weeks. The first was SharpShooter, Amizudin Ahmat, jailed for three months on January 8, after being in contempt on articles mentioning former information, communication and culture minister Rais Yatim.

Milosuam has been granted a stay of execution pending appeal. He was initially charged under the Official Secrets Act (OSA).

There’s an issue of jurisdiction as Milosuam stays in Selangor where his posting was written. However, he was charged in Sabah.

Milosuam allegedly published a secret document on the police making preparations for the possibility of an armed intrusion into Sabah. Just before the 2013 General Elections, his blog carried a “leaked” internal police memo which mentioned the possibility of some 1,500 people causing chaos in Kota Kinabalu and Tawau.

Section 505 (b) of the Penal Code pertains to; intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the state or against the public tranquility.

Counsel Goldam Hamid represented Milosuam. Magistrate Ryan Sagirann Rayner Jr presided.

IS in Libya claims execution of 2 Tunisian journalists

TUNIS (AFP) -

The Libyan branch of the Islamic State jihadist group claimed Thursday to have killed two Tunisian journalists who went missing in September.

In a statement released on jihadist websites showing images of Sofiene Chourabi and Nadhir Ktari, the group said it had "applied the law of Allah" against them.

It was not immediately possible to verify the claim.

In the statement signed by the "communication service of the province of Barqa", the group accused the two Tunisians of having worked for "a satellite channel that fights religion".

Barqa is the ancient name of a region in eastern Libya where IS is thought to have gained a foothold.

A picture showed the two young men alongside an armed man in fatigues, his face covered.

Chourabi, an investigative journalist and blogger who was active during Tunisia's 2011 revolution, and Ktari, a photographer, went missing on September 8 in the eastern Libyan region of Ajdabiya.

Their disappearance came after the pair, who were working in Libya without authorisation, were detained by an armed group days earlier but released.

Libya has been engulfed by chaos since the 2011 NATO-backed uprising that toppled and killed veteran dictator Moamer Kadhafi, with two rival governments and a host of militias now vying for territory.

IS has seized swathes of Iraq and Syria, declaring a "caliphate" and committing widespread atrocities, including the beheading of Western hostages.

Use of Sedition Act thwarts academic freedom

The Centre for Independent Journalism is alarmed that even academicians are not spared now.

PETALING JAYA: The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) is alarmed that the Sedition Act is being used to thwart the freedom of expression of academicians as well.

Speaking on behalf of CIJ, directors Sonia Randhawa and Jac SM Kee said, “This constitutes a threat to the fundamental liberty of freedom of expression guaranteed in our Constitution.”

They were referring to the charge of sedition levelled at Universiti Malaya associate professor of law, Azmi Sharom saying, “The censuring of an academic for giving an opinion in their area of expertise is also a threat to academic freedom in Malaysia.”

CIJ said that too liberal a use of the Sedition Act would stunt the function of universities and institutions of higher learning to the point it could not function appropriately.

“Restrictions must be necessary and proportionate. To censure legal opinion without demonstrating the threat to national security, public order or public morality is unnecessary and disproportionate,” the statement read.

The journalist body was also sceptical of the government’s statement that sedition charges were “a matter for the courts”.

“In Malaysia, the Attorney-General is both the chief legal adviser to the government as well as having the power to initiate proceedings for any offence.

“The combination of both functions in one person has led to allegations of bias or selectivity in the institution of criminal proceedings,” CIJ said especially when it was used by the government against its political opponents.

CIJ also said the continued use of the Sedition Act “makes a mockery” of the Prime Minister’s legislative reforms and his pledge to repeal the act more than two years ago.

IGP's Xmas hit - You better watch out

I am on the waiting-list for membership of the exclusive ‘Sedition Club Uniting Malaysians’, (SCUM) which has several distinguished members like Adam Adli, Haris Ibrahim, Tian Chua, Tamrin Ghafar, Safwan Anang and Zunar. I don’t think many people know the criteria which makes one eligible for membership.

Who would have realised that a well-meaning article ‘One Idealogy, Two Reactions’ about the need to be compassionate to Malaysians, regardless of their political leanings or social background, would have upset the inspector-general of police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar?

Does Khalid (right) suffer from an inferiority complex or was he under extreme pressure to explain his involvement in the Lahad Datu debacle?

More importantly, he wanted to divert attention from the terrible handling of the Siti Aishah Abdul Wahab story, by the Malaysian government and himself. They probably thought they would capitalise on the story of Aishah’s enslavement.

