Malaysia’s Evidence Act 1950, Section 114A – How it affects us all

2 days has passed since the widespread Internet blackout as some sites throw their support in going against the Malaysia’s Evidence Act 1950, Section 114A. Had I been given more time, I would have done something to participate in this event which has been seen as unfair by both local and international Internet users.

;

What exactly is 114A and why should we give-a-fig?

;

;

1) Purpose is to curb the defamatory remarks that are rampant in the internet. For example, today you can talk crap about another person and that other person can’t do crap to the crap you crapped if you crapped your identity by registering a crappy online account that does not leave a crap trail to the crap you crapped. Savvy?

;

2)To identify individuals who publish and spread any defamatory comments/remarks/words on the Internet

;

;

Now, we Malaysians are generally a nice lot. By nature, we’re polite, tolerant and wants national and world piec just like everybody else. Then there are some small number of rotten apples who, for selfish reasons wants to stir up trouble by making insensitive remarks that stirs up all sort of crap, especially with the imminent general election. Honestly, in all my life, I’ve not seen as much crap in Malaysia’s virtual world these days as opposed to years ago, election or not.

;

;

So, in response the the increasingly high number of crap online, the government silently pushed forward an amendment in the law by changing a small section of the Malaysian Evidence Act with little debate in Parliment

;

;

BUT, the issue with this law is that it goes against the fundamentals of justice because you are presumed guilty until proven innocent! That crap they see at your door step is presumed yours and it’s up to you to prove that the crap didn’t come from your end. To have a better illustration of how it works, here’s how the government can use the law in a manner that’s detrimental to us all:-

;

;

;

;

What does this mean is no more free Internet at McDonalds, Starbucks, Papparich, Old Town White Coffee, your regular corner shop mamak since the owner can be hauled up to court if one of its patrons decides to say unpatriotic things about certain ministers, politicians, businessmen as well as their wives, brothers, sisters, heck, it might even cover slander against their pets as the comments may cause undue stress to their children.

;

I agree the principal of having each internet user to be more responsible in what they say is good but I strongly disagree with the method in which the government implemented to enforce compliance. And so, kensomuse stands with the Center of Independent Journalism and the rest of internet content providers in supporting the campaign to have the government revise it’s decision to implement the act.

;

A short video of what 114A is about:

;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YBWQHYO2BpI

;

;

While we wait for the government to get its act on the Act together, I do wonder about a few things … what happens if an anonymous bloke taps into the Prime Minister’s Department WiFi, creates an anonymous account and posts unkind words about some prominent individual …. would our premier be asked to face court charges? Or how about internet users misusing the facilities of certain government departments who wanted a more pleasant visit of its patrons by providing free WiFi surfing? Would be be seeing an increase in cyber hacking activities as politics can get really dirty at times.

;

The government must understand that the law goes both ways and IMHO, it causes more problems than solutions.

;

;