This piece of police work is simply amazing and only deserves to be
commended. James Raj was charged in court this morning as The Messiah
that hacked into the several high profile sites recently, including
those of City Harvest and Sun Ho’s site. Details of the court proceeding
are available at the TRE. I just quoted some parts here for your info.
‘Mr Raj is accused of committing the offence in Malaysia from the
Dorchester Apartments at Jalan Sri Hartamas in Kuala Lumpur on 28
October 2013 at about 1.35pm. He was tracked down with the help of
Malaysian police.
He is said to have accessed the content management system of AMKTC and
modified the contents by adding the image of a Guy Fawkes mask to the
website (‘AMK Town Council falls victim to ‘The Messiah’‘)…
“I have been to various sites and seen how they take the initiative to
secure their systems. You have a brain & you have money. You had a
choice. Don’t blame external factors (Anonymous) for this hack. The
Messiah ”….
Mr Raj is alleged to have also hacked the websites of The Straits Times,
PAP Community Foundation and City Harvest Church’s co-founder and
singer Sun Ho.
James may face further charges later after the police
have completed their investigations.
Separately, the police have in custody 5 other suspects who are
assisting in investigations into the recent hacking of the Prime
Minister’s Office (PMO) and Istana websites. It is understood that the 3
suspects involved in the hacking of the PMO website are family members,
while the other 2 in the Istana case are Facebook friends. The men are
aged 17 to 45 years.’
It looks like the Police with the cooperation of the Malaysian
counterparts have the whole gang in the net. Just wondering if the ST
Online that was down for maintenance was hacked this morning. If so,
then some must still be out there. If not, then the IT crews on 24 hours
duty could take a break and stand down.
A flash in the pan?
11/12/2013
ST online down on maintenance
The bad news, there is a hacker out there threatening to hack govt
websites. The good news, the GDP will be up by a little notch with so
many websites now on maintenance after maintenance. The maintenance cost
to upgrade, to harden the sites, to buy better software and hardware,
to put teams of IT technicians on duty round the clock for at least
until the threat is over, will generate a lot of economic activities.
And there is also a lot of people running around ghost chasing hoping to
catch the ghost with a name, The Messiah, all cost money.
Just heard that the ST online is also down on maintenance. There must be at least 50 or more systems down on maintenance or already up running. All these works were generated by a mask appearing on the internet. So far only ST online, the PMO office and the Istana have acknowledged their sites being defaced with intruders planting a smiling image of a mask man while the one at the Istana was that of a naughty old woman.
If only some of these sites were hacked you can imagine the amount of work and cost needed to take care of the sites, to get all the data back to normal, to correct all the data corrupted or lost, and to get the system up running. All of a sudden there is this heightened activity and business opportunities for so many people.
There is a new kind of buzz in the economy. Hope the buzz will be limited to just maintenance and nothing more. Or would someone be quietly smiling that the bonus will be bigger and hoping that more hacking would take place?
Just heard that the ST online is also down on maintenance. There must be at least 50 or more systems down on maintenance or already up running. All these works were generated by a mask appearing on the internet. So far only ST online, the PMO office and the Istana have acknowledged their sites being defaced with intruders planting a smiling image of a mask man while the one at the Istana was that of a naughty old woman.
If only some of these sites were hacked you can imagine the amount of work and cost needed to take care of the sites, to get all the data back to normal, to correct all the data corrupted or lost, and to get the system up running. All of a sudden there is this heightened activity and business opportunities for so many people.
There is a new kind of buzz in the economy. Hope the buzz will be limited to just maintenance and nothing more. Or would someone be quietly smiling that the bonus will be bigger and hoping that more hacking would take place?
Aung San Suu Kyi calling Myanmese to return home
When this lady was here, she called on her fellow citizens to return
home to build their beloved country. She also needs their support to
vote her party to power to make the changes that are good for Myanmar.
I also have the same idea, calling all overseas Sinkies to return home to rebuild this country. The country needs them. So many have left while those who want change are becoming a minority here and would soon be integrated by the new citizens and become a new creature. How many Sinkies are out there all over the world, left because they did not like what they saw happening here. If only they were back, the numbers wanting change would easily tip the balance. There seems to be a quiet process to induce those not happy here to move out to weaken the resistance.
