The origin of better food for ISA detainees

Teresa Kok's detention under the infamous Internal Security Act nonetheless had a silver lining to it. Kok, who had described the food given to her during her seven-day detention as “worse than.. er … similar to dog food”, sparked criticism from both Syed Hamid and the Utusan, who blasted her for the comments.

Kok, who initially denied making the remarks, also said that during her detention in a badly ventilated six-by-eight-feet cell she was given only water and bread or two boiled eggs and some curry for her meals.Kok accused her detractors for harping on the issue so as to trigger Malay sensitivities regarding the animal. Kok accused both Utusan Malaysia and Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar of “zeroing in” on her choice of words, instead of addressing the issues related to the injustices of the ISA.
Kok had earlier told Malaysiakini she did not purposely use the term’dog food’ in order to offend Malays. “Perhaps, as my friends have suggested, I should have said the food given to me in detention was worse than cat food,” she added cheekily.

The statement nonetheless prompted a response from one Government Minister who promised serious investigation. Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department T. Murugiah said he would personally meet with Kok soon to gather her input, and also visit the police station where she was held.
He said he wanted to know who bought the food, where it was bought, how much it cost, what the allocations are for meals for detainees, and what type of food is supposed to be served.
“I am shocked with Kok’s comments on the food she was given while in detention and I will be handing in a report on my findings to the Prime Minister and the Home Minister,” he told reporters after launching a football tournament between Tamil vernacular schools from Selangor and Kuala Lumpur .He said anyone arrested should be treated with respect and given proper food, and if Kok’s claims were true then what was done to her was patently unfair.
Murugiah, who is also the Public Complaints Bureau head, said the comments also put the Government and the police in a bad light. “The Government’s credibility has been damaged and I want to solve the problem as well as ensure there is no such recurrence in the future,” he said, adding that he was upset with the entire episode.During his investigations, Murugiah found that only RM4.50 was spent daily to feed each detainee and suggested that the allocation be increased.

Senator T. Murugiah was however taken to task by Syed Hamid who slammed Murugiah for implying that those in police custody were not given proper food.
He advised Murugiah to look after his own ministry and said it was not his job to complain about the quality of food, which he claimed met international standards.

However Senator T. Murugiah stood firm on his move to meet Selangor executive councillor Teresa Kok to probe her allegation of being served poor food while in detention under the Internal Security Act."As a junior (deputy) minister and head of the Complaints Bureau, I am receptive to criticism, but investigating complaints, even from the opposition, is one of my responsibilities." He said the government could not afford to practise double standards and that Kok's allegations of being served food that she compared to dog food, had tarnished the image of the country. Murugiah said he had obtained the green light from his minister, Tan Sri Bernard Dompok, to meet Kok.

At least one former ISA detaineee has come to the defense of Teresa Kok. Former Internal Security Act detainee Dr Jeffrey Gimpoi Kitingan remembers being hungry all the time while in two-year detention in the early 90s. “It was not because we were not given any food. Our rations were meagre,” recalled Kitingan, who is Sabah PKR chief. “So we had to supplement our rations.” Supplementing the rations was easier said than done.Unlike at the canteens in normal prisons, where one could buy food and drinks, the Kamunting Detention Centre in Perak didn’t have any such facilities. However, as luck would have it, Kitingan and four of his fellow inmates managed to catch a small snake on two occasions and a bird on a third occasion.They set a trap to one side of the courtyard where they were allowed to exercise, and made a barbecue of the animals over a crude fire.
Their luck however ran out after that.They didn’t snare a single animal for the rest of their stay there. The animal population around Kamunting must have been depleted by the hundreds of thousands of hungry detainees who made their way through Kamunting over the years. “During that time, you could see all of us in the camp getting skinny,” said Kitingan, who was held for allegedly planning to take Sabah out of Malaysia. He denied the charges.

adapted from
http://teresakok.com/2008/09/24/dont-turn-isa-into-outcry-about-dog-food/
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/9/20/nation/20080920195312&sec=nation
http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Malaysia/Story/A1Story20080926-90119.html
http://ngobalakrishnan.com/main/?p=280

