Teoh Beng Hock - The Inquest

The Inquest into Teoh Beng Hock's death started today. It was a rush job by the Government. All parties were not ready; except the AG's side which continue to claim that they were ready despite the Police Investigation not 100% finished yet.

Richard Wee Lopez was appointed by the Bar Council to represent the Malaysian Bar to hold watching brief in the matter. A big team is involved in the exercise, 15 lawyers in total, all from other Legal Firms. For the Opening day, Counsel representing the Bar were, Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, Cheow Wee, Rajpal Singh, Salim Bashir and myself.

For the family; Karpal, Gobind & Ramkarpal plus SN Nair were part of the legal team.

Selangor State Government were represented too, since TBH was working for them at the time of his untimely death. Imtiaz, Ashok Kandiah, Sreekant Pillai & Thomas Phillip represents the Selangor State Govt.

The AG engaged a member of the Bar, former DPP, Tan Hock Chuan to represent the Government.

The Court Room was tight; and we all had to squeeze into a tiny spot after the AG's team took almost all the available seats, leaving the balance to be shared among the 3 Legal Teams.

In the end, we were allowed to hold watching brief, with 'Interested Party' Status; which means we can take more active part in the Inquest by asking questions, putting forward submissions etc etc.

Also, the AG's team revealed that 2 DNA were found on TBH's body. One is TBH's DNA; the other an unknown man. The Chemist team is conducting a thorough DNA test over 100 staff of MACC. I think if they find the match, the Inquest will probably stop as a Police Investigation would have to start. Under the Criminal Procedure Code; if the Inquest discover criminal culpability causing the death of a person in custody; like in TBH's case, the Inquest may be called to a halt pending the Police investigation into that culpability.

Also, the AG (who only prepared 2 sets of Documents to be handed under S51A, despite there being 3 teams) handed over the 2 sets of Documents to the Family team and the Selangor team. We at the BC team had to share the Document with Gobind, counsel for the Family. We had a quick look at the Document, and what I saw (photos, statements etc) does not lead me to believe that TBH jumped. I am not sure of the conclusion yet, but I am more certain now (after that quick glance of those Documents) that TBH did not jump or commit suicide.

Let the Inquest go on and lets see what happens. I am just honoured that we are allowed the chance to represent the BC here. We have been dealing a few Legal Aid matters every now and then; but this is by far our biggest pro-bono case.

Cyber Law : Complaints regarding services of Telecommunication Companies

Under the Communication & Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA 1998), a consumer may lodge a complaint against a telecommunication service provider at the Malaysian Communication & Multimedia Commission (MCMC).

Section 188 (1) (a) & (b) of CMA 1998 states:-

S 188 (1) :-

Any network facilities provider, network service provider, application service provider or content application service provider shall:-

a. Deal reasonably with consumers; and,

b. Adequately address consumer complaints.

S 188 (2) makes it punishable if a network facilities provider, network service provider, applications service provider or content applications service provider who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

In a recent case of Telekom Malaysia v Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna (2007) 1 MLJ 626, the High Court held that consumers of telecommunication products and services which falls within S188(1) above cannot refer their complains to the Consumer Tribunal but instead to MCMC.

Basically most services and goods related to telecommunication will fall within the ambit of S188(1). The proviso has service providers, application service providers etc in the list.

So, if you have a complaint against an Internet Company, for example, lodge it with MCMC andnot Consumer Tribunal.

Postscript (26th July 2009):-

We wish to point out that the Consumer Protection Act was recently amended to allow complaints to the Consumer Tribunal; for matter related to Telecommunications, effectively over turning the High Court Case above. Kindly take note.

S233 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998

Section 233 of Communications and Multimedia Act 1988 (S233 CMA 1988) states:-

233. Improper use of network facilities or network service, etc.

(1) A person who-

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

(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.

S233 CMA 1988 is a provision which may be used by the Authorities for a few offenses, and in the case of the 6, it is used to charge them for allegedly insulting Sultan Perak. S233(3) states that the sentence is either a fine of RM50,000 or imprisonment of a year or both penalties.

For these 6 cases, we reckon the prosecution would have to prove, amongst others, beyond reasonable doubt that the 6 person :-

1. Posted comments on a Blog;

2. That the 6 respectively owned that Blog;

3. That the statement in postings insulted Sultan Perak.

This section is rarely used, and it would create new precedents in Malaysian Information Technology Law.

The Multimedia and Communication Act 1988, Sections 231 - 244 of that Act lists down IT Law offenses such as :-

1. Fraudulent use of network facilities;

2. Damage to network facilities

3. Unlawful use of non-standard equipments

etc etc.

These provisions are rarely used, but with the emergence of IT usage in Malaysia, IT Law offenses will eventually rise.