Felda is filing a defamation suit against several Pakatan Rakyat leaders, Suara Keadilan publishers and reporters for making a false claim that Felda was bankrupt and in disarray. Petronas, Felda, Sime Darby, MISC, Bank Bumiputra, etc. When are we going to learn? Come election, the rakyat vote them back into government for a mere RM50. That's what most of the poor kampung folks get.
Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Ahmad Maslan said they would sue them for hundreds of millions of ringgit.
“Felda is certainly not bankrupt as it has RM12.2bil in net assets,’’ he said.
Among those who would be named in the suit are Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, PKR political bureau member Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, PAS’ Kuala Terengganu MP Mohd Abdul Wahid Endut, former Land and Co-operative Development deputy minister Datuk Dr Tan Kee Kwong who has now joined PKR, as well as Suara Keadilan chief editor Suhaimi Said, its owner and writers.
“We have spoken to our lawyers and we want to initiate a suit against them for making the false claims (in the Suara Keadilan June 22-29 edition).
“The title “Felda bangkrap” shows they have ill intention to discredit Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak,’’ he said.
Ahmad had earlier called for a press conference to counter the lies spread by the opposition leaders.
“The lies have adversely affected investors’ and stakeholders’ confidence in the agency,’’ he said.
He said although Felda’s cash reserve had dropped from RM4.08bil in 2004 to RM1.35bil last year, its fixed asset had appreciated greatly from RM9.17bil to RM15.37bil during the corresponding period.
Felda is the world’s largest fully integrated oil-based plantation group owning 92 factories worldwide. Felda is also Malaysia’s biggest plantation owner with estates covering 853,000 ha nationwide.
Ahmad said the agenda of the opposition was to erode Felda settlers’ confidence in Umno.
“We know what they are up to because Felda settlements are Barisan Nasional strongholds, and the opposition leaders are willing to resort to lies to fish for votes,’’ he said.
Felda is also taking action against Dr Tan for stating in an open letter that the Prime Minister was single-handedly destroying Felda.
Zaid and Klang MP Charles Santiago had called on the authorities to investigate Dr Tan’s claim.
malaysia ~ If you like this informative post, please subscribe to my full RSS Feed
Shah Alam High Court has decided the fate of the three accused implicated in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu. Abdul Razak Baginda is freed but the outcome is expected as most have suspected that there are unseen hands involved in the decision making.
The court however ordered Azilah and Sirul to enter their defence to a charge of murder in the Altantuya Shaariibuu case.
From TheStar
Altantuya case: Razak acquitted
By CHELSEA L.Y. NG and NURBAITI HAMDAN
SHAH ALAM: Political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda walked out a free man from the High Court here after two years of standing trial for abetment in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu.
The first thing he did after the judge pronounced his freedom was to hug his daughter Rowena and wife Mazlinda Makhzan.
Justice Mohd Zaki Md Yasin ruled that the exculpatory statements in a tell-all affidavit made by Razak at the outset of the trial had cleared him of the abetment charge.
“In the absence of the rebuttal evidence against them, coupled with the fact that there is no legal onus for him to rebut any statutory presumptions, there is clearly no reason for the statements to be ignored and rejected.
“I agree with the counsel that the exculpatory parts which are corroborated in material particulars (by four witnesses) and other surrounding circumstances have clearly negated and nullified the act of abetment as alleged against the accused,’’ Zaki said while reading out his ruling.
The four witnesses were Razak’s private eye P. Balasubramaniam, Altantuya’s cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg, an old flame of principal accused C/Insp Azilah Hadri, who is a Special Action Squad (UTK) operative - L/Kpl Rohaniza Roslan and Razak’s secretary Siti Aishah Mohd Azlan.
At the start of the trial, Abdul Razak filed an affidavit saying he had an affair with Altantuya after meeting her in 2004.
The tell-all affidavit said they had trysts in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore and France, but broke up in 2005.