So who won ? There is an interesting clue- Tan Sri Bernard Dompok. Nobody in his right frame of mind ( this also applies to those in the wrong frame such as Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar ) is going to mess around with an MP from Sabah. Not at this point of time.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi defends judicial reforms

Malaysia's prime minister has defended a new law aimed at promoting judicial independence even though it gives him the final say in appointing senior judges including the chief justice.
Malaysia's Parliament passed the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill late Wednesday, hours after Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi told The Associated Press in an interview that the legislation will rid the country's judiciary of its "negative perception."
The bill is a highlight of Abdullah's reforms program, which he is pushing through before handing over power to his deputy Najib Razak in March. This week Parliament also passed a bill to set up a new anti-corruption agency.
"Since I am retiring earlier than I was planning to do all these things have to be done very quickly," Abdullah said in the interview, adding that the drive against corruption and creating "a judiciary of integrity" were the cornerstones of his election campaign in 2004.
"If that can be fulfilled that's good enough. It doesn't matter whether you do it in a hurry or not," he said.The reputation of Malaysia's judiciary has suffered from a series of scandals including a secretly taped video showing a lawyer allegedly brokering the appointment of senior judge in a telephone conversation with someone who was later appointed the chief justice.
At present the prime minister appoints the judges at his discretion without the need to justify his choice or consult others. The recent appointment of a former ruling party lawyer as the chief justice has also triggered opposition criticism about the independence of the judiciary.
The Judicial Appointments Commission calls for setting up a nine-member panel of judicial and nonjudicial persons who would recommend to the prime minister a set of names for the job of senior judges.
However, the prime minister has the prerogative to reject the recommendations and ask for fresh names until he picks one that he thinks is a suitable candidate.
Abdullah said the judicial commission will lend "more transparency" to the system, insisting that no prime minister would misuse his power.
"I am sure the prime minister will not do anything that will ultimately put him in bad light. His reputation will be at stake," he said.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/18/asia/AS-Malaysia-Judicial-Independence.php

Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill clears Dewan Rakyat

JAC cruises through Dewan Rakyat

by Sharon Tan & Chan Kok Leong ( The Edge )

