298. Uttering words, etc. with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.
Whoever, with deliberate- intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utter any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes ant gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
298A. Causing etc, disharmony, disunity, or feelings or enmity, hatred or ill-will, or prejudicing, etc., the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion.
(1) Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by signs, or by visible representations, or by any act, activity or conduct, or by organising, promoting or arranging, or assisting in organising, promoting or arranging, any activity, or otherwise in any other manner-
(a) causes, or attempts to cause, or is likely to cause disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will; or
(b) prejudices or attempts to prejudice, or is likely to prejudice, the maintenance of harmony or unity,
on grounds of religion, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years.
(2) Sections 173A and 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code (F.M.S. Cap. 6) shall not apply in respect of an offence under subsection (1).
(3) Where any person alleges or imputes in any manner specified in subsection (1)-
(a) that any other person, or any class, group or description of persons, professing any particular religion;
(i) has ceased to profess that religion; or
(ii) should not be accepted, or cannot be accepted, as professing that religion; or
(iii) does not believe, follow, profess, or belong to, that religion; or
(b) that anything lawfully done by any religious official appointed, or by any religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law, in the exercise of any power, or in the discharge of any duty, or in the performance of any function, of a religious character, by virtue of being so appointed, established or constituted, is not acceptable to such person, or should not be accepted by any other person or persons, or does not accord with or fulfil the requirements of that religion, or is otherwise wrong or improper,
he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing the religion referred to in the allegation or imputation.
(4) (a) Where, on any ground of a religious character, any person professing any particular religion uses for burial or cremation of any human corpse a place other than one which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion, he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing that religion.
(b) Where any person, on any ground of a religious character, counsels, advises, instigates, urges, pleads with, or appeals or propagates to, or in any manner or by any means calls upon, whether directly or indirectly, any other person or persons professing any particular religion-
(i) to use for burial or cremation of any human corpse a place other than one which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion; or
(ii) not to use for burial or cremation of any human corpse any place which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion; or
(iii) not to use for worship any place which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion,
he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing that religion or different religions.
(5) Where any person who is not a religious official appointed, or a religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law purports to exercise any power, or to discharge any duty, or to perform any function, of a religious character, being a power, duty or function which can be lawfully exercised, discharged or performed only by a religious official appointed, or a religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law, he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions.
(6) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to-
(a) anything done by any religious authority established, constituted or appointed by or under any written law and conferred by written law with power to give or issue any ruling or decision on any matter pertaining to the religion in respect of which the authority is established, constituted or appointed; or
(b) anything done by any person which is in pursuance of, or which accords with, any ruling or decision given or issued by such religious authority, whether or not such ruling or decision is in writing, and if in writing, whether or not it is published in the Gazette.
(7) It shall not be a defence to any charge under this section to assert that what the offender is charged with doing was done in any honest belief in, or in any honest interpretations of, any precept, tenet or teaching of any religion.
(8) If in any proceedings under this section any question arises with, regard to the interpretation of any aspect of, or any matter in relation to, any religion, the Courts shall accept the interpretation given by any religious referred to in subsection (6), being a religious authority in respect of that religion.
Singapore's Computer Misuse Act 1993 regulates the laws on the prohibition of Computer Hacking. Below are some interesting cases for your knowledge, all from Singapore.
In PP v Muhammad Nuzahan b Kamal [2000] 1 SLR 34; the Defendant was charged for hacking into a system. The High Court of Singapore imposed a stiff penalty of 2 months imprisonment for 2 offences that the Defendant was charged for. The earlier punishment of probation imposed by the Magistrate in Singapore was overturned as the High Court viewed computer hacking to be a very serious crime which can undermine the effectiveness of the entire Information Technology Industry in Singapore. In fact the Judge, Yong Pung How CJ is quoted in the Judgment to say:-
“Policy considerations, the far fetching effects which the offences have on the public interest if their pervasion is not halted at an early stage, and the seriousness with which Parliament views cyber-crime, all mandated the imposition of custodial sentence”
The same Judge decided another case – Lim Siong Khee v PP [2001] 2 SLR 342, where a spurned lover accessed his former lover’s e-mail address and send e-mails from that e-mail address pretending to sign off as the lady; to 3 of her friends. The e-mail contained intimate details of their earlier relationship and their holiday in Europe.