Initially, the Metropolitan police in England refused to divulge the identity of the Malaysian woman who had been “freed”, but Khalid jumped the gun and blurted out her name before the English police were ready to make this public.

Even before Kamar Mahtum and Hishamuddin Rais arrived in London, the IGP was already boasting about the welcome they would give Aishah on her return, home. Khalid said she would not be arrested as her “crime” was in the past. Meanwhile, the women’s minister talked about providing counselling.

It was like a couple expecting their first child, preparing the nursery to receive the baby, except the ‘baby’ - Aishah - refused to come home.

As information trickled back to KL, the IGP was probably told that Aishah had not deviated from her ideology. She had not been enslaved, as was previously reported. She had no intention of returning to Malaysia. She was not remorseful, nor did she want to resume ties with the land of her birth. Sources also allege that the reunion between Kamar and Aishah was far from cordial.

If Aishah really wanted to flee from her captors, she would have.

Khalid and the government realised, too late, that Aishah had outsmarted them. Aishah did not follow the Umno Baru script.

The IGP and Najib Abdul Razak probably wanted to give Aishah a heroine’s welcome at KLIA. Then, after a six month religious rehabilitation at one of the indoctrination centres, arrange a photo-shoot of Aishah kissing Najib’s hand, renouncing her previous ideology, giving up her Marxist beliefs, and praising Najib’s government as the saviour of her body and soul.

The penny must have dropped as Kamar and Hisham passed through passport control at Heathrow, on Saturday morning to return home. So, Khalid had to divert attention from the government’s terrible handling of the Aishah story. A distraction had to be found. Me! The rest is history.

A means to intimidate the public?

Did Khalid, in a moment of madness, lose his judgment and decide to abuse his position and utilise the publicity machinery of the state, and use me as a means to intimidate the public?

He was foolish to think I would be intimidated. Perhaps, he wanted me to be cowed and cower under the bed, as a certain politician, who was caught in flagrante delicto in Port Dickson, was alleged to have done.

Khalid believes that writers for the alternative media write, merely to get hits. They don’t! One would like to ask the IGP if his men have been given orders to use their weapons, just to score hits, on their victims?

Will Khalid understand that one of the reasons the mainstream media is failing the public is because they are economical with the truth. They manipulate facts and tell lies to incite hatred.

If Khalid were to talk to former Utusan journalists, he would learn many painful truths. Those who joined the exodus, in 2007, have alleged that their wages have not been paid. Another journalist alleges that the paper is losing money, because Umno Baru takes out full page advertisements in Utusan, and then fails to pay the paper.

Utusan loses revenue, and Najib, the president of Umno Baru knows that the party is bankrupt. So, he urges the government-linked companies (GLCs) to place advertisements in Utusan Malaysia.

My calling is to continue informing the public and stimulate them to ask questions of their parliamentarians and people in positions of responsibility, like the IGP. What are Khalid’s good points?  People have lost faith in the police because of leaders like Khalid.

One would have thought that Khalid would have understood the nuances of my article.  Surely, someone could have explained them to him, before he was allowed to shoot his mouth off.

It was Khalid who incorrectly mentioned race as the reason for the different treatments meted out to Chin Peng and Aishah. Perhaps, he would like to tell us why the dead Malaysian terrorists like Dr Azahari Hussein and Noordin Mat Top, the masterminds of the Jakarta and Bali bombings, were allegedly given the VIP treatment? Not many dead Malaysians would be returned to Malaysia at the taxpayer’s expense, in an RMAF transport.

Khalid warned me via a Bernama report that, “She (Mariam Mokhtar) had better watch out...”

Despite his failings, we should praise Khalid for his ‘1Malaysia’ spirit. During his visit to multicultural and predominantly Christian Sabah, he has kicked off the Christmas season with the classic song ‘You’d better watch out’. Most readers may know it by its original title, ‘Santa Claus is coming to town’.
A Malaysian makeover

With apologies to the original songwriters, J Fred Coots and Haven Gillespie, whose song made its debut in 1934, I have given the song a Malaysian makeover, and substituted the words ‘Santa Claus’ with ‘The IGP’.

The older generation may recall Fred Astaire, Dean Martin or Frank Sinatra singing this song. Khalid and younger Malaysians may prefer Miley Cyrus’ catchy rendition on YouTube.

Oh! You better watch out,
You better not cry,
You better not pout,
I'm telling you why:
The IGP  is coming to town!

He’s making a list,
He's checking it twice,
Gonna find out who’s naughty or nice.
The IGP is coming to town!

