ANALYSIS. The New Straits Times Press (NSTP) and individuals who are plaintiffs in Rocky and Jeff’s defamation suits SHOULD BE cited for contempt of court!
Listen! We are telling you with concrete evidence that The NSTP is prejudice against blogger Rocky, and subjudice against blogger Jeff Ooi for printing articles pertaining to their defamation suits on January 24 and 25.
And how Malaysia’s Prime Minister has enslaved himself to the wills of his own servants!
EVIDENCE 1 - This was strategically timed by The NST to go on print on January 24 (Page 2), the eve of Rocky’s trial:
In the report, The NST made direct inference to the plaintiffs and said, in portions highlighted in red above, the following:
Speaking later, Abdullah said the government would not censor bloggers but they had to be responsible and that 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 when asked to respond to the suit being taken by the New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd, its deputy chairman Datuk Kalimullah Hassan, chief executive officer Datuk Syed Faizal Syed Albar and former group editor Brendan Pereira against Ahirudin Attan and Ooi Chuan Aun over their web postings.
He said bloggers could not plead ignorance of the laws as freedom without responsibility would be anarchy.
To the international community, notably the international press, Abdullah’s intimidating posture is seen as openly soliciting support for The NST’s action. This is clearly evident in the January 25 edition of Sydney Morning Herald, which ran the headline: Malaysian PM defends legal action against bloggers.
The intro of the Australian paper said:
Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has defended legal action launched against two Malaysian bloggers, saying the Internet was not exempt from defamation laws, a report said.
Can you imagine what outsiders and foreign investors would think of Malaysia as a democratic country with Abdullah’s statement now being spread across the world, that a Prime Minister commenting on a subject pre-determined as subjudice in the statement of claims against the bloggers his own newspaper had accused?
EVIDENCE 2 - The next day, The NST tightened the screw on Rocky further by printing this on January 25 (Page 6), the day Rocky had to preliminarily put his fate in the hands of the Kuala Lumpur High Court that was hearing his interparte injunction.
The damage to Rocky is serious as The NST has given its story a 6-column treatment — you and the Judge can’t miss it:

In the report, The NST said, in portions highlighted in red above, the following::
(Kuala Lumpur Bar chairman) Lim (Chee Wee) 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.
EVIDENCE 3 - To rub it in further, on the day Rocky was scheduled for his hearing at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, Berita Harian (a NSTP newspaper helmed by Hishamuddin as its Group EIC, and more importantly, a plaintiff in the defamation against Rocky) ran this story on January 25 (Page 2) spread over 4 columns:
In the report, Berita Harian explicitly framed the two bloggers by subjecting them to trial by media, in portions highlighted in red above, as follows:
Kelmarin, Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi berkata pemilik laman forum atau blog tidak bebas daripada dikenakan tindakan undang-undang serta harus bertanggungjawab terhadap apa yang mereka lakukan.
Perdana Menteri berkata, walaupun kerajaan berpegang kepada dasar tidak menapis kandungan di internet, pengendali blog harus memahami ada undang-undang fitnah dan hasutan yang boleh dikuatkuasakan.
“Mereka tidak boleh menyembunyikan diri atau mengambil kesempatan melakukan sesuatu melanggar undang-undang. Mereka harus tahu dan tidak boleh melindungi serta berharap dilindungi dengan perlindungan tertentu.
Abdullah berkata, media sama ada cetak, elektronik dan internet termasuk pemilik laman blog mempunyai tanggungjawab dan beliau tidak mahu wujud kebebasan tanpa tanggungjawab kerana ia akan membawa kehancuran.
Perdana Menteri berkata demikian mengulas tindakan The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd (NSTP) dan pegawai kanannya memfailkan saman fitnah terhadap Ahirudin Attan dan Ooi Chuan Aun berhubung beberapa artikel dalam laman blog mereka.
NSTP dan plaintif lain – Timbalan Pengerusinya, Datuk Kalimullah Hassan; Ketua Eksekutif, Datuk Syed Faisal Albar; Ketua Pengarang Kumpulan, Datuk Hishamuddin Aun dan bekas Pengarang Kumpulan New Straits Times (NST), Brendan Pereira, memfailkan saman itu di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur, 4 Januari lalu.