The judge’s ruling on Friday came after he had perused about 6,000 pages of notes of proceedings and written submissions.
Justice Zaki said once the essential elements of abetment of the murder was not proven on a prima facie basis, “any other inferences and doubts that may have arisen must be resolved, as is trite, in favour of the accused (Razak)”.
“It is not for the court to call for the defence merely to clear or clarify such doubts. I find there is no prima facie case for him to answer his charge. He is therefore acquitted and discharged forthwith,’’ he said.
The trial began in November 2006, during which 84 prosecution witnesses testified.
Also in the dock for the murder charge is another UTK operative Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar, 37.
Both C/Insp Azilah and Kpl Sirul Azhar were ordered to enter their defence on Friday against the charge of murdering Altantuya near Shah Alam, Selangor, between 10pm on Oct 19, 2006 and 1am the following day.
They chose to testify under oath. Trial has been set for Nov 10 onwards
malaysia ~ If you like this informative post, please subscribe to my full RSS Feed
Judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin of the Shah Alam High Court will decide today if three individuals have to enter their defence (prima facie) on a charge of murdering Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu, who was allegedly shot before her naked body was blown up with explosives two years ago. Prosection closed the case five weeks ago. The court proceeding has gone on for almost two year.
The three accused individuals are Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar (both members of the Special Action Unit/Unit Tindakan Khas (UTK) and a renowned political analyst and strategist Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda.
The high profile case has generated a big following especially when there were rumours of a public figure linked to the murder, revelations of intimate involvement of one of the accused with the victim and some shady business dealings.
If the three accused are discharged, the court would do great criminal injustice to Altantuya Shaariibuu and her family as well as the Malaysian public.
malaysia ~ If you like this informative post, please subscribe to my full RSS Feed
This is yet another case of spillage on incident of the government influencing the court judges decision after the Lingam affair.
That's right. A high court judge has spilled the beans and he revealed that the ex-Prime Minister of Malaysia (hence, the government) has manipulated or try to manipulate court decision in certain cases especially those involving the Barisan Nasional politicians and party matters or interests.
Syabas to Justice Datuk H C Ian Chin for spilling the beans. The Malaysian public need to know that even the court is being controlled by certain leaders of Barisan Nasional. Let's just hope that the judges make their decision based on the law and evidence and not based on the Barisan Nasional influences or pressure.
Read extracted text below for further details.
If you like this informative post, please subscribe to my full RSS Feed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Source: theborneopost.com/?p=36672
High Court judge makes explosive judicial disclosures
By Danny Wong
SIBU: A High Court judge here yesterday made some startling revelations at the commencement of the proceedings of the election petition filed by the DAP candidate for the Sarikei parliamentary seat, Wong Hus She, to declare the result of the March 8 general election for the seat void.
The Barisan Nasional candidate, Ding Kuong Hing, won the seat with a slim majority of 51 votes.
Justice Datuk H C Ian Chin informed the parties in open court that he had certain disclosures to make at the start of the proceedings, saying he was doing so to forestall any complaints that might be made by the parties later.
He said complaints had been made against him in an earlier case that he had failed to disclose the detention of his father and brother during the time of the Mustapha regime in Sabah in late 1969 and the early 1970.
Chin then proceeded to make his disclosure the contents of which could only be described as explosive, coming hot on the heels of the findings of the Royal Commission in the Lingam video tape.
He started by saying that “it is better to err on caution that I take this step to shortly disclose what the parties and counsel may not be aware but which they may later complain that I should have disclosed”.