KUALA LUMPUR: The prime minister’s reform agenda has now passed the halfway mark after his second bill, on Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), cleared Dewan Rakyat yesterday.
But unlike the earlier Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Bill, JAC got through despite protests from opposition parliamentarians.
For what was initially thought of as an effort to liberalise or subject the appointment of judges to a separate commission, JAC is no more than an act of making the process more transparent.
Also absent was a widely expected block voting, as Barisan Nasional MPs outnumbered the Pakatan Rakyat representatives.
During the second reading, Deputy Speaker Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar had accepted the louder voice of BN representatives, although Wee Choo Keong (Wangsa Maju-PKR) asked for block voting.
Wan Junaidi brushed him aside, pointing out that Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had said it was not necessary. The third reading was passed 20 minutes later under Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin’s watch. Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was present throughout the winding-up session and watched as the bill was passed.
During the winding-up debate, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz dismissed claims of too much power being placed under the prime minister by repeatedly saying that it was never the intention of JAC to curtail his prerogative.
“This law is meant to make the process of appointing judges more transparent,” Nazri said. “It has never been the intention of this act to take away the prerogative of the prime minister to appoint judges, given to him under the Federal Constitution.”
He also assured Parliament that the prime minister would not abuse his discretion and ignore all the suggestions forwarded to him.
“If he (the prime minister) does that, he will look very bad in the eyes of the public.”
He was replying to questions from Mahfuz Omar (Pokok Sena-PAS) and Yusmadi Yusoff (Balik Pulau-PKR) on the absolute power given to him under Clause 37 of the JAC which empowers the PM to make orders for purposes of removing any difficulties.
The government, said Nazri, also disagreed with assertions by Karpal Singh (Bukit Gelugor-DAP) and Lim Kit Siang (Ipoh Timur-DAP) that JAC contradicts Articles 122(B) and 161 (E) of the Federal Constitution.
According to Karpal, JAC contradicts Article 122 (B) of the Federal Constitution and questioned if the King would still be consulted in the process of appointing judges.
Wee also raised the issue of JAC being against Article 161 (E) which states that the chief ministers of Sabah and Sarawak have to be consulted before the chief justice of Sabah and Sarawak is picked.
But Nazri explained that the process of consultation with the King and the chief ministers was already being practised since 1963 via written correspondence.
“JAC merely spells out the selection and vetting process of judges. This does not mean that we will ignore their voices and they will still be consulted before any appointment is done,” said Nazri.
Nazri rejected Anwar’s suggestion that the Federal Constitution be amended to address these issues. Despite the Permatang Pauh MP giving his assurance that Pakatan Rakyat MPs would support constitution amendments to put JAC in line with it, the minister said the government could not trust the opposition.
“Since election, the opposition has being trying to lure our MPs and take over the government. How can we trust you?” he added. Anwar and the opposition bench had stood up to assure Abdullah that he would have their support if he amends the Federal Constitution to vest constitutional powers with JAC.
During the debate on JAC earlier in the day, Anwar had also raised the issue of the appointment commission being given the status under the Federal constitution like the Election Committee.
“We worry because the power is in the PM. Hence the law cannot be held by the discretion of one person but must be anchored in law,” he said, suggesting that there should be instead a tenure for the commission so that they could work without intimidation from the executive.
Meanwhile, Dr Mohd Puad Zarkashi (Batu Pahat-BN) warned the government to be careful in the appointment of the eminent persons.
“The Prime Minister has the power to remove them without reasons and that must be explained. Will the removal without having to give reasons give rise to speculations that there is no transparency?
“When they are removed, it must be explained to the people,” he said, adding that the meaning of eminent persons should be defined.
On the same subject, Khairy Jamaluddin (Rembau-BN) asked how the government would guarantee that the four eminent persons appointed to the Commission would be truly independent and have no ties to the judiciary and corporate world.
He also questioned the consultation with Bar Council in the appointment of the eminent persons.
“Will the Bar Council be asked to discuss?” asked Khairy, who also wanted to know whether the Commission would tender a superficial or in-depth report on its recommendations.
Khairy also injected fresh air into the debate when he asked the government to restore the powers of the judges by amending Article 121 of the Federal Constitution to its pre-1988 status.
Prior to the amendment in 1988, Article 121(1) vested the “judicial power” of the federation in the courts. This was understood to mean that the superior courts had an “inherent power” to be the final arbiter on questions of law, to enforce rights and duties and to stand between the citizen and the state.
However, the law now says that the High Courts “shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law”.

http://www.theedgedaily.com/cms/content.jsp?id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_4811c1c1-cb73c03a-53897400-92f86415

The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) poses problems in appointment of Chief Justice and President of the Appeals Court