Mengikut laporan akhbar, kedua-dua saman fitnah itu dikemukakan berhubung beberapa artikel dan komen yang disiarkan atau dibenarkan untuk disiarkan oleh Ahirudin dan Ooi dalam laman blog masing-masing.
The picture is clearer, much clearer now! There is a sinister link between Prime Minister/Umno President Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and The NSTP (and Kalimullah Hassan, Hishmauddin Aun, Brenden John Pereira and Syed Faisal Albar) behind the defamation suits against the two bloggers.
The ties that bind
There is this thing called “the ties that bind”. Abdullah is the No. 1 in Umno. Umno owns Media Prima, which majority-owns and controls The NSTP (See evidence below, source: The Star, Jan 9, 2007).
The NSTP owns New Straits Times and Berita Harian (See evidence below, source: Bursa Malaysia), and The NSTP, where Kalimullah is editorial adviser, Hishmauddin the Group Editor-in-Chief and Syed Faisal the CEO, are interested parties who sue the bloggers.
First — AND THIS IS EVIDENCE 4 – on the eve of Rocky’s hearing, they got national news agency Bernama (whose chairman is Annuar Zaini Zaini Annuar who did the PM in by leading him on the floppy interview over TV3 last year) to allow Abdullah to incriminate the bloggers with his framing. This is what Bernama transmitted to its media subscribers and masses worldwide for global consumption:
Frame as he did, and Abdullah accused bloggers as people who try to use the Internet to run away from law, and threatened them with defamation and sedition. Abdullah also insinuated that the two bloggers on trial are “bloggers (who) could not plead ignorance of the laws as freedom without responsibility would be anarchy”. The Jan 23 interview appeared on January 24 papers.
Next, both NST and Berita Harian started the spin-doctoring machine to rub it in on January 25, so that the Judge could read it on the day of Rocky’s hearing and be influenced by Abdullah’s inference. We have shown that to you, above, didn’t we?
So, how more sinister can it be for people surrounding the man that tries to sell “Islam Had-Hari”?
We gave you an early analysis on January 25 (after the Rocky’s interparte injunction hearing), that Abdullah should be cited for his made-in-London statement on January 24 (the eve of Rocky’s hearing) for
With that, the entire spin-doctoring machinery of The NSTP Group of papers worked over time, and the last we checked, Kalimullah was still the editorial advisor, Hishamuddin the Group EIC and Syed Faisal the CEO. That is, by the way, we have not mentioned about the Media Prima stable of mouthpieces that include TV3, ntv7, TV8 and TV9, the radio stations and e-media.com.my websites!
Combine their newspaper circulation and readership, and the broadcast media’s listeners and viewship, and the online portal’s eyeballs reached, what could have been the collatoral damaged inflicted unto Rocky and Jeff — even before the trial has begun?
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand the conspiracy. A reader has written to this blog, whose viewpoints we tend to agree after seeing the facts and evidence. Poster Lubok Melayu said:
Libra, you are dot on. They published the PM’s comments, filled with innuendos against the bloggers, and then sought the views of “experts” to further influenced people’s minds that the NSTP is really the one being bullied and the bloggers are monsters!
I would like to see our heroes’ lawyers, who are not big guns like their opponents’ lawyers Shearn, put this to the learned Judge.
Subjudice? How can my views or Libra’s views published left in a blog like Rocky’s Bru be more influential or damning than the PM’s views published in NST and Berita Harian (print and on-line) and the group’s televisions and radio stations?
Oh, OK, maybe the people don’t believe the PM anymore so our views are more credible than Abdullah’s. But the NSTP newspapers, on-line, tv and radio published and broadcast the views of eminent people on the day Libra said they did, and that is very damning, subjudice, and prejudice, indeed.
Can I aSk this influential blog to re-publish what the NST and BH publish so everyone can read the article that appeared on the 25th, the day Rocky went to court.
IN SUMMARY, it is a foregone conclusion that Abdullah has abused Executive power to influence the Judiciary and swing Court decision to the favour of The NSTP which his party owns, and to the individual plaintiffs who are his political slaves.