“I take this course also because I am smarting over the complaint that the detention of my father and brother during the time of the Mustapha regime in Sabah in late 1969 and the early 1970 should have been but not disclosed. (See Sabah Foundation & 2 Ors vs Datuk Syed Kechik & Anor, Kota Kinabalu High Court at http://kkhighcourt.com/Completed Civil Matters/SabahFoundation.doc)
“What I am going to disclose relate to what happened after two of my judgements were handed down. One was the judgment in a libel case which I handed down on February 5 1997 (see Raveychandran v Lai Su Chon & Ors at http://kkhighcourt.com/Completed Civil Trials/RaveychandranNST.pdf) by which I distinguished MGG Pillai V Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Other Appeals (1995) 2 MLJ 493 and refused to give what I consider to be astronomical award for damage to reputation in libel cases,” he said.
Chin said the other was the judgement handed down on Feb 13 1997 in respect of an election petition (Donald Lawan v Abang Wahed bin Abang & Ors [Sri Aman High Court]) by which he set aside the election of Mong Dagang.
“Shortly after those two judgements, the Judges Conference was held from April 24 1997.
The then prime minister was scheduled to have a dialogue with the judges on that date. What was termed a dialogue and later reported as one was anything but a dialogue.
“The then prime minister went there to issue a thinly veiled threat to remove judges by referring to the tribunal that was set up before and stating that though it may be difficult to do so, it was still done. He said all that after he had expressed his unhappiness with what he termed ‘the Borneo Case’ and after he had asked whether the judge who decided that case was present or not.”
Chin said no one had any doubt that he was referring to the election case though he (then prime minister) did not mention it specifically which he decided on Feb 13, 1997.
Added the High Court judge: “After he was done with issuing that threat, he then proceeded to express his view that people should pay heavily for libel.
“He managed to get a single response from a Court of Appeal judge who asked whether he would be happy with a sum of RM1 million as damages for libel.
“He approved of it and he later on made known his satisfaction by promoting this judge (since deceased) to the Federal Court over many others who were senior to him when a vacancy arose.
“I was devastated after hearing all that but help came immediately after the “dialogue” was over when Federal Court judges came to my side and asked me to ignore him. Equally comforting were the words of my brother High Court judge who later told me that the then Prime Minister was too much.
“It will be recalled that the then prime minister not long after he assumed office had said, in a much publicised campaign against corruption, that he will put the fear of God in man but this apparently, given his diatribe in that conference, changed to instilling a fear of him if any judgment is to his dislike.”
Chin went on to say that to commemorate his “dialogue” with the judges a group picture was taken (which can be viewed by going to http://www/kkhighcourt.com/ JudgesnMahathir.htm).
To rub it in, he said, Bernama circulated a press release with one appearing in a Sabah newspaper (The Daily Express May 25 1997) which “was far from stating the truth”. A month later, Chin said he was packed off to a boot camp from May 26-30 together with selected judges and judicial officers.
He said that the boot camp was without any doubt “an attempt to indoctrinate those attending the boot camp to hold the view that the government interest as being more important than all else when we are considering our judgement”.
“Stating this devilish notion was by no less a person than the President of the Court of Appeal. Everyone was quiet during the question sessions. Also invited to the boot camp was a lecturer from a university who berated the election case and the bright spot in this episode was that a judicial officer, during question time, told the lecturer that she had no question but only a statement to make which was that the lecturer was in contempt of court.
“The then prime minister was scheduled to talk but he did not turn up and instead sent his then deputy who instead of talking invited questions and the one question I remembered being asked was — Are politicians looking for girls when they are often seen loitering at posh hotel lobbies?
“The perversion of justice did not stop there. My brother judge Kamil Awang was one morning looking for me after clocking in; we were both then serving in Kuching, Sarawak. When I met up with him in his chambers he was distraught and he told me that he had last night received a telephone call from the then Chief Justice asking him to dismiss the election petition that he was going to hear in Kota Kinabalu.
“He sought my opinion as to what to do with the telephone call.
“We went into the possibility of making a police report or of writing to the Chief Justice a letter to record what he had said over the telephone but in the end he decided against it since it will be his words against that of the Chief Justice,” he said.
Chin told the court that he was happy to later on learn that Kamil did not bow to the pressure by the Chief Justice and went on to hear the petition and thereafter making a decision based on the law and evidence.