He sees you when you’re sleeping,
He knows when you're awake.
He knows when you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!

So...You better watch out, You better not cry
You better not pout, I’m telling you why.
The IGP is coming to town.

Who knows? The Khalid inspired song, ‘You Better Watch Out’, may prove to be this year’s Christmas hit.

Khalid was wrong to attack and intimidate members of the rakyat. This harassment should be our catalyst for real, meaningful change. It is Khalid and Umno Baru who had better watch out!

---

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a defender of the truth, the admiral-general of the Green Bean Army and president of the Perak Liberation Organisation (PLO).

BLOG: IGP, what is seditious in Mariam’s article?

Columnist Kee Thuan Chye is saying the recent warning issued by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) to political commentator Mariam Mokhtar against writing articles that could be deemed seditious is highly unwarranted and deserves to be censured.

I cannot see a fellow writer being threatened by someone in public authority for what she writes and not stand up for her. I’m therefore saying that the recent warning issued by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) to political commentator Mariam Mokhtar against writing articles that could be deemed seditious is highly unwarranted and deserves to be censured.

Now, if the IGP was giving her friendly advice in saying she should not write articles that were seditious, he might have good cause to do so. Even if the articles she has written so far have not proven to be so. But that does not seem to be the tone and tenor of what he said a few days ago.

What makes his remark deserving of censure is what he added: “She had better watch out or we will go after her.” That comes across, undoubtedly, like a threat. And it’s inappropriate coming from someone like the IGP.

I don’t know Mariam personally and have never met her. (Sorry for sounding like Najib Razak talking about a different person – I think you know who.) I also can’t say I’ve read every article she’s written. But those I have do not strike me as being seditious - certainly not as is spelt out in the Sedition Act.

In fact, her writing impresses me as that of someone who cares about her country and wants it to be better. She criticises wrongdoing by people in power, exposes their foibles and points out the contradictions between what they say and what they do in order to make Malaysians aware of right and wrong.

She provides a much-needed public service by highlighting issues of pressing and immediate concern to Malaysians, giving voice to thoughts that many of her fellow countrymen and women may share but are unable to articulate.

She has written about racial discrimination, social injustice, domestic violence, child abuse, the rise in crime, political scandals, the ‘Allah’ issue, the ineptness of Najib as prime minister, the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the illegal immigrants in Sabah, Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s attempt to muzzle the media, the disservice to the Malaysian electorate done by the Election Commission … and many, many more topics of public interest.

She should not be intimidated for creating awareness and putting issues in perspective. She should not be shut up.

IGP Khalid Abu Bakar is reportedly displeased with her article ‘One ideology, two reactions’ that appeared on the online news website Free Malaysia Today on November 29.

In it, she asked why the Government was willing to welcome home Siti Aishah Abdul Wahab from London when it had been dead against allowing even the ashes of the late Malayan Communist Party leader Chin Peng to be brought back from Thailand.

After all, Siti Aishah was also a left-winger. She was on the Malaysian police’s ‘wanted’ list in the 1970s for being considered an extremist. When she went to study at the London School of Economics, the police kept her under surveillance. Subsequently, she was allegedly held as a “slave” in London by a Maoist sect for 30 years, until she escaped several weeks ago.

Khalid said Mariam’s article was “highly seditious”.

I have since read it a few times, but I cannot in all honesty find anything in it that is seditious.

Mariam states the facts about Siti Aishah and Chin Peng. She asks a pertinent question: “Malaysians must wonder why Aishah is considered safe but Chin Peng’s ashes are deemed a national threat.” Indeed, that has been in the minds of many people this past week.

She informs us, “The High Commission in London has said that it would extend its full cooperation to reinstate Aishah’s citizenship if she had unknowingly lost her identification papers during her 30-year imprisonment. We are thankful that the global network of the Foreign Ministry is diligent in performing its responsibilities in assisting Malaysians in various parts of the world.”

She asks, again pertinently: “So why can’t the same assistance be made available by the necessary departments in Malaysia to serve the hundreds of thousands of stateless people who were not registered by their poor and uneducated parents? Parents who may be the rural Orang Asli, the interior bound Penan or Indians who live on rubber estates?”

What is wrong with any of that? What is seditious in what she has written?

She also writes: “Wisma Putra, the Women’s Ministry and the IGP are keen to help Aishah. By all means show compassion but make sure that compassion is extended to all Malaysians and not a select few individuals who just happen to be making headlines in the developed world. If Aishah is promised counselling, the same should be given to the traumatised victims at home; the ostracised Penan women and young girls who were raped by timber workers, the family members of people killed in violent incidents like Batangkali, Memali, Kampung Medan and May 13.”

