Connect with us

Current Affairs

Anwar Ibrahim’s press statement

Malaysian opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, issues statement about his arrest.

Published

on

From the office of Anwar Ibrahim.

On Saturday, 12-07-2008, the police came to my house to serve a Section 111 Criminal Procedure Code notice, harassing my family and demanding my presence at the IPK Kuala Lumpur (Federal Territories Police headquarters) at 2pm on Monday, 14-07-2008 despite an earlier agreement with my lawyers for me to come to the IPK on Monday 14-07-2008. On the next day, Sunday, the police also served an ex-parte court order, prohibiting me from physically being within 5 km from the Parliament on Monday 14-07-2008. As you can see, my house and the IPK KL are within 5 km radius from the parliament building. The court order effectively put me under house arrest on Monday and at the same time prevented me from going to the IPK.On Monday,

14-07-2008, the presence of police personnel outside the compound of my house strengthened our suspicions that they would be prepared to arrest me as soon as I left the compound of my residence, on the pretext of me violating the court order. The issue here, is which order should I comply with, the ex-parte court order or the Section 111 notice from the police?On the same day, the police through the Investigating Officer, one DSP Jude Pereira wrote and faxed to my lawyer at about 1.06pm, informing that I was required to be present at the IPK KL on Wednesday, 16-07-2008 at 2.00 pm to assist with the investigation. I conveyed my agreement to the appointment and it was communicated to the police through my solicitor, Messrs S.N Nair and Partners via telephone and letter on the same day.On Wednesday,

16-07-2008, I was at the Anti Corruption Agency (BPR) head office to record my statement pursuant to the police report lodged by me at IPK Shah Alam on 01-07-2008, against the Attorney General Gani Patail and the Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan for their involvement in the fabrication of evidence way back in 1998. To ensure that we will be able to attend the appointment with the police at 2pm, we cut short our statement at the BPR’s office, and this fact was clearly conveyed to the BPR officers present.At about

12.45 pm, the IO, DSP Jude Pereira called Mr Nair to confirm about our attendance and Mr. Nair confirmed that we would attend that 2pm appointment. We were about to have a quick lunch at my house before proceeding to the IPK. 5 minutes later, we were ambushed by a team of masked and heavily armed police personnel near my house.I was arrested and brought to the IPK. I cooperated fully with the police by giving my cautioned statement from

2.30 pm to about 7.30 pm. At this particular point, the IO and the other officers handling this case were doing their job professionally. I was then given assurances by Assistant Commissioner of Police Razali and later Senior Assistant Commissioner II Khor (through my lawyer) that I would be released on police bail on the same day.However, later on, upon my return from Kuala Lumpur General Hospotal (HKL), the IO, DSP Jude Pereira informed me and my lawyers that I will be detained and put in the police lock-up overnight for the purpose of recording a further statement in the morning.

I and my lawyers protested, giving our undertaking that we will be back anytime required by the police to continue with the recording of the statement, and there was no need for me to be detained overnight, and that I should be released on police bail. The police, through the IO were adamant that I should be detained and put in the police lock-up overnight, despite them knowing about my physical condition. I had to spend the night sleeping on a cold cement floor, which aggravated my back injury which was due to the beating I received from the then IGP, Tan Sri Rahim Nor on

20th September, 1998.This morning, after a short statement that was recorded for about 30 minutes, I was released on police bail. I was in pain and had to immediately receive some medical treatment upon my return home.

I now wish to deal with the statement of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Director, Dato Mohd Bakri Mohd Zinin as appeared in Utusan Malaysia today, inter alia

 

“Pasukan khas bertopeng polis terpaksa memintas kenderaan DSAI di Bukit Segambut di sini dan menahan Anwar ekoran tindakan Penasihat PKR itu mengubah haluan kenderaannya pada saat-saat tempoh yang diberi kepadanya untuk menyerah diri kepada polis pada pukul 2 petang ini hampir berakhir”

This is a blatant lie from the CID director to cover up their shameful act of abuse of police powers. I have given the assurances and had just informed the IO 5 minutes before the disgraceful ambush by the police through my lawyer who was with me in the same car.In addition to the above, the Deputy Home Minister, Wan Farid said, as reported in Star Online that, I “went voluntarily to the police car without any incident.” Again, this is also a blatant lie by the government.