The High Court judge said he had twice stood unsuccessfully as a Barisan Nasional candidate for a parliamentary and later for a state seat in Sabah in the 1980s and in one of those elections he was defeated by a DAP candidate.
He said he had also heard other election petitions, namely Yusuf Abdul Rahman v Abdul Ajis & Ors and Lee Hie Kui v Song Swee Guan & Darrell Tsen.
“Now, though no longer the prime minister and so no longer able to carry out his threat to remove judges which should therefore dispel any fear which any judge may have of him, if ever there was such fear, nevertheless the coalition party that he led is still around and the second respondent won on a ticket of that coalition party and it may cross someone’s mind that I may have an axe to grind against the party concerned or any member thereof.
“The petitioner in this case may also have similar view with regard to my defeat by a candidate standing on the ticket of a party to which he belongs.
” So I wish to hear from the parties as to whether they (counsel or parties) in this case entertain any such notion and whether they wish to apply for my recusal so that, if any, I can make a decision thereon.
“After this disclosure, litigants who were affected by the hundreds of judgment that I had handed down since those infamous days may justifiably worry as to whether any of my judgments were in any way influenced by this attempt to hang the Sword of Damocles over my head.
“No amount of words from me would assuage you of your worry; you will have to read my judgments as to whether they are according to the evidence and the law or whether they were influenced by threat.”
Chin then adjourned for half an hour to let the parties digest what he had said and to consider whether they wished to make any application for his recusal.
However, they expressed their full confidence in him in presiding over the hearing of the case.
Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin or better known as RPK, an Malaysian influential blogger is taken to jail after declining bail on sedition charge relating to his article "Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell" that he composed and posted in his Malaysia-Today.net site.
He is accused of publishing the article that alleged to have contained nine paragraphs of seditious words. Some of the paragraphs are personal ramblings of his and some are illustration made by others that he quoted.
When I read through the post, the following nine paragraphs could be:
1. "... Melayu babi, the whole lot of them". RPK is referring to the culprits and those who tried to cover up case evidences NOT all the Malays.
2. "... while the Altantuya murder trial is halfway through and long before we can see the end of what many consider a show-trial in a kangaroo court." Yes, Altantuya murder trial gain all the spotlights and some attempt by certain parties is making the trial into a circus.
3. "... the belief that there is some very damaging evidence in that Affidavit and which the government is trying to hide. ". High possibility unless the government reveal the real contents of the Affidavit to clear the air.
4. " Najib, Rosmah and Musa have also been implicated in this entire thing". For the time being, it a mere rambling speculation made by RPK.
5. "The Attorney-General made it appear like he knows the outcome of the trial even before the trail commenced?". Food for thought.
6. "The three accused deny killing Altantuya yet the police knew exactly where to go to look for the remains. How did the police know where to go when the three denied killing her?". Food for thought.
7. "It makes one wonder whether the police knew where to go because it is a ‘gazetted dumpsite’ where all ‘bumped off’ people are disposed. ". Another RPK rambling.
8. ".... were matters such as how Altantuya’s immigration records could be erased from the Immigration computers, the letters Najib wrote to the Malaysian embassy supporting Altantuya’s visa application, the photograph of Altantuya, Najib, Razak and Kalimullah taken during Altantuya’s birthday party in the Mandarin Hotel in Singapore, and much more.". The truth is out there.
9. "This is about the Prime Minister of Malaysia withholding crucial evidence in a murder trial.". RPK is making the old man pissed off.
RPK will be pull to court for sedition charges and Law of Sedition (i.e Malaysian version) can be very repressive and one-sided. This incident illustrates that RPK is very influential and the government really can't stand his rambling. Maybe some of his remark are true that the government want to silent him. This incident also show that RPK has many followers, that when he ask for donation to pay for his possible maximum fines of RM5,000, he received over RM30,000 within hours from fellow bloggers.