Judicial Appointments Commission can lead to problems: ex CJ

PUTRAJAYA: The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), the Bill of which was tabled for first reading in the Dewan Rakyat on Wednesday, will lead to problems where the appointments of the Chief Justice and president of the Appeals Court is concerned, said newly-retired Chief Justice Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad.
He said problems would arise as among members of the commission would be those in line for the two posts.
"I just want to draw the attention of the Members of Parliament (MPs) in raising this so that they will give it careful thought before making their decision," he told Bernama Thursday.
"Under the provisions of the Bill, the JAC is empowered to appoint the Chief Justice (CJ), Appeals Court president, Appeals Court judges, Federal Court judges, Chief Judge of Malaya, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak and High Court judges.
"It is also noted the JAC comprises of nine members including five senior judges, four of whom are the most senior in the country.
He also referred to Clause 5 of the Bill which provided for the JAC to be made up of nine members comprising the CJ as the chairman, Appeals Court president, Chief Judge of Malaya, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, a Federal Court judge and four eminent persons appointed by the Prime Minister.
According to Clause 21 of the bill, the JAC is entrusted with the responsibility to select suitable and capable candidates as judges of the higher courts.
Candidate must meet several criteria including being persons of high moral values and integrity asides judicial capability.
In the interview, Abdul Hamid said according to the provisions of the Bill, appointments for judicial commissioners, High Court judges, Appeals Court judges, Federal Court judges, Chief Judge of Malaya and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak should not pose a problem, but it need not be the case where the CJ and Appeals Court president are concerned.
"In making the choice for Appeals Court president, the Chief Judge of Malaya, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak and the Federal Court judge, who are members of the JAC, have a stake in the matter. This means they will have to abstain from participating in the proceedings.
"And as the Bill states that a minimum quorum of seven members must be met in making these appointments, it might be very difficult to meet this requirement.
"It becomes more complicated when it comes to appointing the CJ. The Appeals Court president, Chief Judge of Malaya and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak have a stake in the matter and as such, they will have to abstain in the selection process.
Again the minimum seven persons quorum requirement cannot be met," said Abdul Hamid, who retired in October.
Should the CJ be unable to be present when the selection meeting is held, he said the meeting would have to be carried out without him, the Appeals Court president, Chief Judge of Malaya and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak.
"This will have two consequences, first the quorum cannot be attained. Secondly it means for appointments at the lower rungs, there will be a full quorum including the four senior most judges but when it comes to the top judge, these four senior judges will not be able to partake in the meeting.
"It also means when it comes to appointing the CJ, the meeting will only be attended by a federal court judge and four nonjudges who are appointed by the Prime Minister.
"Is this the real purpose of the Bill? I am just bringing it up so that the MPs can ponder about it," he stressed.
Asked about his view on the setting up of the JAC, Abdul Hamid declined to comment saying it was a policy matter that came under the purview of Parliament.
The JAC was mooted to reform the Judiciary for greater transparency and integrity in the administration of justice. - Bernama

This Bill has sparked much debate. Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan President Malaysian Bar provides a wonderful analysis of the said Bill at http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/letters_others/bar_council_s_comments_on_the_judicial_appointments_commission_bill_2008.html

Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill sparks debate amongst MPs

Parliament: JAC debate continues unabated
By ZULKIFLI ABD RAHMAN and LOH FOON FONG

