Climber Rennie laid to rest in Pasir Gudang
PASIR GUDANG: Climber Rennie Abdul Ghani, 57, who died after falling on the Torean trail at Mount Rinjani in Lombok, Nusa Tenggara Barat, last Saturday, was laid to rest this morning.
There was a solemn atmosphere at the Mutmainnah Islamic Cemetery, Cahaya Masai, at 7.20am where over 150 people, including family members, relatives, neighbours, and friends, attended.
Earlier, his body was brought to Raudhatul Jannah Surau, Taman Sierra Perdana, Masai. for funeral prayer.
The prayer was led by his eldest son, Mohamad Akashah Rennie, 29, at the
Rennie, an engineer, leaves behind a wife, Mastura Tawap, 53, and three children: Mohamad Akashah, 29; Syafaatul Amirah, 28; and Anisa Sofea, 20.
Earlier, the van carrying Rennie's body arrived at his home in D'Sierra Ville, Taman Sierra Perdana, at 3am. Before that, the body arrived at Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA), Sepang, from Lombok, Indonesia.
His body had been safely retrieved from the incident site at 8.30pm on Sunday (Malaysian time) and arrived at Bayangkara Mataram Hospital at 11pm.
Rennie was reported to have died after falling on the Torean trail at Mount Rinjani during his climb.
National park authorities confirmed that the victim fell at the Banyu Urip area.
He had started his climb via the Sembalun route on May 1, with a group of 23 climbers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
14 hours ago
- The Sun
Appeals Court set Aug 19 for decision in activist's appeal over challenge to online speech law
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has fixed August 19 to deliver its decision in an appeal brought by an activist over the dismissal of her lawsuit that had challenged the validity of parts of a provision in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalises offensive online comments. A three-man bench consisting of Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah set the decision date after parties completed their submissions earlier today. Heidy Quah Gaik Li, the founder of Refuge for Refugees is claiming the use of the words 'offensive' and annoy' in Section 233 of the Act are invalid as it goes against two fundamental human rights protected by the Federal Constitution. Section 233(1)(a) states that it is an offence for a person to make, create or solicit, and initiate the transmission of any online comment which is 'obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with 'intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. In Sept 2023, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed Quah's lawsuit, leading her to file an appeal in the Court of Appeal. The hearing today was a continuation of proceedings that had begun earlier. Justice Lee was serving as a Court of Appeal judge before being elevated to the Federal Court in May this year. During today's hearing, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin representing the Malaysian government submitted that speech involving expletives, profanity, crude references, hate speech or incitement to violence are not expressions protected under Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution. He argued that the right to free speech should be used to disseminate truth, respect for human dignity and perform essential informing function. On the other hand, lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, representing Quah argued the words 'offensive' or annoy contained in Section 233 is inconsistent with Article 10 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, namely the right to equality and freedom of speech. He argued that the two words in Section 233 are not a 'permissible restriction' under public order as prescribed in the Federal Constitution. In July 2021, Quah, 31, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for allegedly making 'offensive' online comments in a Facebook post. In April the following year, the Sessions Court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) due to the charge under section 233(1)(a) being defective.
The Sun
14 hours ago
- The Sun
Court to rule Aug 19 on activist's challenge to CMA provision
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has fixed August 19 to deliver its decision in an appeal brought by an activist over the dismissal of her lawsuit that had challenged the validity of parts of a provision in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalises offensive online comments. A three-man bench consisting of Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah set the decision date after parties completed their submissions earlier today. Heidy Quah Gaik Li, the founder of Refuge for Refugees is claiming the use of the words 'offensive' and annoy' in Section 233 of the Act are invalid as it goes against two fundamental human rights protected by the Federal Constitution. Section 233(1)(a) states that it is an offence for a person to make, create or solicit, and initiate the transmission of any online comment which is 'obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with 'intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. In Sept 2023, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed Quah's lawsuit, leading her to file an appeal in the Court of Appeal. The hearing today was a continuation of proceedings that had begun earlier. Justice Lee was serving as a Court of Appeal judge before being elevated to the Federal Court in May this year. During today's hearing, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin representing the Malaysian government submitted that speech involving expletives, profanity, crude references, hate speech or incitement to violence are not expressions protected under Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution. He argued that the right to free speech should be used to disseminate truth, respect for human dignity and perform essential informing function. On the other hand, lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, representing Quah argued the words 'offensive' or annoy contained in Section 233 is inconsistent with Article 10 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, namely the right to equality and freedom of speech. He argued that the two words in Section 233 are not a 'permissible restriction' under public order as prescribed in the Federal Constitution. In July 2021, Quah, 31, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for allegedly making 'offensive' online comments in a Facebook post. In April the following year, the Sessions Court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) due to the charge under section 233(1)(a) being defective.
New Straits Times
15 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Three foreign men rescued from wrongful confinement in Penang
GEORGE TOWN: Three foreign men were rescued from wrongful confinement during a police raid on an apartment here yesterday. The operation followed a report lodged by a 47-year-old foreign national, who claimed that his friends were being held against their will. Northeast district deputy police chief Superintendent Lee Swee Sake said the raid was conducted about 2pm. "Police successfully freed the three victims, aged between 28 and 52, all of whom were in good health," he said in a statement today. "During the same operation, three Malaysian men, aged 40 to 56, and a 40-year-old foreign woman were arrested. They are believed to have been guarding the victims in the apartment." The case is being investigated under Section 344 of the Penal Code for wrongful confinement. Lee said police had obtained a four-day remand order against the suspects from today until Saturday to facilitate further investigations. "We urge the public to refrain from speculating about the case to avoid jeopardising the ongoing investigation." Police are investigating when and why the victims were confined. The men have valid passports, though some have expired.
