Murder charge amended to causing death

KUALA LUMPUR: Two brothers and a cousin, who were initially charged with murdering a couple on Aifilfitri last year, have been spared the gallows when the High Court here today amended the charge.
Judicial Commissioner Azman Abdullah, in amending the charge at the end of the prosecution case, ruled that the case fell under Exception 5 of Section 300 of the Penal Code.

The exception states that “culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is cause, being above the age 18 years, suffers death, or takes the risk of death with his own consent.”

However, the three relatives still maintained their not guilty plea and were ordered to enter their defence, which hearing would begin on Dec 30.

In the dock are Muhammad Ilyas Abdul Razak, 25, his brother, Muhammad Fauzi, 23, and their cousin, Muhammad Nizam Mohd Ibrahim, 21, who are jointly charged with causing the death of Mohd Ibrahim Kader Mydin, 48, and Rosina SM Mydin Pillay, 42, at house No 5-7C, Blok A, Flat Seri Sarawak, Jalan Kenanga here between noon and 8pm on Oct 1, 2008.

They are charged under Section 304(a) of the Penal Code which carries a jail sentence of up to 20 years.
In his judgment, Azman said although there was no evidence that the three relatives had beaten the couple to death, a witness had testified that Muhammad Fauzi and Muhammad Nizam did that to others on Muhammad Ilyas” orders.

“The court rules that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case under Section 304(a) of the Penal Code,” he added.

Earlier, Azman said that from witnesses’ testimonies, it showed that the three accused and their families believed that the ceremony held on Hari Raya could heal a person from illnesses and also bring back the dead to life.

He said the willingness of the family to undergo the healing ceremony proved their belief in the ritual, including on the parents allowing their son to beat them.

“A testimony by a witness who heard a ceramah by Muhammad Ilyas showed that the two families (Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Nizam’s families) had high regard for Muhammad Ilyas’ spiritual capabilities,” he added.

Meanwhile, defence counsel Supramaniam Kasia Pillay, who represented the three accused, said none of the witnesses in the hosue where the incident took place was able to tell how the couple died and who caused their death.

He also said that a psychiatric report also confirmed that Muhammad Ilyas had mental problems and that Muhammad Fauzi and Muhammad Nizam were only following Muhammad Ilyas’ order.

Deputy public prosecutor Anselm Charles Fernandis submitted that the accused murdered the couple to convince other relatives that they could bring the dead back to life.

By reading this article we can get to know that it’s a story of two brothers and a cousin who were alleged by means of killing a couple last year. At the High Court these alleged people were safe from the punishment. Azman Abdullah, the judicial commissioner lined that this case was below Exception 5 of Section 300 of the Penal Code where it is stated that “culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is cause, being above the age 18 years, suffers death, or takes the risk of death with his own consent.”

In this particular case, three people who were alleged to be guilty became spared because the couple who got killed were willing to take part in a ceremony of Hari Raya, where beating someone is a practice. These three people who were alleged also took part in the Hari Raya ceremony.

In class, where Mr. Sonny (lecturer) also explained about three degrees of murder charges; which also helped me a lot to understand this particular article and also increased my knowledge about this matter.

According to me, this particular case will fall under Second degree murder; which is culpable homicide. So these two brothers and their cousin fell under this particular degree of murder.

Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech: How qualified is it in Malaysia?

A friend remarked: “Freedom of speech? Of course we have it in Malaysia! You can say anything you want in your speech. Its your freedom after your speech that is in question!”

Lets read what the Article 10 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia states:

(1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4) –

(a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) all citizens have the right to form associations.
(2) Parliament may by law impose –

(a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence;

(b) on the right conferred by paragraph (b) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, or public order;

(c) on the right conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order or morality.

(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.
(4) In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under Clause (2)(a), Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.

Article 10 (1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, guarantees the freedom of speech, the right to assemble peacefully and the right to form associations to every Malaysian citizen. But such a fundamental right is not absolute in Malaysia.

This right is qualified by Article 10(2)(a) which allows the Parliament to impose restrictions on these rights in the interest of the security of the Federation, friendly relations with other countries, public order, morality; and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament, to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence.

