KUALA LUMPUR, April 29 — A 24-year-old woman was sentenced to two years’ jail by the High Court here for causing the death of her newborn child by throwing the baby from the 38th floor of a condominium, last year.

Judge Datuk Aslam Zainuddin passed down the sentence on Lua Mei Zhu and ordered it to take effect from the date of her arrest on February 27, 2025. She broke down in tears upon hearing the judgment.

Lua had earlier pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of infanticide while being in a disturbed mental state due to childbirth.

She committed the offence between 1.30pm and 9pm on February 26, and was charged under Section 309A of the Penal Code, which can be punished with a maximum jail term of 20 years and a fine, if convicted.

According to the facts of the case, police received a report at 10.21pm on February 26 from a man who discovered a baby with severe head injuries on the external balcony of his ninth-floor unit. 

Acting on the information, police went to a unit on the 38th floor and found the accused inside a room before arresting her.

Investigations revealed the baby died from multiple injuries sustained after falling from a height. The accused had thrown the newborn out of the bathroom window shortly after giving birth, reportedly in a state of panic.

In mitigation, defence counsel Loke Kok Mun said his client regretted her actions and had already been remanded for one year and two months.

He said the incident stemmed from her immaturity in handling the situation. Although she knew she was pregnant out of wedlock in the final trimester, she did not seek medical care due to fear of social stigma.

“She was under emotional distress and was even afraid to inform her family, fearing shame as the baby’s father was of a different race and religion,” he said, adding that she had suffered prolonged depression after a breakup and received psychiatric treatment for three months at Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta in Perak.

Deputy public prosecutor Mohamad Shahrizzat Amadan, however, pressed for a heavier penalty, citing the gravity of the offence.

“A life has been lost. An innocent baby, who never had the chance to live, was thrown from a height.

“At the time, other family members were present in the house. The accused had other options, but tragically chose this course. I seek justice for the baby,” he said. — Bernama 

SEOUL, April 29 — A ‌South Korean ​appeals court on Wednesday gave ‌a seven-year jail ​term to former President Yoon Suk Yeol ​on charges including obstructing investigators trying to execute ‌an arrest warrant ⁠since ⁠his ⁠short-lived 2024 martial law ⁠declaration.

The ⁠Seoul High Court delivered ⁠the ruling in a televised hearing, the first decision by ⁠a special court division set up to handle ⁠cases linked to ⁠Yoon’s ⁠martial law ​bid ​in December 2024. — Reuters

KUALA LUMPUR, April 29 — The High Court today ordered businessman Datuk Seri Aliff Syukri Kamaruzaman to pay RM250,000 in damages to former minister Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir in a defamation suit linked to allegations over an investment debt amounting to tens of millions of ringgit.

Judge Roslan Mat Nor made the ruling after allowing the suit by the former Culture, Arts and Tourism Minister against Aliff Syukri.

In addition to the damages, the court ordered Aliff Syukri to pay cost of RM50,000 to Abdul Kadir.

The court also issued an injunction restraining Aliff Syukri, his officers, agents or representatives from publishing or republishing the defamatory statements, or any similar allegations, against Abdul Kadir.

Judge Roslan further ordered that all defamatory content concerning Abdul Kadir be removed from all of Aliff Syukri’s social media platforms within seven days.

In addition, Aliff Syukri must provide a written undertaking that he will not publish or cause to be published any further defamatory statements against Abdul Kadir.

"The defendant is a well-known influencer and has millions of followers on social media. He is also involved in business," he said.

Judge Roslan said the court was of the opinion that there were legal channels open for the defendant to submit a claim for debt or any rights to the plaintiff, thus allowing the claim to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the law.

Abdul Kadir, 86, filed the suit on Sept 6, 2023, alleging that Aliff Syukri, 39, who is involved in the entertainment industry with a large following on social media, issued a defamatory statement against the plaintiff on Instagram and Facebook on July 2, 2023.

The plaintiff claimed that the statement meant, among other things, that the plaintiff owed the defendant millions of ringgit, in addition to the plaintiff's picture placed on the statement inviting negative comments from readers.

Aliff Syukri, through his defense statement, claimed that he had made an investment payment of RM30 million to comply with the joint venture agreement dated Nov 26, 2018 involving the plaintiff, the defendant and two companies.

He claimed that the parties in the joint venture agreement failed to make the payment of the money that had been invested in addition to all violations of such promises, including the undertaking given plaintiff to him is within the plaintiff's own knowledge." 

Judge Roslan underscored the importance of personal reputation, ruling that a person’s dignity and good name are invaluable and cannot be measured solely in monetary terms.

"The plaintiff is a seasoned Malaysian politician who has long been involved in the political arena. He has served in the Federal Cabinet, held several ministerial portfolios, and remains active in business as well as political party activities even after retirement,” he said.

He also noted that Aliff Syukri is a prominent influencer with millions of followers across social media platforms, in addition to his business interests.

He said that if Aliff Syukri believed he had a legitimate claim over any debt or entitlement, proper legal avenues were available to pursue such claims in accordance with the law.