Abdullah should be cited for contempt of court for making the statement. He is an interested party in the NSTP-vs-Bloggers defamation suits as he is the party president of Umno, which owns The NSTP Group that is now suing the bloggers, gagging them by abusing the subjudice clauses, and yet acting prejudice and subjudice against them.
It is also a foregone conclusion that The NSTP is evidently in contempt of court as the company and the individual plaintiffs, except Brenden John Pereira (as he is already not an NSTP employee on record), have allowed the newspapers under their joint leadership to publish, or cause to publish the cited articles that are prejudice against Rocky, who has applied to strike out the suit.
It is also a further foregone conclusion that, by so doing on the part of The NSTP, it has act subjudice and inflicted irreparable damage to Jeff Ooi, who has been served an ex-parte by the plaintiffs pending the hearing of the interparte injunction on January 30 — – the plaintiffs had itself cited subjudice in its Statement of Claims to publish materials and comments explicit to the suit — while the plaintiffs themselves, joint and several, had committed subjudice against the defendant they had sued.
We strongly hope practitioners in the Common Law will take note of this latest round of the Executive interfering with the Judiciary. If Mahathir Era was bad, this round is far worse.
Abdullah had done us in with the aid of, none others, but the Press (and responsible journalism) that are regarded as the FOURTH ESTATE of democracy!






January 27, 2007 at 10:31 am
well done, guys!
a good and valid counter-argument.
January 27, 2007 at 11:04 am
Hahahaha. Welcome to Malaysia. The land of semua boleh.
January 27, 2007 at 11:28 am
Go for it Rocky? Could Jeff appeal against the Exparte?
But I am just a penembak curi doing a batu api. However, its a preceedent of law that has to be prevented!
Go for today saturday 27th news report. First paragraph. COuld read it up on my blog …http://anotherbrickinwall.blogspot.com/
January 27, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Could Jeff appeal against the Exparte? says A voice.
An exparte injunction is obtained without the presence of the defence. Most courts grant the exparte injunction but sometimes judges would request that it be heard inter-parte to be fair to the defence.
I would suggest, like Rocky, Jeff should apply to strike out the suit on the same grounds sited by Rocky. He has strong grounds to set aside the earlier injunction.
Rocky’s lawyers who will be meeting the judge in chambers on Jan 29 must also bring to his notice the NST articles which are clearly subjudice.
Funny, plaintiff lawyers were only able to see the comments on Rocky’s blogs but were blind to the two NST stories which were damaging to the defence.
January 27, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Here’s my contribution.
Feel free to distribute.
http://watch3r.blogspot.com
January 27, 2007 at 1:37 pm
“Frame as he did, and Abdullah accused bloggers as people who try to use the Internet to run away from law, and threatened them with defamation and sedition. Abdullah also insinuated that the two bloggers on trial are “bloggers (who) could not plead ignorance of the laws as freedom without responsibility would be anarchy”. The Jan 23 interview appeared on January 24 papers.”
He did? Maybe I’m the only non-paranoid one here, but I can’t see how he “accused” anyone. He didn’t say “bloggers have used the internet to escape the law” or even what would clearly be an implicit specific reference to Jeff/Rocky such as “some bloggers have committed defamation”. All he did was say that the law applies to bloggers – not an unreasonable thing to say. Does “Walk With Us” stand for anarchy?
And while Abdullah may have “insinuated” that Jeff and Rocky are “bloggers (who) could not plead ignorance of the laws as freedom without responsibility would be anarchy” (although having reread his comments several times I can’t see any specific reference, implied or express, to Jeff or Rocky), what is so wrong with this? Jeff and Rocky cannot plead ignorance of the law. It’s a statement of fact. Go ask any judge, any lawyer. Pleading ignorance of the law does not constitute a defence in court, and in the first place, Jeff explicitly warned people commenting on his blog that the internet does not operate in a “legal vacuum”.
I’m with Jeff and Rocky on this, because I find the case ridiculous and the NSTP’s vendetta obvious. I also think Pak Lah is one of the worst premiers a country could ask for. But I really don’t see how he has crossed the line here. He hasn’t even come close to castrating the judiciary yet by axing any judges, as Mahathir did. I must say that I find the claims made in this blog to be near-totally unfounded:
http://www.infernalramblings.uni.cc/articles/Malaysian_Socio-Politics/119/
January 27, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Now this IS real journalism, immaculate research and ‘little grey cells’ being put into action. Syabas!