It has been argued by the judicial community that the rights of Part II of the Federal Constitution, in particular Article 10, have been so heavily qualified by other parts of the Constitution, for example, Part XI in relation to special and emergency powers, and the permanent state of emergency that has existed since 1969, that much of [the Constitution’s] high principles are lost (Hickling’s Malaysian Public Law).

Article 10 (4) states that Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning on issues related to language, special position of the Malays and natives and sovereignty prerogative powers and jurisdiction of Rulers.

As the right expressed in Article 10(1) is subject to 10(2), it has been argued that the validity of such laws cannot be questioned on the grounds that it imposes restrictions as are mentioned.

However a closer reading you will note that what is deemed to be restrictions, cannot then be authorization and license for the creating laws (or in the case of the Police Act, apply the law so) that it denies the rights established in Article 10(1).

Repeated denials by the Police to grant a permit for a recent citizen’s assembly is a case example of how ‘restrictions’ have become denials. A proper application of these restrictions (in Police Act) in tandem with an understanding of the spirit of Article 10(1), would have been the issuance of a permit for assembly subject to certain restrictions for public safety. Unfortunately, most of us can only hope for proper application but not witness it.

Several acts of law regulate the freedoms granted by Article 10, such as the Official Secrets Act, which makes it a crime to disseminate information classified as an official secret.

The Sedition Act 1948 makes it an offence to engage in acts with a “seditious tendency”, including but not limited to the spoken word and publications; conviction may result in a sentence of a fine up to RM5,000, three years in jail, or both.

The Public Order (Preservation) Ordinance 1958 allows the Police to declare certain areas “restricted”, and to regulate processions or meetings of five persons or more.

The maximum sentence for the violation of a restricted area order is imprisonment of 10 years and whipping.
Other laws curtailing the freedoms of Article 10 are the Police Act 1967, which criminalises the gathering of three or more people in a public place without a licence, and the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, which grants the Home Affairs Minister “absolute discretion” in the granting and revoking of publishing permits, and also makes it a criminal offense to possess a printing press without a licence.

The Sedition Act in particular has been widely commented upon by jurists for the bounds it places on freedom of speech.

Justice Raja Azlan Shah (later the Yang di-Pertuan Agong) once said:
“ The right to free speech ceases at the point where it comes within the mischief of the Sedition Act.[8] ”


As a foreigner in this country, I think the situation of freedom of speech in Malaysia is quite bad. It is controlled by the government strictly. The media in this country is also controlled by the government. So if anyone wants to say anything it must not go against the government, because if it does then Malaysian government will catch that particular person and send him or her to jail without any trial. In a way, it’s also a violation of human rights.

What I see is, most of the people in this country are scared to say their own opinion or raise their voice against any government decision; it’s because they are all scared that government might find their opinion sensitive, so that they might end up in ISA.

From my point of view I think, ISA is a black law. Every citizen should have the right for freedom of speech. I feel that most of the times this Malaysian government is abusing this ISA to punish them whoever talk against them, as far as my understanding it’s not a fair practice followed by this government. On the other hand the citizens also have the responsibility not to abuse their freedom of speech because freedom speech is not about say whatever I want to say, it’s about use the freedom of speech against crime, corruption, problems in daily life and so. The freedom of speech has to be constructive or else it won’t do any good to any party.

Child Pornography

What is Child Pornography?

Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where

• the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

• the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

• the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Federal law (18 U.S.C. §1466A) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that

• depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or

• depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Sexually explicit conduct is defined under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256) as actual or simulated sexual intercourse (including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex), bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

Who Is a Minor?

For purposes of enforcing the federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), “minor” is defined as a person under the age of 18.
Is Child Pornography a Crime?

Yes, it is a federal crime to knowingly possess, manufacture, distribute, or access with intent to view child pornography (18 U.S.C. §2252). In addition, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws criminalizing the possession, manufacture, and distribution of child pornography. As a result, a person who violates these laws may face federal and/or state charges.

Where Is Child Pornography Predominantly Found?

Child pornography exists in multiple formats including print media, videotape, film, CD-ROM, or DVD. It is transmitted on various platforms within the Internet including newsgroups, Internet Relay Chat (chatrooms), Instant Message, File Transfer Protocol, e-mail, websites, and peer-to-peer technology.

