Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship The Internet

Malaysia Uses Anti-Terrorism Laws To Stop Bloggers 381

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the like-a-glimpse-into-the-future dept.
Academiphiliac writes to mention the BBC reported in an article this morning that the Malaysian government may start using tough anti-terror laws to censor bloggers who insult either Islam or the country's king. "The move comes as one of Malaysia's leading online commentators has been questioned by police following a complaint by the main governing party. The new rules would allow a suspect to be detained indefinitely, without being charged or put on trial. But officials insist the law is not intended to strangle internet freedom."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Malaysia Uses Anti-Terrorism Laws To Stop Bloggers More

Malaysia Uses Anti-Terrorism Laws To Stop Bloggers

Comments Filter:
  • The new rules would allow a suspect to be detained indefinitely, without being charged or put on trial.

    But officials insist the law is not intended to strangle internet freedom.

    "religion has actually convinced people that there is an invisible man living in the sky, and he has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these things he will send you to a place full of fire, and smoke, and burn and torture forever and ever 'till the end of time.... but he loves you. And he n

  • Oh, the irony (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MSTCrow5429 ( 642744 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @01:13PM (#19985467)
    Considering that most terrorists are Muslim, somewhat ironic that anti-terrorism laws are being used to silence those who "insult Islam." How else is Islam going to be civilized and reformed from within if criticism and debate on the state of Islam in the modern world is crushed in a major Muslim nation, Malaysia, keeping in mind most of the world's Muslims live in Asia?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Grishnakh ( 216268 )
      If Islam is "civilized and reformed", it won't be Islam any more, just something that calls itself Islam.

      Then again, this is nothing new for religion.

    • Re:Oh, the irony (Score:4, Informative)

      by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @01:28PM (#19985681) Homepage
      Considering that most terrorists are Muslim,

      Not true.

      Until 9/11 the biggest act of terror committed on US soil was the Oaklahoma City bombing, committed by a right wing white supremacist. The act of terror that caused greatest loss of life in Europe is still the Bolgona railway station bombing perpetrated by a neo-facist right wing group.

      Islamic terrorism is relatively new. The PLO was secular. Their friends, the Baader Meinhof gang and Action Directe were communists.

      Most religious terrorism is sectarian, Catholics against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics, Sunni against Shi'ia, Shi'ia against Sunnis.

      And since we are on the subject of terrorism, what do you call a government that employs torture, detention without trial, starts wars, disegards international law and treaties? Perhaps the term is not terrorist, but the corrupt crew are still a bunch of totally evil bastards regardless.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by furball ( 2853 )

        And since we are on the subject of terrorism, what do you call a government that employs torture, detention without trial, starts wars, disegards international law and treaties? Perhaps the term is not terrorist, but the corrupt crew are still a bunch of totally evil bastards regardless.

        You know what I call people who recognizes that there is a government that employs torture, detention without trial, starts wars, disregards international law and treaties and does not mount a rebellion to overthrow such a g

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by iknownuttin ( 1099999 )
        I'm not denying or confirming what you said, but when I see thousands of Muslims protesting in the streets with that poster of Osama Bin Laden chanting "Death to America" or whatever, I take that as a direct threat and an indication that Islam wants all of us in America dead.

        And, I would really like to see some Muslim protests, in the street, against terrorism - those (rare) strongly worded letters condemning terrorism don't cut it in my book.

        The most frequent terrorist attacks these days are Muslim. Especi

        • Re:Oh, the irony (Score:5, Insightful)

          by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @02:16PM (#19986327) Journal

          And, I would really like to see some Muslim protests, in the street, against terrorism
          And how many times have you taken to the streets protesting against terrorism? I never have because, well, what's the point. As Tom Lehrer said:

          It takes a certain amount of courage to get up in a coffee house or a college auditorium and come out in favor of the things that everybody else in the audience is against, like peace and justice and brotherhood and so on.
          People only bother protesting things if they feel that the majority, or those in power, have different opinions. If you took to the streets shouting 'Terrorism! It's bad!' people would look at you like some kind of crazy person, and wonder why kind of twisted world view you had that made you think it was necessary to actually bother saying that.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sumdumass ( 711423 )
        Actually that is only true in the western world. Muslims have been blowing innocent people up for quite a while in the middle east and parts of aisia. This isn't to say that there aren't other terrorists out there.

        And since we are on the subject of terrorism, what do you call a government that employs torture, detention without trial, starts wars, disegards international law and treaties? Perhaps the term is not terrorist, but the corrupt crew are still a bunch of totally evil bastards regardless.