Abdul Kadir, 86, filed the suit on Sept 6, 2023, alleging that Aliff Syukri, 39, who is involved in the entertainment industry with a large following on social media, issued a defamatory statement against him on Instagram and Facebook on July 2, 2023.

According to the suit, the postings implied that Abdul Kadir owed Aliff Syukri millions of ringgit. The plaintiff also contended that the inclusion of his photograph in the posts invited negative comments and harmed his reputation.

In his defence, Aliff Syukri claimed that he had invested RM30 million under a joint venture agreement dated Nov 26, 2018, involving Abdul Kadir, himself and two companies.

He alleged that the parties to the agreement had failed to fulfil their obligations, including repayment of the invested funds, and that various breaches of the agreement had occurred. — Bernama

SEOUL, April 28 — A South Korean appeals court increased the corruption sentence for former first lady Kim Keon Hee on Tuesday to four years in jail, up from 20 months, after finding her guilty of stock manipulation and bribery.

The much heavier penalty came as the court overturned Kim’s prior acquittal by a lower court on stock price manipulation charges.

“The court sentences the defendant to four years in prison and imposes a ₩50 million  (RM134,000) fine,” the Seoul High Court said in a verdict televised live.

It found Kim guilty of manipulating the share price of Deutsch Motors, a South Korean car dealer, which it ruled a “collusive... trading act constituting market manipulation”.

“The defendant appears to have participated in such conduct,” the court said as it overturned her initial acquittal.

Kim, the wife of jailed ex-president Yoon Suk Yeol, was handed 20 months in jail in January for bribery after she accepted luxury gifts from a cult-like church.

She appealed the verdict in the hope of clearing her name, while prosecutors also did so arguing that the sentence was too lenient and that her acquittals were wrongful.

The court said on Tuesday that the 53-year-old had “failed to acknowledge her culpability and has instead consistently resorted to excuses”.

As a result of Kim’s acceptance of bribes, “public trust in the transparency of state affairs and the fair execution of national policy was undermined,” the court said. — AFP

The Hong Kong government is seeking to confiscate HK$127 million in assets belonging to pro-democracy media mogul Jimmy Lai, following his conviction and jail term under the national security law.

Lai has been summoned to the High Court on July 8 to hear the government’s application. The case will be presided over by Esther Toh, one of the three judges who heard his national security trial.

In a writ submitted to the High Court earlier this month, the secretary for justice listed assets to be “forfeited” to the authorities.

The list includes credit balances in bank accounts belonging to or linked to the Apple Daily founder.

Fifteen bank accounts under Lai’s name – 10 with HSBC, two with Hang Seng Bank and three with Shanghai Commercial and Savings Bank – have over HK$32 million.

The government is also seeking to seize bank accounts belonging to 17 companies linked to Lai. It is also demanding that Lai give up shares in 17 companies, some of which overlap with the 17 firms whose assets the government is seeking to seize.

Among the companies whose assets and shares the government wants to seize are Dico Consultants Ltd, which has over HK$404,302 in its HSBC account, and Lai’s Hotel Properties Ltd, which has over HK$3.1 billion in its four HSBC accounts.

Dico Consultants was at the centre of Lai’s fraud case relating to an alleged lease violation. Lai was accused of allowing the company to occupy parts of Apple Daily’s headquarters in Tseung Kwan O, despite the newspaper premises being rented for printing and publishing.

Lai was jailed for five years and nine months in December 2022 after being found guilty of fraud, but the conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal in February this year.

The government also applied to seize HK$10 million in bail money that Lai had given to the court in December 2020, before he was later denied bail and remanded.

The media mogul was jailed for 20 years in February after being found guilty of conspiring to collude with foreign forces and of sedition, both offences under the Beijing-imposed national security law.

The jail term is the longest handed down so far for a national security offence. His lawyers have said that Lai will not appeal.

SINGAPORE: A migrant worker has secured a legal victory after the High Court overturned an earlier tribunal ruling, ordering his former employer to pay more than S$5,700 in overtime wages following a protracted two-year dispute.

In a judgment delivered on Tuesday (April 7), Justice Philip Jeyaretnam allowed the appeal filed by Indian national Gena Hulash Ram, finding that his employer’s method of compensating overtime through a fixed monthly allowance breached Singapore’s employment laws.

At the heart of the case was a S$300 monthly payment listed as “others” in employment records. The employer argued that this allowance was intended to cover overtime work regardless of the number of hours performed. The court, however, rejected this position, ruling that such an arrangement was incompatible with statutory requirements governing overtime pay.

Gena had worked as a packer at a fresh produce wholesaler between December 2022 and August 2023. His in-principle approval letter issued by the Ministry of Manpower stated a basic monthly salary of S$1,000, with additional fixed payments of S$200 for housing and S$300 categorised as “others”, bringing his total monthly pay to S$1,500. The document also specified an overtime rate of S$7.87 per hour.

The dispute arose over whether the S$300 allowance could be used to offset overtime payments calculated based on actual hours worked. In December 2023, Gena filed a claim with the Employment Claims Tribunal seeking S$5,711.11 in unpaid overtime wages.