Malaysia Sedition Act
The Sedition Act in Malaysia is a law prohibiting discourse deemed as seditious. The act was originally enacted by the colonial authorities of British Malaya in 1948. The act criminalises speech with "seditious tendency", including that which would "bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against" the government or engender "feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races".
The latter provision includes the questioning of certain portions of the Constitution of Malaysia, namely those pertaining to the Malaysian social contract, such as Article 153, which deals with special rights for the bumiputra (Malays and other indigenous peoples, who comprise over half the Malaysian population). More on Malaysia Sedition Act (Law)
Updated:
* Aug 28, 2008: How to access RPK MalaysiaToday blog
* Aug 26, 2008: Raja Petra Kamarudin's blog MalaysiaToday blocked by the government
Related posts:
* Tan Sri Dr Nordin Kardi wins the first battle (against RPK)
If you like this informative post, please subscribe to my full RSS Feed
Source: thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/7/nation/21167472&sec=nation (May 07, 2008)
Blogger Raja Petra taken to prison after declining bail on sedition charge
By M. MAGESWARI and MANJIT KAUR
PETALING JAYA: The editor of news portal Malaysia Today, Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin, claimed trial in the Sessions Court here to publishing a seditious article in its website on April 25 while businessman Syed Akbar Ali claimed trial to posting a seditious comment.
Raja Petra, 58, became the first blogger to be charged under the Sedition Act, making it a test case.
He is accused of publishing the article “Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell” in the website www.malaysia-today.net. The article is alleged to have contained nine paragraphs of seditious words.
He is said to have committed the offence at his house in Jalan BRP 5/5 in Bukit Rahman Putra in Sungai Buloh that day.
When the interpreter read out to him the alleged seditious words, Judge Nurmala Salim interjected by asking her to pronounce the exact words as highlighted in the six pages of Appendix A.
The interpreter took 11 minutes to read out the allegedly seditious words to him.
Upon hearing the details of his charge from the interpreter at noon, Raja Petra, who clasped his hands behind his back, claimed trial.
Clad in a short-sleeved yellow shirt and blue jeans, Raja Petra was composed throughout the court proceedings.
If convicted, he can be fined a maximum of RM5,000 or jailed up to three years or both under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act.
At this juncture, lead counsel K. Balaguru raised a preliminary objection saying that the charge did not state the time of the alleged offence.
He said the prosecution should have classified which category of the Act that his client had allegedly infringed.
At that point, the court was adjourned for 10 minutes after Balaguru informed the judge that veteran lawyer Karpal Singh would also appear for his client.
When the court resumed, Balaguru withdrew his preliminary objection.
Queried on prosecution witnesses, Nordin said he would be calling 15 witnesses and would prefer a week for the trial.
Nurmala set five days from Oct 6 for trial. Raja Petra declined to post bail and was taken to Sg Buloh prison later.
In Kuala Lumpur’s Jalan Duta Sessions Court, Syed Akbar Ali, 48, pleaded not guilty to posting the comment on Arabs and Islam with Raja Petra’s article titled “Malaysia’s organised crime syndicate: all roads lead to Putrajaya” on June 5 last year.
The former banker looked calm when the charge was read out to him.
The offence was allegedly committed at 2.59pm at Zeenath Begum Jewellers Sdn Bhd in Jalan Masjid India.
Judge S.M. Komathy Suppiah granted bail at RM3,000 and fixed June 10 for submissions on the charge.
He posted bail.
Source: thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/7/nation/21169075&sec=nation (May 07, 2008)
Website editor in celebratory mood
KUALA LUMPUR: Blogger Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin was celebrating – by smoking too much – a day before the Government charged him with sedition.
“I have been celebrating as finally the Government is charging me,” he said.
Asked if he had slept well, he laughed and said he had a bad cough due to too much smoking.
He said his defence team would prove there was no case against him and that it was a case of “political persecution”.