KUALA LUMPUR: The debate on the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill 2008 brought forth opposite viewpoints from Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat MPs.
The Barisan side supported the Government’s move to improve the judiciary’s independence and integrity, but Pakatan MPs wanted the Bill revoked, saying that the Prime Minister wielded too much power in the appointments of judges.
“The formation of the JAC is the right move to bring confidence into the independence of Malaysia’s judiciary, in line with international standards of judicial systems,” Khairy Jamaluddin (BN-Rembau) said.
In urging the House to approve the JAC Bill, Khairy said the process of selection and elevation of judges would be transparent to all. “The bill should be supported because the Commission is a reflection of the country’s respect of democratic society. “It also ties the Prime Minister to a duty to ensure that continuous freedom of the judiciary is maintained and defended,” he said in debating the Bill. Khairy suggested that former distinguished lawyers and legal stakeholders be appointed to the Commission as its members. “The members should also be free of pressure from lobbyists or corporate influence,” he added.
Add a clause
Datuk Wilfred Bumburing (BN-Tuaran) said the country’s courts would be able to carry out their responsibilities freely and not be hindered by “unnecessary outside interference.”
He suggested that a clause be added to the Bill to include an advisory that the Prime Minister would confer with the state governments of Sabah and Sarawak in the appointments of judges.
“This is to ensure that capable judges from the two states have equal opportunity to be elevated to higher posts,” he added.
Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) feared that the JAC would be become a toothless tiger when it comes into force next year.
“The existence of the JAC itself does not adhere to the requirements of the Constitution, which means that at any time in the future, its decisions can be challenged in court,” he said.
Constitution amendments
Lim said the Government should look into the bigger picture of finding out the root causes of failure in the judiciary’s integrity and independence. “There is also no attempt to return Article 121(1)(a) of the Constitution to its original form in the Bill to ensure there’s separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. “We shouldn’t forget the judicial crisis of 1988, which brought scandal to Malaysia’s image,” he added. He called for the Bill to be referred to a parliamentary select committee first to allow Parliament to investigate the causes of the loss of confidence in the judiciary.
Khalid Abd Samad (PAS-Shah Alam) said the Bill would not settle the problem of executive interference in the judiciary. He cited the fact that the Prime Minister is featured prominently in the Bill, which showed his pivotal role in the judiciary’s make-up. The Prime Minister must support the freedom of the judiciary otherwise the Bill’s purpose would fail, he added.
“If the present or future Prime Minister is tainted by scandal, that will affect his capability to ensure the judiciary’s independence is maintained. “The Bill states that it’s a pivotal requirement that the Prime Minister must defend the independence of the judiciary. “I hope (if something like the) the 1988 judicial crisis recurs, Barisan MPs will join us in moving a motion of no-confidence against the Prime Minister because he had failed to protect the judiciary’s independence,” Khalid added.
Government’s responsibility
The appointment of judges is the Government’s job and is not tantamount to interference, Dr Mohd Puad Zarkashi (BN-Batu Pahat) said. It is considered interference only when there are orders to overturn a judge’s decision and cause it to be partial to certain parties, he said.
“The question is whether there is a monitoring system to ensure that judges make impartial judgements,” he said, adding that interference could come from the Government, corporations, relatives or individuals. The judges themselves must be competent, he said during the JAC Bill debate after the second reading.
PM’s powers
Puad quipped that lawyers would be the first to enter Hell because they “defended the wrong as right.”
Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim interjected and said that it was judges and not lawyers, which caused some to snigger.
Puad said that further clarification needed to be made on the issue raised by Anwar on the fact that the Prime Minister can revoke the appoinment of “eminent persons” to the Commission without needing to give any reason, as stated in Section 9 (2). He said that this power to revoke would not help in the cause of improving public perception of the transparency of the judiciary.
“This is dangerous. The public needs to be told why they are dropped; this would boost confidence in the Bill,” he said. Puad said that he agreed with Wee Choo Keong (PKR-Wangsa Maju) who said on Tuesday that there should be a clearer definition of “eminent persons” as stated in Clause 51 (F), to ensure that the right candidate was appointed. He also said that the Government should also look into the conflict that was created between the Bill and the appointment of the Borneo Chief Justice because the Chief Ministers in Sabah and Sarawak have the right to appoint or sack their own judiciary heads.
In this case, the proposed new provision that gives the Prime Minister the power to decide, with the recommendations of the JAC, runs contrary to the provision in Article 161E (b) of the Federal Constitution.
Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) pointed out that there was no guidelines in the JAC Bill on who could be appointed and who should be promoted. He also asked if there were guidelines on actions that could be taken against judges who committed offences outside of the Bill.
“Are there actions possible against a judge, for instance, who makes sexist remarks against women lawyers?” he said. Karpal said that since the Bill was in conflict with Article 122B of the Constitution, the DAP will not support it. “In principle, we accept that what is in the Bill is good, but whether it can be accepted is a separate matter,” he said.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/12/17/nation/20081217163646&sec=nation

Judicial Appointments Commission Bill introduced

2008/12/11
PM has power to sack JAC member

By : V. Vasudevan ( NST Online )


KUALA LUMPUR: The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), when formed, will recommend names for the appointment and promotion of judges to the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court.
It will also be involved in the appointments of the chief justice of the Federal Court, the president of the Court of Appeal, the chief judge of Malaya and the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak, and the appointment of judicial commissioners.However, the final say on all appointments remains with the prime minister who will advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the appointments.The 23-page Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2008, which will pave the way for the commission to be set up, was tabled by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yesterday.The bill outlines the functions and powers of the JAC and its composition.
The commission will consist of the chief justice of the Federal Court, who shall be its chairman, the president of the Court of Appeal, the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak, chief judge of Malaya, a Federal Court judge to be appointed by the prime minister; and four eminent people who are not members of the executive or other public service.The Bar Council of Malaysia, Sabah Law Association, the Advocates Association of Sarawak, the attorney-general, the attorney-general of a state legal service or any other relevant body, will be consulted on the appointment of the four eminent members.