I take to task the IGP for this abuse of police power against me through the events I’ve narrated above. It appears that the events of the last few days, the nature of my unwarranted arrest, my overnight incarceration which was actually absolutely unnecessary, were an act of personal vengeance against me in retaliation to the reports I lodged earlier against him, which are now being investigated by the ACA.

DNA

I have reasonable grounds for having no confidence in the system.  In the course of the trial of the false allegations of sodomy in 1998, DNA evidence was fabricated and used against me. The persons responsible for the fabrication then were the IGP, SAC Rodwan and the AG, are new key players in this investigation.

Until now, I have been denied access to the police report made by the accuser against me.

My accuser is still under police protection and as such, any fabrication is possible if they take my DNA.  My decision to refuse a DNA test is taken through advice of my lawyers and DNA experts, both local and overseas.

ANWAR IBRAHIM

 

————–

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Man arrested for alleged housebreaking and theft of mobile phones in Yishun

A 23-year-old man was arrested for allegedly breaking into a Yishun Ring Road rental flat and stealing eight mobile phones worth S$3,400 from five tenants. The Singapore Police responded swiftly on 1 September, identifying and apprehending the suspect on the same day. The man has been charged with housebreaking, which carries a potential 10-year jail term.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: A 23-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly breaking into a rental flat along Yishun Ring Road and stealing eight mobile phones from five tenants.

The incident occurred in the early hours on Sunday (1 September), according to a statement from the Singapore Police Force.

The authorities reported that they received a call for assistance at around 5 a.m. on that day.

Officers from the Woodlands Police Division quickly responded and, through ground enquiries and police camera footage, were able to identify and apprehend the suspect on the same day.

The stolen mobile phones, with an estimated total value of approximately S$3,400, were recovered hidden under a nearby bin.

The suspect was charged in court on Monday with housebreaking with the intent to commit theft.

If convicted, he could face a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.

In light of this incident, the police have advised property owners to take precautions to prevent similar crimes.

They recommend securing all doors, windows, and other openings with good quality grilles and padlocks when leaving premises unattended, even for short periods.

The installation of burglar alarms, motion sensor lights, and CCTV cameras to cover access points is also advised. Additionally, residents are urged to avoid keeping large sums of cash and valuables in their homes.

The investigation is ongoing.

Last month, police disclosed that a recent uptick in housebreaking incidents in private residential estates across Singapore has been traced to foreign syndicates, primarily involving Chinese nationals.

Preliminary investigations indicate that these syndicates operate in small groups, targeting homes by scaling perimeter walls or fences.

The suspects are believed to be transient travelers who enter Singapore on Social Visit Passes, typically just a day or two before committing the crimes.

Before this recent surge in break-ins, housebreaking cases were on the decline, with 59 reported in the first half of this year compared to 70 during the same period last year.

However, between 1 June and 4 August 2024, there were 10 reported housebreaking incidents, predominantly in private estates around the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Road.

The SPF has intensified efforts to engage residents near high-risk areas by distributing crime prevention advisories, erecting alert signs, and training them to patrol their neighborhoods, leading to an increase in reports of suspicious activity.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Consumers Association of Singapore fined S$20,000 for PDPA breaches following two data security incidents

Published

on

By

The Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) has been fined S$20,000 by the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) for breaches under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).

According to a judgement which was published on 28 August, the fine was imposed due to the consumer watchdog’s failure to implement reasonable security measures to protect the personal data in its possession and to establish necessary policies and practices required under the PDPA.