        Why wou

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PhxBlue ( 562201 )

          I would just be thankful that this oppressive regime allows you to have an opinion that is negetive to them and allows you to express it.

          For now.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
        I think it was Newsweek that reported a couple years ago that vigilante violence by the most extreme of the "green" groups caused more damage in terms of dollar value damage, 9/11 and Murrah probably the exceptions. Each incident is usually very small but it adds up, so it doesn't get national attention like a big incident would.

        And since we are on the subject of terrorism, what do you call a government that employs torture, detention without trial, starts wars, disegards international law and treaties? Pe
        • I think the words you're looking for are: "The Establishment."

          It doesn't matter who is in charge. Simply being in charge is enough.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jafiwam ( 310805 )
        Dude, don't categorically deny someone's assertion then go off on unrelated tangents to support your bogus view. Why don't you just say what you mean "DaTS RACIST!!!11"

        Until 9/11 the biggest act of terror committed on US soil was the Oklahoma City bombing, committed by a right wing white supremacist. The act of terror that caused greatest loss of life in Europe is still the Bolgona railway station bombing perpetrated by a neo-facist right wing group.

        Those are incidents. Not a count of terrorists. T

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Again, so what? Or are you trying to say the PALISTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION is a bunch of Catholic terrorists?

          George Habash, the founder of the PLO, was Christian, so are many of its members (past and present).

          That's not secular, that's just more plain muslem asshattery.

          Yep, all those Palestinian Christians in the PLO were just being 'muslim asshats'...

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 )

          Again, so what? Or are you trying to say the PALISTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION is a bunch of Catholic terrorists? Wiccans maybe? Oh, so their stated purpose was secular, something about having a separate Palestine, but when that was offered they switched back to "da Jooos did it to us!!!11" That's not secular, that's just more plain muslem asshattery.

          The major players are israeli jews and palestinian muslims; the jews have been screwing with the palestinians for rather a long time and have gone so far a

          • The major players are israeli jews and palestinian muslims; the jews have been screwing with the palestinians for rather a long time and have gone so far as to build a wall and make all the palestinians stand in line to cross it (making them 2nd class citizens in their own country). In a very real sense, the (specific) jews did do it.

            Which country would that be? Palestine? Never was such a country. Transjordan, perhaps? Invented by the British between the World Wars.

            Sorry, the theory that the Palestin

            • Which country would that be? Palestine? Never was such a country.

              Palestine and ISrael are the same country. It depends where you buy your maps which name shows up.

              Sorry, the theory that the Palestinians lived in peace and harmony signing kumbaya in their very own country till the Ebhil Djooos invaded and drove them out is a fantasy.

              Jackass. The Palestinians may have feuded among themselves before the whole israel/palestine thing got started, but that doesn't mean they haven't been screwing them recen

        • I don't know.

          While we obviously can't line up all the terrorists and count them, I'd bet there is a goodly amount of non-muslim terrorists in Africa. But nobody cares about them, so nobody counts them.

          To paraphrase Hotel Rwanda: "They're not even niggers. They're africans."

      • Re:Oh, the irony (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mckyj57 ( 116386 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @02:49PM (#19986771)
        >> Considering that most terrorists are Muslim,

        > Not true.

        Absolutely true. The number of Muslim terrorist acts in the last 30 years dwarf all other such acts through all recorded history.

        You are, of course, applying the usual "massage the data" approach -- arbitrarily picking "greatest death toll in a single incident" as a yardstick.

        And, oh by the way, trying to use the same tactic Muslims always use -- point fingers at others to distract from the issue at hand.

        You are, sir, full of shit.
      • See this t-shirt:

        http://www.coyotescorner.com/tshirts-hs.htm [coyotescorner.com]

        I saw one of these last week on the Muni in Sfran...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rossz ( 67331 )
        Since 9/11 there have been over 9000 acts of terrorism committed by muslims. The number of terrorist acts committed by other groups is insignificant in comparison.

        Calling the PLO secular is bullshit. They are muslim terrorists.

    • Re:Oh, the irony (Score:5, Informative)

      by legirons ( 809082 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @01:44PM (#19985889)
      However, we have lots of issues to clean-up "back at home", if we want to preach to Malaysia about such issues.

      For example in the UK [wsws.org]

      "More important still, the government's draconian antiterrorism laws have already been used by the police last month to arrest 144 people protesting against an arms fair in London. The civil rights group Liberty has challenged the use of emergency powers contained in sections 44 (1) and 44 (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 as illegal. Liberty's court action has revealed that on two occasions--from August 13 for 28 days and from September 11 for 28 days--the Metropolitan Police had unrestrained power to treat everyone in London as a terrorist, and stop, search and hold them without cause or reasonable suspicion. The Met. has already declared that the provisions of the legislation could be used against those demonstrating against President Bush's November 19 state visit to Britain, which will be policed by up to 250 armed officers under the leadership of London's head of antiterrorist and security operations, David Veness."