“They lost in the election because of the Internet war. Malaysia Today was one of the 'culprits',” said Raja Petra who turned up in the Jalan Duta court complex here at 9.06am.
Earlier, a large crowd comprising bloggers, MPs, lawyers and well-wishers gathered at the court lobby in Jalan Duta.
At about 10.30am, Raja Petra said he received a call from a policeman telling him to go to the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court.
He left the Jalan Duta complex five minutes later in a friend’s car.
After the court proceedings ended, his lead counsel K. Balaguru said his client did not have money to post the RM5,000 bail while Raja Petra’s wife, Marina Lee Abdullah, said her husband wanted his online readers to contribute RM1 each for his bail.
“I tried to persuade him not to stay in the lock-up but he says that it is his stand. He is very stubborn,” added Marina.
His CIMB account number was posted on his website from morning. By 4pm, readers had contributed RM24,500 and US$3,283.61 (RM10,441.87). The donation campaign was called off at 5.30pm and the website stated that excess funds would be donated to a charitable home of Raja Petra’s choice.
Meanwhile, the Bar Council Malaysia called on the authorities to withdraw the charge against Raja Petra.
“The Sedition Act is a draconian, archaic and repressive legislation that has long outlived any perceived utility it might ever have had,” it said in a press release.
-
This is another case of government incompetency whereby complaints have been made to Keningau District Office but the problem (of illegal logging and encroachment) remained unsolved and the rakyat continue to suffer.
Even with authority, the government officials cannot take action against those responsible. Was it the parties involved are political immune to the law or was it the government officials were given hampers, cash envelop, air tickets, and what not.
When the case was taken to court and when they win the case, the state government will have to compensate the plaintiffs with government money, our money.
This thing would not have happen if the government officials act promptly when reports are initially lodged.
Extracted from: dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=56807 (Apr 10, 2008)
Villagers win suit against State Govt
Kota Kinabalu: The residents of four villages in Tambunan will remember March 28, 2008, for the rest of their lives because it was the day in which they won a suit against the State Government.
High Court Judge Datuk Nurchaya Haji Arshad had ordered the defendants, the State Government of Sabah, a senior government officer and a government officer, to pay the sum of RM100,000 to the plaintiffs.
In the suit the residents were represented by Joannes Anggon, Dayong Unkong, Gapel Sondokiri and Eging Sasai.
The four had filed the suit at the High Court here on Oct. 2, 2003, on behalf of themselves and villagers of Kampung Donggiulang, Rantai, Bundu and Tiga, as they had only wanted their rights as citizens of this country protected.
The villagers' woes began on June 12, 2000, when the gravity pipe project at the four villages (jointly referred to as "Bundu Apin-Apin Area") was launched despite the Village Development and Security Committee (JKKK) saying it was not supposed to commence yet due to several reasons.
The joint Bundu JKKKs (G4JKKK) had applied for gravity pipe to be built in Kampung Donggiluang, Rantai, Bundu and Tiga to the Health Ministry via the Tambunan Health Department since 1988.
Joannes said their application was approved but could not be carried out due to insufficient funds. "The Tambunan Health Department informed us that the application would, however, be included in the Eighth Malaysia Plan (8MP)," he said.
But in May 2000, he said that the G4JKKK suddenly had a change of heart and applied that the gravity pipe project be built through the logging areas.
The area, he said, is located within the villages' water catchment that has also been gazetted as water catchment by the Government.
The construction of the gravity pipe through logging areas was officiated in June 17, 2000. However, Joannes said as time passed, about 3,000 acres of land had been logged but the construction of the gravity pipes was only 35 per cent completed.
"We've initiated several efforts to urge the Keningau District Office to take serious note of the matter but were unsuccessful," he said.
When the villagers had lodged protests and stopped the logging activities in 2001, the timber company was finally ordered to furnish deposit of RM100,000 to the Keningau District Office as collateral to ensure the gravity pipe project is completed.