This call for Sinkies to return is a call in vain. How many could afford to return only to downgrade their lifestyles? No more big landed properties with swimming pools and two car porches. No more two big continental cars. Even after they disposed off their landed properties and cars to return, all they can hope for or afford would be a HDB flat and no cars. Worth it, better quality lifestyle?
Who would want to return? Who can afford to return? Oh, the govt is also calling for the young scientists and highly qualified young Sinkies to return home. Can they afford it? Or would they want to come home to a life in a HDB flat and without cars even if the govt promises them the best public transport in the whole world?
Sinkies out there, is it worth to return home, to this first class and first world city? The country needs you, the daft Sinkies need you. We have lost so many of you to make a difference here.
I also have the same idea, calling all overseas Sinkies to return home to rebuild this country. The country needs them. So many have left while those who want change are becoming a minority here and would soon be integrated by the new citizens and become a new creature. How many Sinkies are out there all over the world, left because they did not like what they saw happening here. If only they were back, the numbers wanting change would easily tip the balance. There seems to be a quiet process to induce those not happy here to move out to weaken the resistance.
This call for Sinkies to return is a call in vain. How many could afford to return only to downgrade their lifestyles? No more big landed properties with swimming pools and two car porches. No more two big continental cars. Even after they disposed off their landed properties and cars to return, all they can hope for or afford would be a HDB flat and no cars. Worth it, better quality lifestyle?
Who would want to return? Who can afford to return? Oh, the govt is also calling for the young scientists and highly qualified young Sinkies to return home. Can they afford it? Or would they want to come home to a life in a HDB flat and without cars even if the govt promises them the best public transport in the whole world?
Sinkies out there, is it worth to return home, to this first class and first world city? The country needs you, the daft Sinkies need you. We have lost so many of you to make a difference here.
Freedom of choice versus rights of choice
The hijab issue is still hot and will not rest for a long time to come.
Our constitution has guaranteed everyone, including those other than the
four recognized racial groups, the freedom to practice their religion
and culture and way of life. I can’t call them the four major racial
groups anymore as there are new groupings that are much larger than some
of the four recognized groups.
Everyone is free to choose his way of life. Then why should the hijab becomes an issue and the Malays feel oppressed, that their rights to freedom to wear the hijab violated? The anger is real, justified or unjustified is a very subjective thing depending on the basis of one’s interpretation. No one or organization is allowed to ban the wearing of hijab or any other religious ornaments on religious or racial ground. Is this simple enough to understand?
Maybe I will use the example of communal living to explain this situation. In any block of flats or condominium, there are various races living there, including foreigners. Everyone is free to practice his religion and way of life, wear whatever he fancies as long as it is not vulgar and offensive. No problem right? Anyone feeling oppressed that he cannot practice his religion or way of life? Anyone objecting to the wearing of the hijab? The answer is simply a big NO.
Problem may arise within the four walls of a family unit. What a family practices and does may not be agreeable or acceptable to other families. Keeping of animals, eating of meat and even dressing can be an issue. But as long as they keep it within their four walls, everything is fine. Everyone has the freedom to choose to enter the home of another family or avoid doing so. There is freedom of choice. If I don’t accept or agree to what another family is doing, I can stay away. I can even avoid communicating or be friendly with the family. It is my freedom of choice as long as I do not provoke and find faults with them or intrude into their lives. You live your life I live mine. At this point, still peace under the sky.
No one can impose his lifestyle or religion onto their neighbours. No one can tell the neighbour what not to do or not to eat or how to dress. No one can enter the homes of the neighbours without his permission. If one chooses to enter the neighbour’s home, one has to accept whatever he is or there is. You cannot enter your neighbour’s home and tell him not to do this or that or dress whatever you like. This is basic etiquette and good manners. It is your choice. You are the intruder into his private space.
The other way round, if a family wants to invite another family into his homes and knowing the taboos of that family, it is not only proper but also polite and good upbringing to make sure that the invited family is comfortable without having anything offensive to them in their presence. It will be very rude and distasteful to invite someone who does not eat meat into your home and offer him meat and nothing else. The family that invites has a duty and responsibility to make sure his guests are comfortable. If he cannot meet that requirement, he should not invite the guest. Fair enough?