      NPOV link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSEi#Protests [wikipedia.org]

    • Re:Oh, the irony (Score:4, Informative)

      by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @02:31PM (#19986537)

      Considering that most terrorists are Muslim

      Which is irrelevant, as most muslims are not terrorists. Since the portion of any large group that is terrorist is so low, you can't really say anything about someone based on what invisible sky ghost they worship.

      • You are mistaken. Most Muslims are not terrorist, but a plurality to a majority often support terrorism, depending on the region in question. The fact that most terrorists are Muslims requires a change in tactics and strategy from, say, targeting radical environmental terrorists or lone wolf terrorists. For instance, one would infiltrate and monitor a radical mosque to combat Islamic terrorism, not Greenpeace.

        • Most Muslims are not terrorist, but a plurality to a majority often support terrorism, depending on the region in question.

          So would you if I phrase the question properly. If you assume that the people fighting us in Iraq are terrorists, then asking Iraqis if they support the resistance movement would show a majority that support terrorism.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 )
      Considering that most terrorists are Muslim, somewhat ironic that anti-terrorism laws are being used to silence those who "insult Islam." How else is Islam going to be civilized and reformed from within if criticism and debate on the state of Islam in the modern world is crushed in a major Muslim nation, Malaysia, keeping in mind most of the world's Muslims live in Asia?

      Malaysia is 62% Malay, 24% Chinese, 8% Indian and the remaining 6% "something else". Malaysia has some strange laws that only apply to M

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      Well, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess at least one country in the Muslim world likes George Bush.

  • Latest: He has been released (Score:5, Informative)

    by dotpavan ( 829804 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @01:14PM (#19985483) Homepage
    According to his latest blog entry [malaysia-today.net], he has been released after 8 hrs, and the reason for his temp detention was comments made on the website

    • He defended his website, saying: "Many people, especially the non-Malays in this country, do not have a forum to air their views."

      "We should not deny these people a chance to vent their feelings," he said.
      Does he mean "Citizens of Malaysia who are not ethnic Malays"?
      Otherwise, agitators tend to get deported.
      Even in 'free' countries.
      • The minority ethnic Chinese population operates large parts of Malaysia's economy. Naturally, this means it is difficult for ethnic Malays to move up in the economy as it stands. However, thanks to democracy, the political power lies in the hands of the Malays... who gladly elect populists.

        These populists write affirmative action laws to control hiring and to limit government contracts with non-Malay companies. It's vaguely reminiscent of South Africa's populist ethnopolitics, but with the bizarre additi

  • Confusing the extremists (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The Islamic terrorists are going to have a tough time figuring out where they stand on this: are they in favor because it punishes people who insult Islam or are they opposed because it's part of an anti-terrorism effort?

    For that matter, the right-wing conservatives are also going to have a tough time with this: are they opposed because it punishes people who insult Islam (a favorite pastime of right-wing conservatives) or are they in favor because they reflexively support anything that falls under the guis

    • (a favorite pastime of right-wing conservatives)

      That alone should get the parent modded TROLL -1.

    • It's not confusing at all. You assume that anyone except the die-hard nerds even has such broad and inflexible terms as "anti-terrorism is always bad".

      For starters, I doubt that anyone would seriously define themselves as a "terrorist". (This isn't D&D and people cheerfully proclaiming themselves -- or their whole race -- to be chaotic evil.) The terrorists consider themselves more along the lines of "freedom fighters". You don't go blow yourself up just for the sake of making others panic a little. You

  • It Doesn't Matter What the Intent of the Law Is (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rycross ( 836649 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @01:15PM (#19985499)

    The intent of the law doesn't matter one iota. What matters is what it allows. If it can be abused, then its very likely that it will be at some point. Even if the guys currently in charge use it responsibly, there is no guarantee that it will remain that way when leadership changes hands.

    Of course, it's always disheartening to see things like this:

    "I was alleged to have insulted the king, and also Islam and incite racial hatred, so I am going in there to reply to all these charges. I promise I'm going to give them a hell of a tough time," he told the BBC before he turned himself in.

    Freedom of speech, except for the speech we don't like. Somehow their assurances concerning the intent of the law don't give me much confidence.

  • The Problem with Insulting Islam... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @01:18PM (#19985545)
    The problem with insulting Islam is...
    That it's far too easy to do!