Keep it up, bloggers.
January 27, 2007 at 2:00 pm
nice try “A Voice”… but you are talking about two different issues there.
also, please bear in mind the cases against the two bloggers are NOT so similar… the difference lies with the word “injunction.”
read up… it might come useful someday.
January 27, 2007 at 2:16 pm
kali n the gang rasakan skg mereka yg kebal,buat apa saja,undang berpihak mereka.ingat pepatah melayu…SEPANDAI2 TUPAI MELOMPAT,AKHIRNYA KERANJAU JUGA.KITA TUNGGU WAKTU ITU…JGN PULA BILA TIBA WAKTUNYA….KITA KASIHAN N TAK SAMPAI HATI…YA
January 27, 2007 at 3:46 pm
He made a very long statement and indicated there was a problem with bloggers. If he was impartial he should have just said “We leave it to the courts to decide” The End!. Somehow that’s he’s response when one of their ppl are in the heat pan but saying this about the NSTP case point blank means he’s taken sides and wants the others to listen to him and follow suit. Its very damming to both Jeff & Rocky to have a PM to caution them and us on this matter while its suppose to be ruled by the courts!
What would the Judges on the payroll of the present GOV think when PM already indicated his position?
January 27, 2007 at 3:54 pm
great journalism, guys! or, should i say, great bloggerism!
yeah, great BLOGGERISM!!
the klowns at shearn will be stripped naked after this lah. the father-and-son team ain’t hot at all. they want to hit the blogger with subjudice, now they open up Pak Lah to the same sin! and BH and NST, too. Bloddy hell, so they have been planning the news. Clever but not brilliant. If brilliant nobody will notice and we won’t be reading this good stuff here.
Guys, any chance of revealing yourselves??
January 27, 2007 at 5:02 pm
be brave, guys!
you are telling RAKYAT voices!
January 27, 2007 at 7:46 pm
to Johnleemk…
I think you didn’t read this part… “ANALYSIS. The New Straits Times Press (NSTP) and individuals who are plaintiffs in Rocky and Jeff’s defamation suits SHOULD BE cited for contempt of court!”
it’s at the very top of this page.
it’s got nothing to do with what the PM said per se but the “spin” by the print media of what he said.
January 28, 2007 at 1:02 am
I don’t think the analysis is strong to be really honest.
We must understand that it is just perfectly normal for NSTP to gain some ground(via the words of our PM) to influence the people that bloggers are wrong, just like the bloggers convey their point of views to tell the readers that NSTP is wrong. Hence, this scenario is very subjective to tell that our PM are taking sides (although very likely he is)
And btw, is there any chance the PM will sue this blog for defamation against him? Haha, just kidding!
January 28, 2007 at 2:21 am
IMO this analysis is spot on, linking the NSTP efforts to prejudice the Judiciary by using Pak Lah’s statements as the first stone cast against Jeff and Rocky BEFORE the trails begin.
I am a patriotic citizen no doubt, and i do respect the Judiciary as a body which upholds the nation’s law.
but to have a major group of media moguls firing broadsides to 2 individuals who speaks their minds smacks of a bullying case to me.
January 28, 2007 at 2:36 am
[...] wanna read more info on the 2 bloggers! read here You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. RSS [...]
January 28, 2007 at 3:02 am
As for uinfluencing the judiciary (non-subtly too!) Dolla has already done it before. Remember his asking the AG to check the status of Rayyappan while the Syariah court is still in deliberation as to whether Rayyappan was or was not a muslim.
Look what happened next. the Jab Agama Islam shamelessly withdrew the case, the official rag headlines (again very insensitive of them might as well put score one for us Christian) “Rayyapan can NOW rest in peace”.
What’s to prevent him to not repeat the influencing?
At least do it quitely and behind the scene rather than this smack in the face of independence of the judiciary.
PS: I don’t see the good ol Bar running around like headless chicklen crying “Executive Intrusion” and “Judicial Indepedence” but then their chief had more pressing matters then I suppose.