Such simple ground rules can make communal living among different races and religions peaceful, not necessary harmonious, but acceptable. The problem comes when an uninvited guest insists to enter another home and insists that the owner provides all the things that the uninvited guest feels comfortable. As an example, the uninvited guest may be a vegan and insists that the host must serve only vegetables. Is this fair? In the first place the vegan is not an invited guest. He has no reason to be there. Even if the vegan finds that home more comfortable and wanted to be there, he is not invited and cannot be there. If the host is willing to welcome him, it must be under the terms of the host.
Who is being rude and imposing? Who’s right is being violated? Who should feel oppressed? Who should be complaining?
Though the constitution provides everyone the right and freedom to religion and way of life, it does not allow anyone to impose his religion and way of life on others. In the same way, no organization is allowed to set rules and regulations on religious grounds, especially govt institutions, except religious organizations that are strictly for their own followers. As a secular state, all institutions have the right to set their own rules and regulations even on proper dressing and uniforms. Just because the uniform is not agreeable to anyone does not give the person the right to demand a change to accommodate the person on religious and cultural grounds. No racial or religious group has the right to demand that a secular organization must accept their religious norms and practices.
The uniforms of uniformed organizations are designed without any intent to violate any religion or race. They are neutral in that sense. And the uniforms are necessary for a simple reason, uniformity. A uniformed organizations demands uniformity, conformity and discipline. No exceptions unless it violates safety and a threat to life.
To demand an organization to change to suit an individual, race or religion is a violation of the freedom and rights of the organization. The organization is also protected under the constitution to have freedom of choice as an individual. The uniformed organization is not violating anyone’s right to his freedom of choice and religion by insisting that its members should wear uniform.
Just a distraction, the cross hovering on top of a hospital has a religious origin. Can any religious group feel offended and want it to be removed? Technically everyone in the hospital is working under the cross. Everyone should remember that you are free to exercise your rights to practice your religion and way of life as long as you do not impose on other people’s rights to their way of life and not on a secular organisation’s right and freedom of choice.
Who is reasonable and who is being unreasonable? I am very reasonable. I am a vegetarian and anyone inviting me to his party must make sure that no meat is around or is being served. It is offensive to my sight and emotion. I am a non smoker and when I am invited, I do not want anyone around me to smoke, not even in the same room. I am very reasonable. Do you feel oppressed by me?
Everyone is free to choose his way of life. Then why should the hijab becomes an issue and the Malays feel oppressed, that their rights to freedom to wear the hijab violated? The anger is real, justified or unjustified is a very subjective thing depending on the basis of one’s interpretation. No one or organization is allowed to ban the wearing of hijab or any other religious ornaments on religious or racial ground. Is this simple enough to understand?
Maybe I will use the example of communal living to explain this situation. In any block of flats or condominium, there are various races living there, including foreigners. Everyone is free to practice his religion and way of life, wear whatever he fancies as long as it is not vulgar and offensive. No problem right? Anyone feeling oppressed that he cannot practice his religion or way of life? Anyone objecting to the wearing of the hijab? The answer is simply a big NO.
Problem may arise within the four walls of a family unit. What a family practices and does may not be agreeable or acceptable to other families. Keeping of animals, eating of meat and even dressing can be an issue. But as long as they keep it within their four walls, everything is fine. Everyone has the freedom to choose to enter the home of another family or avoid doing so. There is freedom of choice. If I don’t accept or agree to what another family is doing, I can stay away. I can even avoid communicating or be friendly with the family. It is my freedom of choice as long as I do not provoke and find faults with them or intrude into their lives. You live your life I live mine. At this point, still peace under the sky.
No one can impose his lifestyle or religion onto their neighbours. No one can tell the neighbour what not to do or not to eat or how to dress. No one can enter the homes of the neighbours without his permission. If one chooses to enter the neighbour’s home, one has to accept whatever he is or there is. You cannot enter your neighbour’s home and tell him not to do this or that or dress whatever you like. This is basic etiquette and good manners. It is your choice. You are the intruder into his private space.