Again, I ask, where is the sedition?

She is asking for social justice and compassion across a wide spectrum. That’s a positive thing. Does that constitute sedition?

So why is the IGP displeased?

And why must he invoke sedition? The Sedition Act has of late become too obvious an instrument being used by the ruling party to bully citizens who speak up because they want things to be better, like cartoonist Zunar, activists Hishamuddin Rais and Haris Ibrahim, student leaders Adam Adli and Safnan Awang.

On the other hand, people like Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali, ex-prime minister Mahathir Mohamad and politician Zulkilfli Noordin and the newspaper Utusan Malaysia that have said things for the worse, like insulting the religions of others or causing hatred between the races, have not received even the slightest ticking off from the authorities. Ironically, what they have said subscribe more to the definition of sedition as spelt out in the Act. And yet they are seemingly immune to prosecution.

So, please, IGP, don’t threaten Mariam with sedition and appear so obviously selective with your targets. Go instead after the people who really commit sedition. Don’t turn this into another farce as you did with your explanation of how policemen lost their guns (the weapons fell into the sea!).

And do learn how to make a critical discourse analysis of a piece of writing so that you don’t see things that are not in it. I arrived at my conclusion that ‘One ideology, two reactions’ is not seditious by using logic and reasoning. What did you use to arrive at yours?

Oh, one last point. The Malaysian police were monitoring Siti Aishah when she was in London. How did they miss the moment when she got ‘enslaved’ by the Maoist sect? And were they unaware of it for 30 years? Can we conclude from this that the police were slack in their work? Or is there more to it than meets the eye?

These are not seditious questions, IGP, so please provide us the answers.

* Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to MSN Malaysia

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the new book The Elections Bullshit , now available in bookstores.

‘I am still puzzled over the ban’

Author K Arumugam is baffled by the Federal Court's decision to maintain the ban on his book, March 8, stating that it is a move backwards for 'freedom of expression'.

PETALING JAYA: The author of March 8, a Tamil book on the Kampung Medan race riots in 2001, K Arumugam is puzzled over the Federal Court decision to maintain the ban on his book published in 2006.

The book centres on the violent clashes that took place between the Malay and Indian communities in Kampung Medan, Selangor on March 8, 2001.

“Even now, I am puzzled over the ban. It is a simple book with basic logical arguments without any element of fiction. It is based on a PhD thesis by S Nagarajan,” said K Arumugam who is also Suaram director, via e-mail.

Yesterday, a five member panel at the Federal Court led by Federal Court judge Ahmad Maarop dismissed Arumugam’s leave of application to review a ban on his book.

The decison to dismiss the application was made unanimously, without costs, by the panel of judges which included – Hasan Lah, Zaleha Zahari, Jeffrey Tan Kok Wha and Ramly Ali.

Arumugam was represented by lawyers Edmund Bon and Fahri Azzat whereas the government was represented by Shamsul Bol Hassan.

The Home Ministry banned the book on Nov 26, 2006 on the grounds that it was prejudicial to national security.

Arumugam first challenged the Home Ministry’s decision by filing a judicial review application at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on July 10, 2007.

On Feb 2010, the High Court dismissed his application to quash the ban. The case was raised at the Appeals Court on Aug 6, 2012 and again the ban was upheld.

Arumugam added that the Federal Court decision was against freedom of expression.

Citing the case of a book titled “Muslim Women and the Challenge of Islamic Extremism”, published in 2005 by the women’s rights group, Sisters in Islam (SIS), Arumugam said the Federal Court had agreed with the Appeals Court and maintained that the Home Ministry had erred in its decision to ban the book.

“The federal court allowed the leave application for the SIS case. Dismissing mine is a step backward for freedom of expression and due process of law.

“The decision is not one where the court judiciously exploited grounds of appeal advanced by my counsel,” said Arumugam.

Cowardice action

He criticised the Home Ministry’s decision to ban the book as an act to protect the authorities from being embarrassed for failing to maintain peace during the incident.

“Banning the book is a cowardice action to protect the executive from being exposed for the failure of the police and security forces.

“They (authorities) are supposed to protect the innocent Indians during the ethnic violence in which victims were Indians and attackers were Malays,” said Arumugam.

He added that he will consider selling his books abroad. He has printed 5,000 copies and sold over 3,000 copies prior to the ban.