Its all a whole lot of bollocks, shits and shitheads, and we are stuck in the quagmire of this guy having a sense of decency to account for all the complaints against.
WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE CARES?
DIDNT CARE FOR THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS WHOSE LIFE WERE DISRUPTED BY HUGE FLOODINGS.
DIDNT CARE FOR THOSE PAYING THROUGH THE NOSE WHEN THE PETROL PRICES WENT UP 30 F$%8KING CENTS.
DIDNT CARE WHEN HE MAKES BLATANT BOO BOOS IN PRIME NEWS ITEMS.
DONT CARE, DONT CARE, DONT CARE
WHY SHOULD HE CARE NOW?
January 28, 2007 at 4:55 am
johnleemk,
“He didn’t say “bloggers have used the internet to escape the law” or even what would clearly be an implicit specific reference to Jeff/Rocky such as “some bloggers have committed defamation”. All he did was say that the law applies to bloggers – not an unreasonable thing to say.”
Actually reading the entire article, “they” or “mereke” refers to Jeff and Rocky. Although, it was not said in a direct mode, the meaning did imply the “bloggers” (as the case refer to Jeff and Rocky) is not responsible and wrong.
January 28, 2007 at 5:39 am
[...] Sun 28 Jan 2007 Repeatedly, NST and Abdullah prejudice again Posted by Clerk-of-Works under Court Proceedings , Campaigns & Events ANALYSIS. Yesterday, we alerted you on why The NST and Berita Harian, both subsidiaries of The NSTP, should be cited for contempt of court. [...]
January 28, 2007 at 6:27 am
Okay, quick English lesson: when you refer to a particular individual or group using a general term, you prefix the general term with the particle “the”. Therefore, if I want to talk about Jeff and Rocky, I would call them *the* bloggers, not just bloggers (which would refer to all bloggers, and not just Jeff and Rocky). If Pak Lah had made a clear reference to *the* bloggers, would the NSTP not have jumped on this and mentioned this? Nope – instead they had to work with a general comment referring to bloggers in general.
And despite the posting’s title, the meat of the article attacks Abdullah and not just the NSTP/Media Prima. The fact is, Abdullah doesn’t seem to have made any references to specific bloggers (not even “some bloggers”, which would be an obvious implicit reference to Jeff and Rocky). It’s impossible to positively conclude that he’s accusing any specific bloggers of defamation or sedition.
January 28, 2007 at 7:12 am
Correction: Bernama chairman is Annuar Zaini, not Zaini Annuar.
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/lembaga_pengelola.html
January 28, 2007 at 8:02 am
[...] 建议各位可以读读这篇。 [...]
January 28, 2007 at 9:59 am
to Johnleemk…
so, what do you make of this then: “They cannot hide or take advantage of a situation and do something against the law,” he said when asked to respond to the suit being taken by the New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd, its deputy chairman Datuk Kalimullah Hassan, chief executive officer Datuk Syed Faizal Syed Albar and former group editor Brendan Pereira against Ahirudin Attan and Ooi Chuan Aun over their web postings.”
again, I say this, it’s not what the PM said per se but what was “spun.”
January 28, 2007 at 10:00 am
when Libra wrote, “I would suggest, like Rocky, Jeff should apply to strike out the suit on the same grounds sited by Rocky. He has strong grounds to set aside the earlier injunction…” he didn’t tell us the whole story.
you see, when “Rocky’s lawyers who will be meeting the judge in chambers on Jan 29” the burden of proof still lies with the plaintiffs … in other words, the learned Judge was not too convinced that the evidence that have been brought before him thus far were indeed defamatory… there was still reasonable doubt… hence no injunction.
so, the onus is on the plaintiffs to provide further evidence to support their claims.
however, in the other case when the two parties meet on Feb 30 the burden of proof lies with the defense because the learned Judge found the evidence that were brought before him were indeed defamatory… hence, the injunction.
now, the onus is on the defense to prove otherwise.
there you go!
January 28, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Folks,
Perhaps it would be better if we were privy to the details contained in both suits which is now available at:
http://politikus.xparte.com/rockysoc.pdf
http://politikus.xparte.com/jeffsoc.pdf