Nevertheless, Joannes said this had not changed the situation a bit because the logging activities continued more fervently and the company also did not fulfil its promise to give the deposit to the District Office.
"The villagers then had no choice but to take the matter to court and filed the suit with the Kota Kinabalu High Court in Oct. 3, 2003," he said.
The villagers conducted three expeditions in the area to count the tree stumps as proof that there were rampant logging activities in the area while the construction of the gravity pipes was not running smoothly.
Nevertheless, Joannes said after waiting patiently for five years since the suit was filed in 2003, they were elated that the court ruled in favour of the people.
"I am really glad the case was settled. This has been an experience for us where throughout the case, we've gone through many challenges but our fighting spirit for justice overcome everything else," he said.
Secretary of Bundu Action Committee, Galus Ahtoi, urged government officers to be more professional and not take lightly the problems and needs of the society.
"I also hope this case will serve as a valuable experience to all communities in rural areas especially in handling problems that are related with basic needs of the society," he said.
He thanked legal advisor to Bundu Action Committee, Datuk Kong Hong Ming, Partners of Community Organisations (Pacos), the people at Apin-Apin and Merampong Keningau, government officers and the media.
Kong, however, said even though the plaintiffs were elated with the court's judgement, it would mean that taxpayers' money would be used to pay them.
Meanwhile, Galus said the gravity pipes had since been completed using funds obtained from elsewhere. He said that the RM100,000 would be kept as a trust fund for the benefit of the villagers.
Raja Petra and editors to pay RM7mil for libel
ALOR STAR: A High Court here has ordered blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin, the group chief editor and editor of PKR’s organ Suara Keadilan to pay a total of RM7mil to Universiti Utara Malaysia and its vice-chancellor Tan Sri Dr Nordin Kardi for libel.
High Court deputy registrar Priscilla Gengadaran made the order yesterday following a judgment in default she handed down on Feb 26 after the three had failed to file their defence within the required period.
She ordered the damages to be paid to the plaintiffs for claiming that Dr Nordin was a plagiarist on the Malaysia Today website and in the 98th edition of Suara Keadilan in November 2006.
Nordin and UUM had filed a lawsuit against Raja Petra, PKR, Suara Keadilan group chief editor and the editor. Only PKR had submitted its defence.
Priscilla ordered Raja Petra to pay RM2mil to Dr Nordin and UUM respectively. She also ordered each of the editors to pay RM1mil and RM500,000 to Dr Nordin and UUM respectively.
Dr Nordin told a press conference yesterday that the judgment showed that there was room for the public to take action against bloggers who made slanderous remarks.
“Politicians and artistes who are the usual targets should take action to ensure bloggers do not make libellous statements,” he said.
Dr Nordin said that if the defendants paid up, he would use the money for the benefit of UUM.
Source: http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/3/27/courts/20763017&sec=courts (Mar 27, 2008)
MD Says:
RM7 million is a hefty fine. Hopefully Raja Petra Kamaruddin (RPK) can sort things out and continue with his scorching posts at Malaysia Today. RPK claims of Dr Nordin Kardi being a copy cat could be true but with insufficient evidences or he may have soft evidences with the court does not accept or recognize.
Below is the definition "plagiarism":
Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement. Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution.
Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud and offenders are subject to academic censure. In journalism, plagiarism is considered a breach of journalistic ethics, and reporters caught plagiarizing typically face disciplinary measures ranging from suspension to termination. Some individuals caught plagiarizing in academic or journalistic contexts claim that they plagiarized unintentionally, by failing to include quotations or give the appropriate citation. While plagiarism in scholarship and journalism has a centuries-old history, the development of the Internet, where articles appear as electronic text, has made the physical act of copying the work of others much easier, simply by copying and pasting text from one web page to another.
Plagiarism is different from copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they emphasize different aspects of the transgression. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of the copyright holder, when material is used without the copyright holder's consent. On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship.