What Motivates People Who Possess Child Pornography?

Limited research about the motivations of people who possess child pornography suggests that child pornography possessors are a diverse group, including people who are

• sexually interested in prepubescent children or young adolescents, who use child pornography for sexual fantasy and gratification

• sexually “indiscriminate,” meaning they are constantly looking for new and different sexual stimuli

• sexually curious, downloading a few images to satisfy that curiosity

• interested in profiting financially by selling images or setting up web sites requiring payment for access2

Who Possesses Child Pornography?

It is difficult to describe a “typical” child pornography possessor because there is not just one type of person who commits this crime.

In a study of 1,713 people arrested for the possession of child pornography in a 1-year period, the possessors ran the gamut in terms of income, education level, marital status, and age. Virtually all of those who were arrested were men, 91% were white, and most were unmarried at the time of their crime, either because they had never married (41%) or because they were separated, divorced, or widowed (21%).3

Forty percent (40%) of those arrested were “dual offenders,” who sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography, with both crimes discovered in the same investigation. An additional 15% were dual offenders who attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators who posed online as minors.4

Who Produces Child Pornography?

Based on information provided by law enforcement to NCMEC’s Child Victim Identification Program, more than half of the child victims were abused by someone who had legitimate access to them such as parents, other relatives, neighborhood/family friends, babysitters, and coaches.

What is the Nature of These Images?

The content in these illegal images varies from exposure of genitalia to graphic sexual abuse, such as penetration by objects, anal penetration, and bestiality.

Of the child pornography victims identified by law enforcement, 42% appear to be pubescent, 52% appear to be prepubescent, and 6% appear to be infants or toddlers.

What Are the Effects of Child Pornography on the Child Victim?

It is important to realize that these images are crime scene photos – they are a permanent record of the abuse of a child. The lives of the children featured in these illegal images and videos are forever altered.

Once these images are on the Internet, they are irretrievable and can continue to circulate forever. The child is revictimized as the images are viewed again and again.


My opinion is there should be no child pornography. Not only the government but also we as citizens should act hard against it. We should all try our best to stop it and we should promise ourselves that we are not going to view or use any type of child pornographic materials. We all should keep on fighting against it till the time it will be totally vanished from this world of ours. We shouldn’t just do it because it’s illegal, but also its totally against any human moral and ethics.

Phishing Scam Poster

Phishing scam is becoming very familiar within the people these days. Mainly, phishing scam launches an email to harass a person by means of asserting to be from a legitimate monetary or ecommerce supplier. The email frequently uses trepidation plans in an attempt to persuade the intended victim into visiting a deceptive website. Then, the victim is initiating to login to their account and enter insightful financial information. For example- their bank PIN number or other security codes. The information is then sent to the mugger who will use those information or data to engage in an identity deception. It is really important for us to know about these types of websites. There are so many types of phishing scam available today. So it’s very important for us to know the differences between original or duplicate websites. Phishing scam also can be regarding hacking someone’s personal e-mail account, social network account and also online banking account.

Here are the posters which I have designed regarding phishing scam:




Paris Hilton Testifies in Breach of Contract Case

Paris Hilton headed to federal court today in Miami to defend herself in the breach of contract case against her. Hilton is being sued by movie
investors who claim that Hilton failed to do enough to promote her 2006 film “Pledge This.” Investors are suing Hilton for over $8 million. They claim that Hilton signed a contract saying she’d promote the film and its DVD release. Then, Hilton reportedly refused to do interviews or do other promotional duties.

Paris Hilton on the other hand, says that she constantly plugged the film and met the requirements of the contract. She says that the producers of the film made unreasonable demands of her, considering her full schedule.

In what is surely a humiliating figure for the producers of the film, “Pledge This” brought in $7.5 million” but only earned about $2.9 million.

While we have no way of knowing whether or not Paris fulfilled her contractual duties to the fullest, let’s look at the larger issue: Does anyone actually believe that “Pledge This” would have done significantly better had Paris Hilton done more rounds of those deadly interviews she gives? The ones where she answers questions with one or two words in a sickly sweet voice while posing and flipping her hair. Would that have made people run out in droves to see the film?