While the tribunal acknowledged that overtime had been worked, it allowed the employer to offset the payments against the fixed allowance. Under this approach, the worker would receive the S$300 allowance if his overtime earnings fell below that amount, and only the excess if they exceeded S$300. The tribunal reasoned that the classification of the allowance as “overtime” in payslips constituted a contractual agreement, reducing the awarded sum to S$3,254.84.

Unhappy with the outcome, Gena appealed. Justice Jeyaretnam described the case as raising “a simple but important point of law” on how overtime provisions under the Employment Act should be interpreted.

In overturning the earlier decision, the judge made clear that employers cannot impose a cap or fixed sum on overtime payments. He emphasised that overtime must be calculated strictly based on the actual number of hours worked.

The court further noted that employment terms set out in Ministry of Manpower documentation clearly distinguish between basic salary, fixed allowances and overtime pay. Fixed monthly allowances, the judge said, must not include any element of overtime compensation.

In his judgment, Justice Jeyaretnam rejected the employer’s argument that the arrangement was administratively convenient, warning that allowing such practices would effectively dilute the declared overtime rate and undermine statutory protections for workers.

The High Court reinstated Gena’s full claim of S$5,711.11 and ordered the employer to pay S$9,000 in legal costs.

Gena was represented on a pro bono basis by lawyers Melvin Chan Kah Keen and Amelia Tan Han Ru from TSMP Law Corporation. Justice Jeyaretnam commended their efforts, noting that such work reflects the legal profession at its best.

The case also received support from migrant worker advocacy groups, including Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) and Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), which assisted Gena after he first sought help in 2023.

Gena has since left Singapore. His lawyer told the press that while the sum involved might appear modest, it was significant for the worker.

This article (Migrant worker wins $5.7K after 2-year fight as court rejects employer’s ‘fixed’ overtime payments) first appeared on The Independent Singapore News.

The Hong Kong government has filed an application to seize “offence-related” properties owned by jailed pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai on national security grounds.

The application to the High Court was filed on Thursday “in order to achieve the important objectives of preventing and suppressing acts and activities endangering national security,” the government said in a statement.

It is unclear what the properties are.

The statement mentioned Lai’s earlier convictions under the Beijing-imposed national security law, saying the High Court had found that he was the “mastermind and driving force behind the case, consciously using Apple Daily and his personal influence” to undermine local and Beijing authorities.

The announcement comes a week after the government designated three companies linked to Lai’s now-defunct Apple Daily tabloid “prohibited organisations” and removed them from the corporate registry.

Police cordoned off the Apple Daily building in Tseung Kwan O a day later.

The three firms were tried and convicted alongside the Apple Daily founder in his high-profile national security case. Lai was sentenced to 20 years behind bars while the firms were each fined HK$3,004,500.

Thursday’s statement cited a national security law provision that proceeds obtained from security offences, “including financial aid, gains and rewards, and funds and tools used or intended to be used in the commission of the offence shall be seized and confiscated.”

The High Court will order the forfeiture order “only if it is satisfied, after an application is made by the Secretary for Justice, that the property to be forfeited meets relevant conditions.”

The forfeiture order would cut “funding chains” and prevent further acts that could endanger national security, the statement read.

Six former Apple Daily executives were jailed alongside Lai for up to 10 years. Two of them, Fung Wai-kong and Lam Man-chung, have lodged an appeal.

The jailing of the media tycoon and his staff has drawn international rebuke. United Nations human rights chief Volker Turk deplored the 20-year jail sentence handed to Lai, demanding that the verdict be “promptly quashed”.

In contrast, Hong Kong officials and lawmakers have lauded the jail term. Chief Executive John Lee said Lai “deserves his punishment,” adding that the tycoon had “committed numerous heinous crimes and his evil deeds were beyond measure.”

A Hong Kong businessman who has taken on corruption in the construction sector has been jailed for one month for contempt of court over remarks he made on a YouTube livestream two years ago.

High Court Judge Queeny Au-yeung on Thursday sentenced Poon to one month in prison and ordered him to pay HK$262,000 in legal costs after he pleaded guilty to two counts of contempt, local media reported.

Poon was charged in November 2024 after saying in a YouTube livestream, following his loss in a labour dispute case, that a Labour Tribunal judge was “bottom-tier” and “garbage.”

He also directed YouTube viewers to two Facebook posts in which he had disclosed parts of the court transcripts, according to case details.

In mitigation, Poon said he had no intention of interfering with judicial proceedings and that his actions were fuelled by frustration. He also said he was willing to issue formal apologies on the two social media platforms and pleaded for a suspended sentence.

Judge Au-yeung handed down an immediate custodial sentence of one month behind bars.

Poon shot to fame in 2018 after he became a whistleblower in an MTR project corner-cutting scandal.

As the head of a subcontractor for the rail operator, he revealed that top railway officials were aware of substandard work in the Hung Hom station expansion.

More recently, he has focused on flagging issues in residential renovation projects, including the quality of scaffolding nets and the bid-rigging epidemic.

Last month, he was arrested and released on bail over alleged government loan fraud.