The breaches resulted in two significant incidents, one in October 2022 and another in June 2023, where the personal data of up to 34,760 individuals was potentially compromised.

Both incidents were handled under the Expedited Decision Procedure (EDP) at the request of CASE, with the organization admitting to all the facts and contraventions of the PDPA, leading to a faster resolution of the case.

The First Incident: Phishing Attack in October 2022

The first incident occurred in October 2022 when a threat actor accessed CASE’s email accounts and sent phishing emails from its official email addresses.

On 8 October 2022, some consumers received unsolicited emails from “[email protected],” which falsely claimed that their complaints had been escalated to the “collections and compensation department” and that they were eligible for compensation.

The recipients were asked to provide their banking details by clicking on a chat icon.

The following day, similar phishing emails were sent from “[email protected],” an account used for complaints that had progressed to mediation. CASE later discovered that the phishing emails had affected up to 22,542 email addresses.

Further investigations revealed that the phishing emails likely resulted from the threat actor obtaining login credentials from a CASE employee via a phishing attack.

The compromised accounts led to the sending of 5,205 phishing emails to 4,945 recipients. Although CASE acted swiftly to suspend the affected accounts and reset all administrator passwords, three consumers reported that they had clicked on the phishing links and collectively lost S$217,900. CASE subsequently lodged a police report.

The Second Incident: Data Breach During Vendor Migration

While PDPC was investigating the first incident, a second breach came to light in June 2023. On 22 June 2023, PDPC received a complaint about a phishing email that replicated a consumer’s complaint previously submitted to CASE.

This led to the discovery that the personal data of 12,218 individuals, including names, email addresses, contact numbers, and complaint details, had been exposed. The PDPC concluded that the breach likely occurred during a data migration exercise conducted by CASE between December 2019 and January 2020 when CASE switched vendors.

Investigations revealed that CASE’s contract with one of its vendors, Total eBiz Solutions Pte Ltd (TES), did not stipulate clear security responsibilities. This lack of contractual clarity contributed to the data breach during the migration process, highlighting CASE’s negligent vendor management.

PDPC Findings and Penalties

The PDPC found that CASE had failed to enforce its password management policy, with some passwords not meeting minimum length and complexity requirements and others remaining unchanged for up to four years. Furthermore, CASE’s vendor management was deemed negligent, as one of its contracts did not specify clear security responsibilities, putting personal data at risk.

CASE admitted to not conducting regular security awareness training for its staff, with the last session held five years before the first incident.

The PDPC also noted that CASE lacked an Information and Communications Technology (ICT) policy, particularly in relation to patching and maintaining IT systems. The absence of a documented IT infrastructure management plan, insufficient logging and monitoring practices, and the lack of security reviews over the three years preceding the first breach were significant failures highlighted in the judgment.

In assessing the financial penalty, the PDPC considered the nature and gravity of the breaches, the duration of non-compliance, and CASE’s annual turnover. The fine of $20,000 was determined to be appropriate in light of these factors.

Remedial Actions by CASE

It is said that CASE, which is headed by Mr Melvin Yong, People’s Action Party Member of Parliament for Radin Mas, has implemented several measures to enhance its cybersecurity in response to the breaches.

These include introducing multi-factor authentication for all web-based applications, strengthening password complexity requirements, decommissioning end-of-life devices, and implementing patch management software for security updates.

CASE has also revised its contracts with outsourced vendors to include data protection clauses and mandated annual data protection training for all staff members.

CASE is working towards obtaining the Cyber Essentials Mark and the Data Protection Trust Mark to reinforce its commitment to safeguarding personal data and complying with PDPA obligations.

The PDPC has directed CASE to review and update its data protection policies, rectify all identified security gaps, and report back within one week of completion. The organization has also been instructed to conduct a penetration test after addressing the vulnerabilities to ensure no further security gaps exist.

The post Consumers Association of Singapore fined S$20,000 for PDPA breaches following two data security incidents appeared first on Gutzy Asia.

Continue Reading

Trending