The other way round, if a family wants to invite another family into his homes and knowing the taboos of that family, it is not only proper but also polite and good upbringing to make sure that the invited family is comfortable without having anything offensive to them in their presence. It will be very rude and distasteful to invite someone who does not eat meat into your home and offer him meat and nothing else. The family that invites has a duty and responsibility to make sure his guests are comfortable. If he cannot meet that requirement, he should not invite the guest. Fair enough?
Such simple ground rules can make communal living among different races and religions peaceful, not necessary harmonious, but acceptable. The problem comes when an uninvited guest insists to enter another home and insists that the owner provides all the things that the uninvited guest feels comfortable. As an example, the uninvited guest may be a vegan and insists that the host must serve only vegetables. Is this fair? In the first place the vegan is not an invited guest. He has no reason to be there. Even if the vegan finds that home more comfortable and wanted to be there, he is not invited and cannot be there. If the host is willing to welcome him, it must be under the terms of the host.
Who is being rude and imposing? Who’s right is being violated? Who should feel oppressed? Who should be complaining?
Though the constitution provides everyone the right and freedom to religion and way of life, it does not allow anyone to impose his religion and way of life on others. In the same way, no organization is allowed to set rules and regulations on religious grounds, especially govt institutions, except religious organizations that are strictly for their own followers. As a secular state, all institutions have the right to set their own rules and regulations even on proper dressing and uniforms. Just because the uniform is not agreeable to anyone does not give the person the right to demand a change to accommodate the person on religious and cultural grounds. No racial or religious group has the right to demand that a secular organization must accept their religious norms and practices.
The uniforms of uniformed organizations are designed without any intent to violate any religion or race. They are neutral in that sense. And the uniforms are necessary for a simple reason, uniformity. A uniformed organizations demands uniformity, conformity and discipline. No exceptions unless it violates safety and a threat to life.
To demand an organization to change to suit an individual, race or religion is a violation of the freedom and rights of the organization. The organization is also protected under the constitution to have freedom of choice as an individual. The uniformed organization is not violating anyone’s right to his freedom of choice and religion by insisting that its members should wear uniform.
Just a distraction, the cross hovering on top of a hospital has a religious origin. Can any religious group feel offended and want it to be removed? Technically everyone in the hospital is working under the cross. Everyone should remember that you are free to exercise your rights to practice your religion and way of life as long as you do not impose on other people’s rights to their way of life and not on a secular organisation’s right and freedom of choice.
Who is reasonable and who is being unreasonable? I am very reasonable. I am a vegetarian and anyone inviting me to his party must make sure that no meat is around or is being served. It is offensive to my sight and emotion. I am a non smoker and when I am invited, I do not want anyone around me to smoke, not even in the same room. I am very reasonable. Do you feel oppressed by me?
11/11/2013
2 persons connected with the recent hacking arrested
It is reported in TRE that two persons have been arrested in connection with the hacking by The Messiah. A James Raj and a Faizal Mohd are now in police custody and both are seeking M Ravi, the famous human rights lawyer to represent them.
James Raj was found to have in his possession devices used for hacking and will be charged under the Computer Misuse Act. Faizal Mohd was arrested for spray painting the word Anonymous in a school. The latter is less likely to be linked to the Messiah given the nature of his act. And it is unsure how is James Raj related to The Messiah or connected at all.
If James Raj is The Messiah or part of Collective Anonymous, then it would be a rare achievement for our men in blue. It is record time in tracking down the hackers that the Americans could not even get near to or smell them.
We are likely to read more about James Raj's story after he is charged in court tomorrow.
James Raj was found to have in his possession devices used for hacking and will be charged under the Computer Misuse Act. Faizal Mohd was arrested for spray painting the word Anonymous in a school. The latter is less likely to be linked to the Messiah given the nature of his act. And it is unsure how is James Raj related to The Messiah or connected at all.
If James Raj is The Messiah or part of Collective Anonymous, then it would be a rare achievement for our men in blue. It is record time in tracking down the hackers that the Americans could not even get near to or smell them.
We are likely to read more about James Raj's story after he is charged in court tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)