    • Re:The Problem with Insulting Islam... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zussal ( 1058116 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @01:38PM (#19985819)
      Religion deserves to be made fun of. Too many people take it too seriously and want to force it on people.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by GuyverDH ( 232921 )
        Only fanatics want to *force* it on people.

        People who truly believe their religion wish only to *share* their religion. Take it or leave it. The act of *sharing* your beliefs if done by a zealot drives people away. The act of *sharing* your beliefs done by a true believer can be a moving event in a non believers life.

  • History Repeating Itself... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VE3OGG ( 1034632 ) <`VE3OGG' `at' `rac.ca'> on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @01:33PM (#19985731)
    You know, back in the days of the Cold War, it used to be that in the "West" Communists were feared. In the USSR, it was the "Spreaders of American Imperialism". It would seem that history is repeating itself, but with the added proviso of having a unified enemy. One that can literally be indistinguishable from the common person, and even more disturbing, cannot be defeated. Now, I know that is nothing new in this crowd, but think about it, a Communist can be defeated, I would say for the most part they have been. The USSR fell, Cuba has its own problems with Castro falling to old age, China a communist country in name, now has "capitalist zones" throughout -- Communism is a dead horse and it has been flogged to death.

    Terrorism, however, is a bird of a different colour. How would you defeat Terrorism? Overthrow the state that the Terrorists occupy? Nope, look at Iraq. Do you put up a cute little "Terror Alert Scale"? Oh yeah, that was really effective! Nope, you can't "defeat it", and anyone saying you can has not thought enough about the concept. Regardless, however, it would seem that many (frivolous) laws are being put in place to combat terror, even in countries one wouldn't expect this in (Say Canada, for example...). What is perhaps scariest is that these laws will probably not go away quickly -- giving anyone who wants to abuse them more than enough chance to get away with it and cover up evidence.

    By no means, am I advocating that there was some "master plan" by some Evil Genius(tm), instead I think it is just a general ideology that comes with the times. What disturbs me is in this enlightened age, we seem to completely avert our eyes to the consequences of these laws. While some might ultimately get repealed, most will not and some may even snowball into much bigger, much badder laws that essentially go from government monitoring, to Government Sanctioned Living(tm).

    I am also not, by any means, saying that I have all the answers -- which always seemed like a cop out to me, to criticize without at least adding your own view and possible solution -- but I do have a couple of thoughts.

    *Every law should have a sunset clause -- an expiration date, if you will. This would be an immutable amount of time (say five years), and the law would be required to be reviewed and passed through whatever checks and balances exist (if any). The law could of course be repealed, but it could not be extended anymore than 5 years from the date of review. This would still be open to abuse, but would certainly stop a lot of the stupid laws that stay on the books and are used solely for abusive purposes by law enforcement or Government Men (tm).

    *Laws should be "subdivided" into categories. So laws dealing with "Terrorism" would all be put into that category and that way one could remove them from the system wholesale. No need to go hunting and pecking. Obviously, this too would present problems, but I think it would simply things.

    *Lastly -- every law should be understandable at a (4/5/6/7/8th) grade reading level, written in plain English. If the common man (and yes, I am inferring that the common man isn't the "sharpest knife in the drawer") can't read it, it can't pass.

    Anyway, yeah, pipe dream.

    • How do you defeat terrorism? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jez9999 ( 618189 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @02:15PM (#19986311) Homepage Journal
      By not letting yourself be perpetually terrified.
    • *Lastly -- every law should be understandable at a (4/5/6/7/8th) grade reading level, written in plain English.

      Plain English does not cut it. The syntax of natural language is very forgiving and loose. It is not strict enough to express clear and unambiguous meaning. That is the fundamental problem in using simple plain English to write laws. Take the simple easy to understand line from our Constitution that prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments". Is it really an and condition? Should the punishment

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by VE3OGG ( 1034632 )
        While I agree with you to a certain extent, I do not think linear laws (ones which follow straight lines of if/else if/while/while not) would be the best thing to employ. Simply put, there are too many variables, and often times the punishment wouldn't suit the crime.

        Take for example the California three-strikes (I under stand it is a California law, not sure about elsewhere) law. This law says (and I am paraphrasing from memory) that after three felonies one will face the maximum sentence. That doesn't sou

    • Re:History Repeating Itself... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @02:35PM (#19986579)

      Terrorism, however, is a bird of a different colour. How would you defeat Terrorism?

      Stop fucking the middle east.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 2names ( 531755 )
      Very interesting, although I have a question about one part of your post:

      ...in this enlightened age, we seem to completely avert our eyes to the consequences of these laws.