Their term of office is for two years and they cannot serve more than two terms.The commission is required to submit an annual report to Parliament on all its activities. Apart from nominating judges, the commission is empowered to review and recommend programmes to improve the administration of justice and forward other recommendations to the prime minister.The appointment of any JAC member may at any time be revoked by the prime minister without assigning any reason. The members can also tender their resignations at any time with a written notice to the prime minister.The appointment of any commission member may also be revoked, among other grounds, when the member is convicted of an offence involving fraud, dishonesty, moral turpitude, corruption or any other offence punishable with imprisonment of more than two years. The JAC members are obliged to disclose their relationship with any of the candidates under consideration.The bill defined these relationships as spouse, former spouse, sibling, uncle, aunt, cousin, sibling to spouse or former spouse and their uncle, aunt and cousin.The commission members are also required to disclose their connection with any candidate, which among others include their nominee, partner, former partner, spouse of a partner or former partner, a person practising in a firm linked to the commission member and a trustee of a trust under which the commission member or their family is a beneficiary.The bill outlined penalties if any of the members failed to disclose their interest in the candidate.Members who failed to disclose any connection are liable to a fine not exceeding RM100,000 or imprisonment up to two years, or both.The commission will meet when there is a request and it is required to select at least three people for each vacancy in the High Court, or at least two people for each vacancy in the Court of Appeal and Federal Court.In selecting the candidates, the commission will have to take into account the candidates' "integrity, competency, experience, objectivity, impartiality, fair and good moral character, decisiveness, ability to make timely judgments and good legal writing skills, industriousness and ability to manage cases well, physical and mental health".The bill states that any serving judge or judicial commissioner will not be considered for any appointment if they have three or more pending judgments or unwritten grounds that are overdue by 60 days or more.Once it had made its selection, the commission shall submit to the prime minister a report which will name the candidates and the reasons for selection. Should the prime minister be unhappy with any of the recommended candidates, he can ask for two more names to be added for his consideration.The prime minister will be required to tender his advice to the king on the candidate as stipulated under Article 122B of the Federal Constitution.
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Thursday/National/2425246/Article/index_html

Opposition MP Teresa Kok takes local publication to court for alleged defamatory material

Teresa Kok files suit against Utusan, columnist (updated)
By M. MAGESWARI
KUALA LUMPUR: Seputeh Member of Parliament (MP) Teresa Kok has filed an RM30mil defamation suit against Utusan Melayu Sdn Bhd, which publishes Malay daily Utusan Malaysia, and its columnist Datuk Chamil Wariya.
Her lawyer Sankara Nair filed the suit for Kok at the KL High Court civil registry here at 8.32am on Friday.
On Oct 12, Utusan published a cerpen or short story written by Chamil, the Malaysian Press Institute chief executive officer, titled Politik Baru YB Josephine, which Sankara claimed referred either directly or by innuendo to his client.
Kok said she decided to take legal action against the defendants as the article made baseless allegations.
She said the impugned article contained defamatory content about her either in direct reference or by implication or by imputation. Kok contended that the said article implied she is a racist, untrustworthy person and a bad politician. Besides that, she claimed that the article portrayed her as a danger to the society who should be assassinated. Kok further contended that the defendants published the article with the intention to disparage her in both her private and official capacities.
The Selangor state senior excutive council member alleged the defendants' acts were actuated by express malice and done in bad faith as well as to instigate public hatred against her. She said it lowered her esteem in the eyes of the public and exposed her to public scandal, ridicule, odium and contempt.
Among others, she is seeking compensatory damages of RM30mil from the defendants. She is also asking for High Court to grant her an injunction to restrain the defendants -- whether by themselves or through agents and/ or servants -- from further uttering, speaking or publishing the impugned article or similar words concerning her. Kok is also asking for costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.
In late October, she had sent letters of demand to the defendants which also demanded a public retraction by Utusan and an apology to be published in newspapers of her choice.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/12/12/nation/20081212094241&sec=nation