No. Sorry, movie producers, but you should probably just walk away from all this having learned a valuable lesson: People may want to download Paris Hilton’s sex tape and they may like to listen to her be the punch line in jokes told in the monologues of late night shows, but that doesn’t mean they want to watch her in the movie theater, or that they want to watch a DVD of her doing some of the world’s worst acting. The producers of the film should “pledge this”: Never work with Paris Hilton on a movie again.


From my point of view I think, it’s not sure that Paris Hilton is liable to do these interviews and other promotional activities to one side from the contract. As long as this remains doubtful, there is also a chance that the violation of contract can also come from the investors. In a way they might be asking more from the contract which putting both the parties in to trouble.

For every contract it is very important to have certainty but in this particular matter I don’t see any certainty. So Paris Hilton failing to do her interviews and other promotional activities doesn’t put her clearly at the breach of contract.

Human Rights, Islam and Feminisims

Gender Equality under Article 8: Human Rights, Islam and “Feminisims” by Salbiah Ahmad

*LL.B (Hons.) University of Singapore, Masters in Comparative Law (International Islamic University, Malaysia), Dip. Shariah and Administration (IIUM), Recipient of fellowship from the Islam and Human Rights Fellowship, Religion and Law Program, University of Emory Law School, Atlanta, GA, USA (2003-2004) and the Southeast Asian Scholars and Public Intellectuals Fellowship (SEAF) of the Institute of Malaysian and International Studies (IKMAS), National University Malaysia, 2000.

This paper explores the term gender under Article 8 (2) of the Federal Constitution. Art. 8 (2) inter alia provides that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of gender “except as expressly authorized by the Constitution”. The principle of gender non-discrimination is premised on the fundamental principle of equality, a principle enshrined in Art. 8 (1). Gender equality has a global jurisprudence to mean both “sameness” and “difference”, notions included in a substantive equality standard which prioritizes equality of opportunity and outcomes. These issues remain unexplored in local jurisprudence. The paper also looks at equality in human rights and in Islam, as the latter factor continues to inform politics, policy and law in Malaysia. An understanding of these premises is crucial to the realization and implementation of the principle of equality. The State is committed to protect and guarantee the principle of equality under the Constitution and under her international obligations under principal human rights conventions. Malaysia, since 1995, is party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

The principle of equality is the most fundamental of human rights and has been described as the “starting point of all liberties”.[1] International human rights law reflects this belief. Art.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR) declares that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. The UDHR is not a treaty but it embodies a moral authority and sets out a common standard of achievement of all peoples and nations.[2] The UDHR is the root document from which the international human rights treaties have grown.

The International Bill of Rights comprises of the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)…Read More…

Chinese Internet Censorship

One of the sharpest challenges yet to China’s stifling attempts at Internet censorship comes in the form of a lowly alpaca. Actually, the alpaca-like creature starring in online videos and lining Chinese store toy shelves is a mythical “grass-mud horse” — whose name in Chinese sounds just like a vulgar expression involving a sex act and, well, your mother. Bawdy as it may seem, an Internet children’s song about the animal, full of lewd homophones, has emerged as a galvanizing protest against the Communist government’s efforts to ban “subversive” material — political dissent, most importantly — from the web. Purportedly a harmless fantasy, the wink-wink, giggle-giggle creation is a virtual thumb in the eye of China’s unblinking censors.
For as long as there’s been an Internet, China has sought to monitor and control how its citizens use it. That’s no small task in the world’s most populous country, which now has more web-surfers — some 253 million — than America. Technology known as “the Great Firewall” blocks web sites on an array of sensitive topics (democracy, for instance), while tens of thousands of government monitors and citizen volunteers regularly sweep through blogs, chat forums, and even e-mail to ensure nothing challenges the country’s self-styled “harmonious society.” Together this massive network of Internet nannying is imperiously called “the Golden Shield Project.” Thousands of websites (many porn-related) are blocked outright, and destinations such as YouTube, Flickr and Wikipedia are heavily restricted. Web users in Internet cafes — where the vast majority of Chinese go online — must supply personal information in order to sign on. (See pictures of the Dalai Lama.)
Ironically, it was U.S. technology firms that created much of the technology supporting the Great Firewall, and companies such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft have taken tough criticism from human rights advocates for tolerating the country’s censorship. “I simply don’t understand how your corporate leadership sleeps at night,” the late Rep. Tom Lantos, a Holocaust survivor, told tech representatives at a 2006 House hearing. Yahoo has taken the most heat, after it acknowledged giving the government information that led to the imprisonment of at least one Chinese journalist. (The company says it was required to comply with Chinese law.) Google has established a separate web site for China,, that it self-censors to satisfy Chinese authorities. The search giant argues that offering a limited set of information in China is better than no information at all.
The government’s rules for what’s permissible online are sweeping and, like much of its rhetoric, vague. News, for instance, should be “healthy” and “in the public interest.” Audio or video content must not damage “China’s culture or traditions.” And nothing must challenge the Communist party. The guidelines leave many media outlets and web surfers baffled. Last December, for example, the New York Times reported that its website had been inexplicably blocked, while earlier in the year the BBC’s English language content was just as surprisingly unblocked, with visitors on Chinese computers quickly jumping from about 100 to 16,000. James Fallows of the Atlantic writes that such “selective enforcement” can lead to the most stifling restriction of all — self-censorship: “The idea is that if you’re never quite sure when, why and how hard the boom might be lowered on you, you start controlling yourself, rather than being limited strictly by what the government is able to control directly.” Not like most Chinese care, though. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 80% of Chinese think the Internet should be managed or controlled, and 85% think the government should be responsible for doing it.
Internet controls were loosened in advance of last year’s Beijing Olympics, and many western journalists saw scant sign of the Golden Shield, as the Internet was kept largely unfettered during the games. Restrictions have tightened again, however, especially since December, when democracy supporters used the Internet to circulate the “Charter 08” petition challenging the government. That crackdown, in part, has fed the grass-mud horse craze and similar online double entendres designed to flout the government’s role as Big Brother. As one Chinese blogger told the Times, even with the most modern technology trying to hold them back, people will find a way to express themselves. “It is like a water flow — if you block one direction, it flows to other directions, or overflows.”


As far as my understanding goes, I think it’s not a first-class idea and also it is very unjust to the people of China that their government putting limits on them so, that they can’t get the desired information from the internet.

These days the use of internet is very common and it’s increasing every single day. Internet is connecting people from all over the globe. Internet is carrying information’s about so many things. Most of this information is quite necessary for us to know to survive well in this world. Internet is seen as continuous updated information bank. So the China government created and put fire walls to use or see the information liberally.

Every human has some rights and it is known as human rights. All of us has the right to view and use any source of information as long as those information which has been used doesn’t harm any individual, corporation and country. Actually as long as we don’t abuse any information that we get from the internet then there should be no problem. It totally depends on a particular user how he or she is going to use it. It’s the matter of ethical use. Free flow of information might create troubles but again as long as a user doesn’t abuse it then there shouldn’t be any problem.
If the Chinese government keep blocking more and more websites then it might prove bad for them in so many ways. First of all, their people won’t be satisfied with this at all, which might harm the peace and prosperity of the country. Secondly, the investors will also think twice before investing in to China, which will harm their progress of economy. As a result, those investors will find suitable places to invest and China will lose the money, which might worsen the situation.

The Chinese government should think about these things before censoring more websites for China and its people. They should teach their people and make them more educated about the safe and ethical usages of internet. It’s also the users responsibility to control themselves and not to do any unethical behavior in the internet. Rather than censoring they should make legislation for the use of internet, which will guide the users to safe use of internet.


It is about Meera who have been receiving emails from travel companies that keep offering her holiday packages to various places in the world. She replied to the senders to stop emailing her, but only to find that the emails keep coming and flooding her inbox.

Task: Advice her in legal aspects that may arise out of this practice by the travel company. Advise her on both criminal and data protection aspects.


Data Protection Principles involves:

Principle 4 (Disclosure of Personal Data)

Personal data shall not be disclosed without consent unless:
a)Is done for the purpose for which data was obtained
b)The person is a registered data user under the Act

Principle 3-Use of Personal Data

Personal data shall not be held without consent unless:
a)For the purpose to be used at the time of the collection of data
b)For the purpose directly related to (a)

Principle 8-Security of Personal Data

All practicable steps should be taken against unauthorized or accidental access, processing or erasure, alteration, disclosure or destruction of personal data and against accidental loss.


This case related with cyber crime. This case is about Andrew who is a computer science student attached with Mircohand Corporation in Cyberjaya as a practical trainee.

During his working hours he did some cybercrimes in his office. Below are his cyber crimes:

1) He managed to crack the company’s information system but did not do anything afterwards.
2) He managed to intrude into his company’s website system
3)Posted his pic on the front page of the website and left his mobile numb below his pic so that someone will call him & make friends
4)Leaked the company’s system access code to his friends at University
5)Sent e-mail to his friends telling bad things about his manager

It was based on Computer Crimes Act 1997

Types of Computer Crimes and Computer related offences:

1st cyber crime as mentioned above was charged
1)under unauthorized access to computer, computer system & computer network
Applicable Laws :CCA S.3
Punishment-RM 50 000/5 YEARS in prison /both

2nd cyber crime can be charged in both offences:
2)Computer cracking to explore loopholes in system
2)System intrusion
Applicable Laws: CCA S.3
Punishment-RM 50 000/5 YEARS in prison /both

3rd cyber crime can be charged in:
3)unauthorized alteration, amendment & modification of data
Applicable Laws: CCA S.5
Punishment-RM 100 000/7 YEARS in prison /both

4th cyber crime can be charged under:
4)Unauthorized communication of passwords
Applicable Laws: CCA S.6
Punishment-RM 25 000/3 YEARS in prison /both

5th cyber crime can be charged under both offences:
5)E-mail with false spreading
Applicable Laws: CMA S.211
Punishment-RM 50 000/1 YEAR in prison /both
5)E-mail with hatred & abusive content
Applicable Laws: CMA S.211
Punishment-RM 50 000/1 YEAR in prison /both


More than 4,000 cybercrime cases reported in two years

JOHOR BARU: More than 4,000 cyber complaints, mostly concerning cyber crimes have been lodged with Cybersecurity Malaysia in the past two years.
Its chief executive officer Lieutenant-Colonel Husin Jazri said that the complaints, mostly consisted of hack threats, fraud, denial of services and other computer problems such files lost or corrupted by viruses.
“We have received about 2,000 complaints in 2007.
“Last year, a total of 2,123 cases were lodged with us,” he told pressmen after the presentation of five computers to a school in the Kampung Simpang Arang Orang Asli settlement.
Science, Technology and Innovation secretary-general Datuk Abdul Hanan Alang Endut presented the computers on Saturday.
Lt-Col Husin explained that the agency’s services catered for individuals, as well as companies, who faced computer related problems.
“Our consultation services are free but we will charge any work that needs to be done such as repairs.
“The charges varies on a case by case basis,” he said adding that the agency rarely charged students or those from the lower-income group.
He said that the agency’s 150-strong staff was dedicated to solving computer problems as they aimed to serve the needs of the public.
“We have an emergency response team that caters to the complaints.
“Among our other services are digital forensics, security assurance, security management and best practices,” he said.
He added that the agency’s main objective is to be a one-stop coordination centre for all national cyber security initiatives.
“Among the initiatives are reducing vulnerability of ICT systems and networks and nurture a culture of cyber security among users and critical sectors,” he said.
Lt-Col Husin said the public could contact the agency at 03-89926888, fax at 03-89453205 or email at info [at]
“People can also contact our hotline at CYBER999 to report any problems.
“Our office in Seri Kembangan is open from Monday to Friday,” he said.
He said that the agency was also working closely with enforcement agencies such as the police in solving and curving cybercrimes in the country.


From this above article I can see that, the cases of cybercrimes are increasing quite rapidly in Malaysia. With the improvement of technology the cybercrime has also improved itself. So the law enforcement agencies in Malaysia who are in charge of cyber crime should be more advance and hard working. So, that they can become more effective to stop such cases. I know it’s not easy to stop cybercrime, that’s why these people who are in charge they need to be on their toes. They also should try to make the people of Malaysia more educated about safe usages of internet and also to make them more aware about cyber crimes. They should follow the old saying “ Hate the sin, not the sinner.”