      How can you call present day an enlightened age? It is painfully obvious to me - as well as to many others - that we are currently in an age that is anything BUT enlightened. Nationalism is rampant, our leaders ignore the rights of the populace, Joe American is in complete denial of the stripping away of freedoms, and the rest of the

  • Intent of the law (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IndustrialComplex ( 975015 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @01:33PM (#19985743)

    But officials insist the law is not intended to strangle internet freedom.
    No, of course it isn't intended to do that. That wasn't a bug, it was just an unintended feature.

    Lesson (which should have already been) learned: It doesn't matter what the law was intended to do, but rather what the law can be twisted to imply. If a law can be interpreted in a manner, it will be interpreted manner. That's the most important thing to understand from this article.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by josepha48 ( 13953 )
      Yeah, I have been worried about countries that start passing laws on terrorism ( like the US ) and what the affect of those laws will be when they get 'twisted'. I'm glad to see that some people here on slashdot get the fact that what a law says and how it gets 'interpreted' is two different things.

      I wonder how many people understand that in the US we have a different situation. Our government changes every 42 years. Congressional elections are held every 2 year, and presidential every 4 years. So the

  • Islam used to be a peaceful and pretty advanced religion. The arabs came up with a number of scienfitic advances under islam and until recently islam co-existed peacefully with other religions. However it seems to increasingly have been taken over by the stupid, the mentally deranged and the oppresive sadists who seem to want sharia law (otherwise known as hell on earth for anyone who values freedom, particularly women) for reasons personally I can't fathom other than they're so totally fixated on their Kor
    • Religions at their best work as social glue and when not under threat the business of civilization can proceed. Also since the Islamic empire of those days stretched far and wide, and trade thrived, such advances came about quite naturally. Currently with that empire broken up (often in terrible ways due to former European empires carving them up unnaturally), terrible inequality magnified by western interests in oil and ultimately threats (real or perceived) from non-Islamic forces radicalized religious

      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by east coast ( 590680 )
        Likely because they have a good life and when it comes down to it it's more important than God.

        Hmmm.. Not being a Christian myself can you quote me where their God demanded that they kill themselves in His name?

        Or are you just making up rules on how you think their religion should work instead of going to the source?

    • The arabs came up with a number of scienfitic advances under islam and until recently islam co-existed peacefully with other religions.

      Well, no. Islam got its big start when the Prophet began to conquer pretty much everything he could reach. It continued in that vein till it met something that could stop it. It was rolled up and subsumed by various flavours of Mongol conquerors, which resulted in the destruction of that "enlghtened" Islam you seem to think existed from the beginning. Remember that Sha

    • Re:Muslims could do with some insults to wake them (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kalirion ( 728907 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @04:53PM (#19988291)
      Personally I think of Islam as currently being in the place where Christianity was hundreds of years ago. You know - crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, and all that other neat stuff.

  • Devolution of Information (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DynaSoar ( 714234 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @02:04PM (#19986165) Journal
    Headline: "Malaysia Uses..."
    Article: "The Malaysian government may..."
    TF(BBC)A: "The Malaysian government has warned that it could..."

    When I had to listen to it on shortwave, BBC was a great alternative to the then already groupthink polluted US media. Now it's Fox News with British accents. Despite their Reynolds Wrap hard hats, some people think this happens on purpose, forced by some shadowy puppet governments or government puppets. This example shows how it happens due only to inattention to detail, and desire to make a point, even here on /.

  • Mohammed enjoys anal sex with Allah and the devil! (Score:3, Funny)

    by jez9999 ( 618189 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @02:07PM (#19986207) Homepage Journal
    ... I'd better not go to Malaysia. Ever. But I believe in free speech, damnit.

  • I'm glad of one thing, at least (Score:3, Funny)

    by Prototerm ( 762512 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @02:57PM (#19986871)
    "The new rules would allow a suspect to be detained indefinitely, without being charged or put on trial."

    It's a good thing America doesn't do anything like that, right?
    Oh, wait.
  • This is what is depressing about modern life.

    At one point, if someone was a racist, or religious bigot, or a tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood, they said so and were up front about it.

    These days it seems like everyone lies so freely and easily and without guilt that you can't make a rational decision since you can't trust anyone.

    Islam out and out says it is okay to lie to non-believers (I think judiasm does in the torah too).

    But lots of government officials in the US these days lie constantly.

  • The Article in Question (Score:3, Informative)

    by knuxed ( 854959 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @09:46PM (#19991123) Homepage
    This is one of the articles that caused it all

    http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/holds.php?itemi d=6714#c [malaysia-today.net]

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close