Yong CJ dismissed the Appellant’s contention that he had her consent to access her e-mail and to sent those e-mails. His Lordship felt that even in the event consent was given to him, it was still immaterial as the consent (if given) was merely to access the e-mail and does not translate into authority to send the lurid e-mails. His Lordship was quoted to say:-
“…even if Mr Lim (the Appellant) was given Ms Chong’s (the ex-lover) password to help her access her e-mail while they were in Europe, he had no authority whatsoever to access that account to send off lurid e-mails or to check her personal movements and affairs.”
“As I have stated, the security of Singapore’s financial institution and protection of public interest against electronical financial scams are paramount…”
The Appellant was eventually sentenced to 7 ½ years imprisonment.
The principles from these cases should be welcomed and adopted in Malaysia. As we embrace IT usage in our daily routine, the sanctity and safety of IT related machines/software must be guarded. The theme to protect public interest and to ensure people continue to trust IT is prevalent in the cases above. Malaysian Court too, in the event these type of cases are brought there; must quickly stamp their mark and ensure future IT scammers and fraudsters will be driven away.
In Malaysia our Computer Crimes Act 1997 is similar to the Computer Misuse Act of Singapore. We blogged about the Computer Crime Act before.
Note : RWL wishes to thank Mr Foong Cheng Leong who conducted research on this area and provided the 3 said cases for our continued series on Cyber Crime. His comments were also taken into account before we blogged this. You may visit his Blog at www.xes.cx
Chief Insp Mazli Jusoh, 31, from the Selangor police headquarters' forensic branch, told the inquest into Teoh's death that the dragging was possible after being shown photos of scratches found on the sole of Teoh's right shoe.
Asked by Selangor state government counsel Malik Imtiaz Sarwar whether it was possible that Teoh could have been dragged:
Mazli: No, because normally if a person is being dragged from behind, he would resist with his heels. It would not affect the sole of the shoe.
Malik: Would it be possible if he was dragged from the side?
Mazli: It would.
Mazli then told the court that the white, chalky scratch marks which exposed the sole were not a foreign material but part of the cloth that held the sole to the shoe, adding that he was unable to find a missing portion of the front sole of the shoe despite looking for it.
"I searched the 14th floor near the window frame, and also on the fifth floor, and the areas below it, including a flower bed of red flowers and a parking lot below, but I couldn't find the missing piece," said Mazli.
|
When questioned by Bar Council's Richard Wee, Mazli, who is the inquest's 13th witness, said it was possible for a person to step through the window, which was 0.6m-wide and 0.9m in height, adding that an examination of the building outside the window found no sharp protrusions which could have torn Teoh's pants as he fell.
Wee: Is it possible to step out the window?
Mazli: Yes.
Wee: You said his pants were torn. Did you see anything that could have snagged his pants?
Mazli: No, I saw nothing. It looked smooth ...
Asked if further test was conducted, Mazli said he had taken swabs from a stain found on the window, and from the sofa on which Teoh had rested, but he had not done any polylight testing of the sofa, or the spot on the fifth floor where Teoh's body was found.
Mazli said he had not done any testing for fingerprints on Teoh's clothing, body or belt.
Witness number No.14, DSP Shahrul Othman Mansor, who is with Bukit Aman's Cheras forensic laboratory, told the inquest he found a footprint on the floor below the same window when he conducted further checks of the Selangor MACC's office three days after the incident.
Shahrul said he found faint trace of a shoe print measuring nine inches on the inner ledge of the window, and that he ordered a photograph taken of the print.
|
Shahrul said he did not dust the window for prints as the investigating officer ASP Ahmad Nazri informed that such work had already been done by Selangor forensics.
He added that an inspection of the walls around the window turned up no evidence of a scuffle or fight that could be linked to Teoh's death, and said the only damage he found at the window was a broken handle and a screw.
"I found the window unlocked because the locking mechanism was broken, what was left was only the base of the lock. There was also marks of a newly-broken screw," said Shahrul.
Hearing continues tomorrow.
