I think it was rite thing to do. Sue the bloggers to make them more responsible in their blog. and court will decide with the case in their hands.

I restpecfully disagree, there is already too much censorship in Malaysia as it is. Furthermore it seems the NST just does what the govnt tells it to do anyway. I think the Star is a better English newspaper.

I like NST more from The Star. The Star is more about culture (especially western), sports and relationship thingie but NST gives more information involving news and nice stories from its guest columnists too.

For me all mainstream newspaper including The Star was Pro-Govt...

^^ What she did there??
Hunting ??

If a Singaporean or a Caucasian had used that kinda condescending tone about your country, with the kind of inflated nationalistic Malay ego that you carry, you would sooo have diarrhead blood all over this forum.

But what is a Papuan compared to the noble Melayu, pribumi, eh?

So if any Papuan here offended by my comment, I'm really-really sorry.
My mistake.. I didn't mean to hurt any Papuan here.

Bloggers subject to same rules
25 Jan 2007
Anis Ibrahim

KUALA LUMPUR: Bloggers are liable for defamation — just as in other forms of communication, lawyers and other experts said.

Kuala Lumpur Bar chairman Lim Chee Wee said statements on the Internet were simply writings in a different medium.

"You can call them blogs, online forums, websites, they’re all subject to the same defamation laws if offending statements are published," he said.

Lim agreed with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who said in London on Tuesday that although bloggers would not be restricted, they could be subject to defamation, sedition and other laws.

"They cannot hide or take advantage of a situation and do something against the law," he said.

"I also welcome the prime minister’s statement that blogs will not be censored," Lim said.

Law expert Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi said there was no doubt the rules of defamation applied to blogs and Internet forums.

"The definition of speech covers every form of communication in whatever form, written or symbolic. There is no doubt that bloggers are subject to the same rules."

Asked whether defamation laws in the West were more advanced than Malaysia’s, Shad Saleem said, "In fact we tend to give people much more freedom to defame because we have no privacy laws unlike most Western countries."

Lawyer Datuk Dominic Puthucheary, who has represented a major local publication against defamation, said, "Our laws on defamation should be governed by Article 10 of the Federal Constitution which provides for freedom of speech, unless limited by Parliament."

There is no law restricting people on the content of their blogs, he said. But "if something is either spoken or written in a permanent form, it is liable for defamation according to basic common law".

That was his advice to a politician on a statement that had been taken from the Internet and broadcast.

Puthucheary also drew a line between private and public individuals: "A defamatory statement against a private person is actionable," he said.

"When it comes to public interest issues and the conduct of public officers, it is not defamatory in some jurisdictions unless there is reckless disregard for the truth. But it is still an open question here."

The former Member of Parliament said the legislature should draft laws to deal with defamation in the "new forms of communication".

Lawyer Nahendran Navaratnam agreed that legislative changes were needed "to ensure that protection is given both to bloggers and those who are the subject of discussion on the Internet".

National Union of Journalists president Norila Mohd Daud said it was logical that defamation laws would apply to blog postings.

"Right now our laws do not cover blogs or online forums, but I think it’s simple logic that a defamatory statement can reach the public via any medium, by newspapers, magazines or the Internet."

Norila also agreed that bloggers had to exercise caution on their websites.

"It is true that bloggers have to be responsible. You can express your opinions but we have to see it from the point of view of the people who are named," she said.

So long as the blogs are no inciting religious or racist bigotry, why should political comments on blogs be subject to draconian defamation laws? Most of these comments are directed at big multinationals or bigwigs -- why does the government want to take out even this little voice of the people on the web?

Not everybody in the kampungs read blogsites... why are the big wigs and corporations so insecure I wonder?

So long as the blogs are no inciting religious or racist bigotry, why should political comments on blogs be subject to draconian defamation laws? Most of these comments are directed at big multinationals or bigwigs -- why does the government want to take out even this little voice of the people on the web?

Not everybody in the kampungs read blogsites... why are the big wigs and corporations so insecure I wonder?

Two things:

1) How do you determine what is or is not inciting or inflammatory? If someone should say in a blog, "One of the reasons Abdullah Badawi is incompetent as a Prime Minister is that he has failed to stop the abuse of powers by the radical religious conservatives." - is that a statement of fact or is that disturbing the peace? Is that rational criticism or is that a personal affront? I'm quite certain that your answer will be different from that of anyone in UMNO (with the exception of TDM).

How do you criticize people in a culture where even the slightest criticism is viewed as rude or outright disloyalty to (parents, elders, nation, government, etc)?

2) I suspect that the government is interested in the success of this lawsuit to determine if such an avenue of prosecution is viable to them in the future. Badawi is unashamedly on the side of the litigants (notice how conservatives spit at the word "freedom" as if it is a foreign concept, a foreign import?)

Verbal racism is really a crime in Singapore?

I wonder how'd Filipinos feel if same "law" will be applied, especially the militant groups.

^Of course, despite the laws crimes still exist.

I wish there's something similar to that in the Phils. People here just don't know the limitations of freedom of speech, especially the media. You sue them, they accuse you of being "authoritarian" or depriving you of freedom of speech.

There was even an incident where 20 students threw eggs at a military officer. When people condemned them, they accused these people of depriving them of freedom of speech, of democracy. Freedom of speech, Philippine-style. I even remember one militant representative, who was banned to go to Singapore during the I'm not sure if it's IMF or WB talks, accusing Singapore of being immature.

Sorry for the rants. Things are just funny over here. =)

I hope this does not sound very OT.. Hehe

Hehe. Weird folks really.