Fuziah Salleh

Mendamba Politik Baru

News on Petra’s police investigation

His article, Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell, has been taken off the Malaysia Today’s blogsite.

————————————————————————————-

Malaysia Today

Cops investigating Raja Petra under Multimedia Act
Posted by kasee
Friday, 02 May 2008

By LOURDES CHARLES, The Star

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin is being investigated under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 for an article he wrote recently titled Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell.

It is learnt that eight police officers from the Federal Commercial Crimes Investigations Department (CCID) visited Raja Petra’s house in Sungai Buloh here at about 9am on Friday.

They seized a laptop and a CPU (central processing unit) before leaving at about 11am.

According to Raja Petra’s wife Marina Lee Abdullah, her husband had also been served with a notice requesting him to present himself at the CCID office in Bukit Perdana on Friday evening.

It is learnt police officers from the cyber crimes investigations unit are expected to record his statement over the article he wrote and posted on the Malaysia Today online news portal on April 25.

CCID director Commissioner Datuk Koh Hong Sun confirmed his officers had visited Raja Petra to assist police in their investigations.

He declined to elaborate further.

It is learnt that the CCID officers would be investigating certain allegations made in the article that were deemed false and defamatory.

Under Section 233 of the Act:

1) A person who

a) by means of any network facilities or network service or applications service knowingly —

(i) makes, creates or solicits; and

(ii) initiates the transmission of,

any comment, request, suggestion or other communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person; or

b) initiates a communication using any applications service, whether continuously, repeatedly or otherwise, during which communication may or may not ensue, with or without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person at any number or electronic address,

commits an offence.

2) A person who knowingly

(a) by means of a network service or applications service provides any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person; or

(b) permits a network service or applications service under the person ‘s control to be used for an activity described in paragraph (a),

commits an offence.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section shall, on conviction,be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both and shall also be liable to a further fine of one thousand ringgit for every day during which the offence is continued after conviction

May 2, 2008 - Posted by | Politics

2 Comments »

  1. i would like to correct you regarding this “His article, Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell, has been taken off the Malaysia Today’s blogsite.”

    this is the link to Raja Petra’s Altantuya Murderers!

    http://www.malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/6604/84/

    Comment by Najib bersalah | May 2, 2008

  2. If Raja Petra Kamaruddin who is a true pillar of our Malaysian society and a man who is well known for standing up for Justice & Rule of law can be charged under this offence, THEN I WISH TO ASK THE A-G, JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI AND PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, TAN SERI ZAKI AZMI, president & secretary of bar council, WHY THEY DO NOT CHARGE ME FOR CALLING jUDGE zAINON BINTI mOHD. aLI FOR CALLING HER A CRIMINAL. I believe that since my defence is the defence of TRUTH, they shy away from prosecuting me.

    To provide them (above mentioned people) I will publish my charges framed as question to be asked in Parliament. I was hoping that these questions will be asked, but no such luck. However, I will publish these comments that says Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is a criminal for aiding & abetting respondents Stephen Lim, Wong Kem Chen & Kwong Sea yoon; together with other criminal offences.

    I ask Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to make formal charges in Australia so that her criminal actions & criminal behaviour can be judged by a true & proper Court of Law where the judges are ethical & KNOW THEIR LAW.

    QUESTIONS FOR PARLIAMENTRY QUESTION TIME

    I refer to the High Court at Kuala Lumpur Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ; Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd and to the adjudicating Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, of said Petition. According to CHARGES made by one Yap Chong Yee husband of Petitioner Lim Choi Yin, Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had 1st approved all 6 Respondents’ application for security for costs in the sum of Rm.60,000 and upon payment of said security for costs of said Rm.60,000, Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali followed up the receipt of said Rm.60,000 by the approval to Respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban a 2nd and subsequent application by Respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban for an Order to strike out said Petition.

    The second and subsequent Application for an order to strike out said Petition was made even without there being any court order for the SETTING ASIDE of the 1st order for securing said Rm/60,000 for security for costs pursuant to the 1st order made by Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. That being the facts of the case my question directed to the attention of the Malaysian Attorney General Tan Seri……. Are the following :

    (1)Was not the conduct of Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s approval of Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s 2nd and subsequent application to strike out said Petition, while the said cash of Rm60,000 security for costs was still held in the hands of all 6 respondents to the petition, pursuant to the order made by Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to petitioner to provide security for costs constitute ABUSE OF POWER ?
    Will the Attorney General investigate Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for the criminal charge of ABUSE OF POWER & MALFEASANCE and will the Attorney General, if upon investigation find that sufficient evidence exist to support a criminal Charge against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for abuse of power and/or FOR MALFEASANCE proceed to lay criminal charges against Judge Zainon for a criminal prosecution ?

    (2)Is it not the case that while Respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban and the other 5 respondents hold on to the security for costs pursuant to Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s order to Petitioner to provide security for costs and in the absence of any Order to set aside the 1st Order for security for costs, the conduct of Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali together with the conduct of the 6 respondents IN TAKING AND KEEPING SAID RM.60,000 not amount to committing the criminal offence of obtaining money under false pretences ? And further, do the facts not indicate that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali together with the 6 respondents had acted with a common intention to induce Petitioner to pay said Rm.60,000 while not intending that upon payment of said Rm.60,000 THERE WILL BE A COURT TRIAL OF SAID PETITION ? The being the case do the facts not constitute a conspiracy to obtain money under false pretences ? The facts speak for themselves as an investigation will prove.
    Will the Attorney General investigate said 2 police reports and if the investigation give up facts that will support criminal charges against the said parties, will the Attorney General lay criminal charges against such persons ?
    Petitioner’s husband Yap Chong Yee had formally filed 2 police reports at the Balai Polis Jln. Tun H S Lee, in the first police report Yap Chong Yee had CHARGED the respondents Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen and Kwong Sea Yoon with PERJURY, for having lied in their supporting affidavits applying for security for costs.
    In the second police report Yap Chong Yee had Charged Stephen Lim Cheng Ban with FORGERY, PERJURY AND FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE, contained in his supporting affidavits applying for leave to strike out said petition.
    Both police reports were annexed to Petitioner’s affidavits as exhibits supporting Petitioner’s application for leave to cross examine said 3 respondents for PERJURY & FORGERY and both of Petitioner’s applications were refused leave to cross examine said Respondents, by Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. The refusal by Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to allow Petitioner leave to cross examine Respondent Stephen Lim and made in the face of the existence of 2 FORMAL POLICE REPORTS THAT CHARGED STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN with Perjury & forgery constitutes the charge of MALFEASANCE, AIDING & ABETTING Stephen Lim Cheng Ban to commit the criminal offences of PERJURY & FORGERY.
    Will the Attorney General investigate these criminal charges that are made against Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and if sufficient evidence is uncovered that will support criminal charges, will the Attorney General prefer criminal charges against Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali; will the attorney General formally charge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali with the said criminal offences ?

    Comment by yapchongyee | May 3, 2008


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: