Questions have also been raised over the validity of the club’s representation of young journalists as most working journalists were not aware of it’s existence prior to its statement supporting Section 114a of the Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2012 issued on Monday.

The statement quoting KWMM president Dzulkarnain Taib said internet freedom if left unchecked would cause social, political and economical problems.
However, NUJ general secretary V. Anbalagan said the union, as the oldest and largest organisation representing working journalists, cannot agree with KWMM’s views.

“NUJ do not and have not supported Section 114A. In principle, we agree with the Centre for Independent Journalism and their campaign against the amendment,” Anbalagan told theSun.

Anbalagan added that while Dzulkarnain is entitled to his opinion, it does not represent the view of a majority of young journalists, most of whom are members of the NUJ.

Meanwhile, a survey by theSun on social media platform Facebook found that 46 out of 50 working journalists had never heard of the club prior to its statement on Section 114A on Monday.

However, when contacted, Dzulkarnain told theSun the club had been in existence since 2003 and was officiated by former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Badawi during the July 2005 Umno general assembly.

“We regard all journalists as members of the club. However, on the official membership roll, we have about 100, although some have left the industry,” said Dzulkarnain, who is also no longer a working journalist but is a media consultant.

When theSun pointed out that many young journalists have not heard of the club, Dzulkarnain said that its “somewhat our (the club’s) fault”.

“We are a very low-profile club. We are also not profit-orientated and we no longer have an official website, though we are planning a relaunch by the year-end,” he said.

News Source: The Sun

Kuala Lumpur, Aug 25 – The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) wants the government to review, amend or even repeal Section 114A of the Evidence (Amendment) (No 2) Act 2012, saying it goes against a fundamental principle of law that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Suhakam chairperson Hasmy Agam (right) said the new law also violated the human rights principle of freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 19 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

“While the presumption of fact under Section 114A is rebuttable, a person against whom presumption is applied may lack the time, resources and more importantly, technical expertise in relation to the Internet environment, to prove the contrary in order to rebut the presumption,” he said in a statement in Kuala Lumpur last night.

He said that in contrast, the prosecution may be better equipped to prove the guilt of the accused, as they were authorised to compel any potential witness, the technical expertise and resources to assist in the investigation.

He added that Section 114A may have the potential and negative effect of discouraging expression, dissemination and sharing of ideas, news and information via the Internet, thus limiting and impinging on freedom of expression.

“The commission looks forward to engaging with the Attorney General’s Chambers and other stakeholders in the review of the Act, as well as in the drafting of any new law to ensure that they are consistent with universally accepted human rights principles,” Hasmy said.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohamed Nazri Aziz on Thursday had said that the government would not seek to review the law.

News Source: Bernama

image from Facebook campaigner

Dear Netizens,

Thank you for your participation in the Internet Blackout day on Aug 14, 2012. Malaysians made history! It was only possible because of the thousands who used the tools provided by the open web to spread the information about Section 114A far and wide. The diversity and creativity of actions, from tweeting, posting on Facebook, designing banners and pictures, e-mailing, to even going offline the whole day, was astounding! It shows that many actions of protest are possible and indeed, necessary.

The broad spectrum of people who came together also shows that this is an issue that cuts across political divides. Some tried hard to paint this citizen-initiated campaign as politically-motivated or influenced by partisan politics. In an extremely polarised political landscape like ours, initiatives such as the Internet Blackout Day are bound to get caught in the crossfire. But these quarters did not succeed in detracting from our aim, which was to raise awareness about the detrimental impact of Section 114A of the Evidence Act.Another positive outcome is that a lot more Malaysians now realise how faulty our process of law-making is.If only consultation had taken place before the bill becomes law.

If only MPs — whether from BN or Pakatan, or the Independents — were given enough resources to look carefully at this law and their implications on the rakyat.

If only MPs were given enough time to debate this before they vote.

Fact is, there was zero consultation. Fact is, MPs are often badly stretched and under resourced. Fact is, we’ve seen more quality debate on Section 114A over the past few days than in Parliament when the bill was passed!

If we take our democracy and its processes seriously, it’s our individual responsibility to keep our lawmakers on their toes. It’s our responsibility to educate and inform ourselves of various laws and policies that affect us, something that 40,000 Malaysians yesterday proved they were able to do. It’s also our responsibility to demand that out lawmaking process be consultative and transparent. We can’t mature as a democracy if laws are bulldozed through Parliament, only to have them withdrawn or discussed after much public protest.

For those who were skeptical about the efficacy of a 24-hour Internet-based protest, we support the idea that online action needs tobe taken offline to effect lasting change. The Internet Blackout is only one—if the most visible—of many actions in the #stop114A campaign trail.

For the #stop114A campaign team, the immediate next step is to take up the offer of Deputy Minister Saifuddin Abdullah to meet him and other like-minded BN MPs on how to take this issue further.

The online community should also respond to the Cabinet decision to not review Section 114A, following the Prime Minister’s tweet in response to the popular online support for Internet Blackout Day. We will do so, but only after coming up with effective ways to put the pressure. There needs to be more than one action and they need to be online as well as offline, and done by as many sectors as possible, from the average Facebooker to the Net-based business community.

image by hardyweb:perjalanan hidupku

How would you like to continue to be part of this campaign? We will use our Facebook page to keep everyone updated and will ask for your input and support. There will be more to come, as the campaign is not over until the amendment is repealed.

We hope this platform becomes a space for healthy debates, ideas and discussion on how to take this campaign forward.

Thank you!
#stop 114A campaign team

Chang Ko Youn: It shows the government’s determination in political transformation
Press statement by Gerakan Deputy President Dato’ Chang Ko Youn

Gerakan Deputy President Dato’ Chang Ko Youn today supports the government’s move to review the controversial Section 114A of the Evidence Act 1950. He fully supports the sensible and liberal gesture by the PM that puts people first by listening to their pleas and responded positively and openly. He reiterates that Gerakan supports the move to review, amend or even repel the controversial provision which is found to be a threat to the freedom of expression and against the principle of law in the presumption of innocence that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Burden of proof must be on the prosecution and shall not be shifted to the defence which is a cardinal principle of the laws.

Besides, Dato’ Chang who is also Gerakan’s Human Rights and Law Bureau Chairman lauds the openness and concern the PM has shown in his initiative to instruct the cabinet to look into the controversial section. It shows that the PM and the government are sincere and dedicated to continue pushing for a meaningful political transformation as promised to the people.

In addition, Dato’ Chang also hopes that the netizens will be more self-restraint and responsible while publishing comments or sharing information through the cyberspace. He exhorts that the people should refrain from publishing seditious and defamatory contents by keeping ourselves on the moral high ground by remaining moral in ethics, parlance and adhering or upholding a universal standard of justice and goodness, which is beyond the legal emphasis just as what we have learned from this case. Cyberspace is not a wild wild West. One must be responsible for what he or she says and writes.

Source: Gerakan’s Website

1. Apakah itu Seksyen 114 A?

Seksyen 114 A, “Andaian Fakta dalam Penerbitan”, merupakan pindaan terbaru terhadap Akta Keterangan 1950. Pindaan tersebut yang diluluskan Dewan Rakyat tanpa didebatkan terlebih dahulu pada 18 April 2012 dan melalui Dewan Negara pada 9 Mei 2012. Pindaan ini telah diwartakan dan mula berkuatkuasa mulai 31 Julai 2012.

Seksyen 114 A, yang boleh diguna pakai dalam kes jenayah dan juga sivil, mengandaikan bahawa pemilik, pengendali, hos, editor, pelanggan sesebuah rangkaian atau laman web, atau pemilik komputer atau peralatan mudah alih dianggap bertanggungjawab menyiarkan atau mengulangsiarkan isi kandungan yang terdapat pada rangkaian, laman web atau peralatan terbabit.

2. Apakah tujuan asal pindaan ini diperkenalkan?

Tujuan asal pindaan ini adalah untuk mengenal pasti individu yang bertanggungjawab ke atas penyiaran dan penyebaran bahan berunsur hasutan di internet.

Bagi pihak berkuasa, proses menjejaki dan mengenal pasti individu yang terlibat dalam penyiaran atau penyebaran bahan berunsur hasutan di internet merupakan sesuatu yang sukar. Individu tersebut dengan mudah mengambil kesempatan menyembunyikan identiti mereka di internet kerana kesukaran pihak berkuasa mengawal internet yang luas dan terbuka. Penyembunyian identiti juga menggalakkan rakyat menyatakan pendapat tanpa rasa takut kepada mana-mana pihak. Selain itu, oleh sebab maklumat mudah berpindah dari satu pihak ke pihak yang lain, pihak berkuasa mengalami kesukaran untuk mengesan individu asal yang bertanggungjawab menyebarkan maklumat tersebut.

3. Apakah kekurangan yang ada pada Seksyen 114A?

Pindaan ini jelas mengandaikan kesalahan terletak pada individu yang identitinya diguna pakai dalam penyiaran atau penyebaran maklumat berbentuk hasutan tanpa mengambil kira faktor seperti kecurian identiti dan penggodaman komputer. Kesalahan juga terletak pada pihak yang menyediakan ruangan komen pada blog, forum dan pengendali laman web walaupun maklumat tersebut disiarkan oleh pihak lain.

Pelaksanaan pindaan baru ini boleh mengakibatkan pihak yang tidak terlibat menjadi mangsa. Pindaan ini juga bercanggah dengan prinsip asas keadilan yang menyatakan seseorang tidak bersalah selagi kesalahannya tidak dibuktikan.

Selain itu, undang-undang yang diperkenalkan ini tidak akan dapat memerangi jenayah siber dengan berkesan kerana pindaan ini secara tidak langsung melindungi penjenayah siber dengan meletakkan kesalahan ke atas mangsa mereka yang komputer atau akaun Facebook dan Twitternya digodam.

4. Apakah implikasi pindaan ini terhadap individu?

Pelaksanaan Seksyen 114 A mempunyai kesan yang luas terhadap setiap pengguna internet yang meliputi pelbagai platform seperti emel dan media sosial. Pindaan ini awal-awal lagi telah meletakkan kesalahan ke atas individu yang memiliki laman web atau peralatan yang mana kenyataan atau isi kandungan berunsur hasutan tersiar. Di bawah Seksyen 114 A, individu atau organisasi yang mengendali, menyelia atau menyediakan ruang untuk forum, blog atau perkhidmatan pengehosan web adalah bertanggungjawab terhadap segala kandungan yang terdapat dalam perkhidmatan terbabit. Mereka juga bertanggungjawab terhadap kandungan yang diterbitkan oleh pihak lain yang menyamar menggunakan identiti mereka di internet. Hasilnya, Seksyen ini mengancam kebebasan bersuara di internet, serta mengancam prinsip asas keadilan, demokrasi dan hak asasi manusia.

5. Apakah implikasi pindaan ini terhadap ekonomi negara?

Pada tahun 2010, sektor internet menyumbang 4.1% (30 billion) kepada KDNK Malaysia – angka yang lebih tinggi daripada kebanyakan negara maju yang mana sektor internetnya menyumbang kira-kira 3.4% KDNK mereka[1]. Ekonomi berasaskan internet di negara ini bercambah dengan pesat hasil daripada kebebasan berinternet yang dinikmati para pengguna perkhidmatan tersebut. Kejayaan perniagaan-perniagaan internet juga berkait rapat dengan kebolehan pengguna-pengguna internet mencipta, mencari serta berkongsi maklumat.

Populariti rangkaian laman sosial juga mendorong perniagaan-perniagaan untuk membangunkan strategi pemasaran yang berinovatif serta mampu menjana kemajuan ekonomi. Facebook dan Twitter juga membantu perniagaan mempromosikan produk mereka. Selain itu peniaga juga dapat meningkatkan mutu produk hasil daripada maklum balas pembeli melalui laman sosial tersebut. Oleh itu, kemajuan ekonomi berasaskan internet bergangtung kepada inisiatif yang mampu menggalakkan penggunaan internet dan bukannya langkah yang membantutkan.

Seksyen 114 A menghalang penggunaan dan penghasilan maklumat di internet. Oleh sebab pindaan tersebut meletakkan beban membuktikan kesalahan di bahu pemilik sesebuah laman web atau peralatan, penghasilan dan perkongsian maklumat di internet akan terbantut akibat ketakutan dan risiko didakwa. Hasilnya, pindaan yang baru ini akan menjejaskan perniagaan-perniagaan kecil mahupun besar yang bergantung pada penglibatan pengguna-pengguna internet.

6. Mengapa kebebasan bersuara di internet perlu dipertahankan?

Perkongsian maklumat yang bebas dan terbuka merupakan asas bagi sebuah sistem demokrasi yang kukuh. Hal ini memastikan rakyat sentiasa dibekalkan dengan maklumat yang tepat supaya mereka dapat memainkan peranan yang aktif dalam proses demokrasi di negara ini. Internet yang mampu mempercepatkan proses penyampaian maklumat berkemampuan untuk melancarkan proses demokrasi. Justeru, rakyat perlu menggunakan hak bersuara mereka tidak kira dalam apa jua bentuk termasuk di internet. Suara rakyat perlu didengar. Oleh itu, jika Seksyen 114 A yang baru ini dilaksanakan, prinsip demokrasi serta kebebasan bersuara rakyat akan terjejas teruk.

7. Pihak mana yang menentang Seksyen 114A?

Pada 31 Mei 2012, Pusat Kewartawanan Bebas (CIJ) melancarkan satu e-petisyen untuk mendapatkan sokongan kepada kempen untuk menghentikan pindaan ini daripada diwartakan. Dalam masa sebulan, lebih daripada 3300 individu menandatangani petisyen tersebut untuk menyatakan tentangan mereka terhadap pindaan tersebut. Dalam kalangan mereka yang berbuat demikian termasuklah Ahli Parlimen Segambut Lim Lip Eng, pengarah filem terkenal Pete Teo, penulis and personaliti radio Patrick Teoh, aktivis sosial Marina Mahathir dan Dr. Irene Fernandez, dan ahli akademik ternama seperti Dr. Azmi Sharom dan Dr. Mustafa K. Anuar.

Selain itu, ahli-ahli parlimen dari Barisan Nasional turut menyatakan ketidaksenangan mereka dengan pindaan tersebut. Khairy Jamaluddin menyifatkan bahawa beban membuktikan kesalahan perlu sentiasa terletak pada pihak pendakwa[2]. Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah pula berpendapat bahawa pindaan tersebut perlu ditarik semula[3].

Pada 28 Jun 2012, Pakatan Rakyat mengeluarkan kenyataan untuk menyarankan pihak kerajaan menarik semula Seksyen 114A tersebut. Kenyataan terbabit ditandatangani oleh Ahli Parlimen Subang R Sivarasa, Ahli Parlimen Batu Gajah Fong Po Kuan, dan Ahli Parlimen Kuala Selangor Dzulkefly Ahmad[4].

News Sites & Online Magazines:
• Free Malaysia Today
• Malaysiakini
• Digital News Asia
• The Nut Graph
• Harakah Daily
• Keadilan Daily
• BFM Radio
• Mobile World
• Tranungkite
• MalaysianWireless
• NegaraKita
• Selangorku
• Malaysia Today
• Malaysia Chronicle
• Inspire.fm
• Merdeka Review
• Amanz.my
• Time Out KL
• Paul Tan
• Ohbulan!
• Adoimagazine
• techattack

Bloggers & Public Figures:
• Marina Mahathir
• Lim Kit Siang
• Anwar Ibrahim
• Nurul Izzah
• Chee Ching
• Malaysia For All
• Klubkidd
• David Wang
• Syahredzan Johan
• WriT3RLK
• Tukar Tiub
• Thank Talks
• Blind Scratch
• HearMeSayWhat
• Maclean Patrick
• Simon Seow
• Smashin’ pOpstar
• Uppercaise
• Nat Tan
• Niki Cheong
• myAsylum
• Anil Netto
• juanajaafar
• NTGravity Zone
• Sarawak Bloggers
• Sivin Kit
• Fahmi Fadzil
• Cyril Dason
• 2dayblogger
• Kaki Sakat
• Lucia Lai
• Jason Mumbles
• fourfeetnine
• In Piscean’s Heart
• techknew
• Dylan Phuah
• Joshua Ong
• Daniel Anthony
• The Flaccid Mind
• Colourless Opinions
• xes.cx
• Fu Sheng
• Denai Hati
• Ariff Shah
• Ericleeh
• Spinzer
• Shaolin Tiger
• SFGEMS
• Nia Rashid
• Pak Doe Allan
• mellvynm
• Eye on Everything
• Malaysians Must Know the Truth
• Din Merican
• Selvaraja Somiah
• Boy Meets World
• Selina Wing
• That Movie Blogger Fella
• The Rungitom
• Tboxmy
• Connie Yeoh
• Mr. Lonely
• Kim
• Kami Suka Godam
• Malay K-Dramas Subtitles
• Fiona Chan
• Assiasah Assyariiyyah

Commercial & Entrepreneurship:
• lelong.com.my
• entrepreneurs.my
• nexusmediaworks
• MOL
• MudahAlih.my
• Cziplee Books & Stationery
• Hen Design Studio
• Neo Info Tech
• Malaysian Properties for Sale & Rent

Online Resources & Community:
• cari.com.my
• anixekai.com
• LoyarBurok
• mobile88
• jbtalks
• edu.joshuatly.com
• Xela City
• #twtupkch
• PopTeeVee
• Malaysia Design Archive
• ziggy-it.org
• Grafik Malaya
• Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu
• Komuniti Menara Orkid
• Anime Clan
• iHelpBoard
• Yellow Shorts
• phototripdate.com

Civil Societies / NGO / Associations:
• Malaysian Bar Council
• Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan (KPRU)
• Aliran
• Research for Social Advancement, Relevant Facts, Sparkling Analysis (REFSA)
• Sinar Project
• Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
• SEACeM
• Tindak Malaysia
• Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF)
• Lawyers for Liberty
• Perak Women for Women
• EMPOWER
• Women’s Centre For Change
• All Women’s Action Society (AWAM)
• Sisters in Islam (SIS)
• Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO)
• Voice of the Children
• Tenaganita
• KOMAS
• UndiMsia
• DAP Malaysia
• Five Arts Centre
• Malaysian AIDS Council
• SABM
• Pesticide Action Network Asia & The Pacific

Facebook Pages:
Association of Women Lawyers Malaysia
Fiesta Feminista
Facebook News 新闻最前线
CzipLee Group
Besih 2.0 Official
100K Chinese Don’t Want MCA to Represent Chinese

Infograph translated by our friends from The Rocket

114A条文是什么？

What is Section 114A?

114A条文是《1950马来西亚证据法令》两项修正条文中的第二项。首相署部长纳兹里阿兹于4月18日向国会下议院提呈《2012年证据法令修正法案》进行一读，并获得马来西亚旅游部副部长詹姆士道达沃斯支持。第114A条文顺利通过二读和三读，并于5月9日于国会上议院通过。

114A条文的目的是什么？

What is the purpose of Section 114A?

第114A条文针对涉嫌在互联网上发布非法和有害内容的行为。简言之，此修正法案让司法执行人员能够迅速地逮捕涉嫌在互联网发布煽动性、诽谤性或污蔑性内容的人士。

114A条文作了哪些不当的假设？

What does Section 114A presume?

在“假设性的事实”下，114A条文将在互联网上发布信息的责任归咎于下列人士：

（一）          拥有、管理、或编辑对公众开放言论空间的网页，如各类论坛或部落格的相关人士；

（二）          提供网络伺服器或上网服务的相关人士；及

（三）          用以发布相关内容的电脑或仪器的持有人。

换句话说，任何涉嫌诽谤的内容如果来自你的用户名（username）、你所拥有的电子仪器、及/或无线网络（WIFI），114A条文将预先假定你犯上在互联网上发布非法内容的罪名。

若你的身份被盗用或骇客非法使用你推特或面子书帐号发布具诽谤性内容，你将面对什么后果呢？

在第114A条文下，你将被认定有罪，除非你能证明自己是清白的。

114A条文有哪些不妥之处？

What is wrong with Section 114A?

第114A条文之所以构成问题是基于下列种种原因：

（一）         它把错误的将大部分（在互联网）发布煽动性或诽谤性内容的责任放在普通网民身上。

（二）         它让提供或管理网上论坛、部落格和伺服器的中介单位，必须为所有（在其所提供的服务范围内）刊载的内容负起法律责任。

（三）         它将互联网罪行的责任转嫁到受害者身上，世道入侵民众互联网户口或电脑并修改其内容及数据资料的骇客或网络罪犯得以免于承担（法律）责任。

（四）         它是仓促通过及不考虑公众利益及公众参与的一项糟糕的法律。

第114A法令如何影响言论自由？

How will Section 114A affect the freedom of expression?

第114A条文威胁了言论自由的权利。网民需常自我审查以避免在此条文下被错误提控。比方说，部落客需大量审查读者的留言。因此，第114A条文间接钳制了大众针对政治或社会课题的言论自由，并保护了政府当局以免于公众的监控。

The Questions and Answers were translated by JB FOS Committee

There was plenty of debate and discussion at Saturday’s “114A Evidence Act-End of Internet Freedom?” forum, much more than in Parliament at the time the law was passed!

Deputy Minister Saifuddin Abdullah, a speaker at the forum, said he wished the debate at Parliament was this intense as he conceded that he himself was focused on another piece of legislation at the time. He said that if a normally conscientious MPs like Khairy Jamaluddin could be caught unawares about the effects of a law like Section 114A until after fact, what more the rest of the members of the Dewan?

Much of the discussion amongst the panelists centered around the flawed process of law-making, especially the lack of consultation sessions with the public.

The panelists also expressed a diversity of views on the presumptions the amendment makes and the burdens it imposes on private individuals and businesses. Faisal Moideen, a Member of the Bar, conceded that the text of Section 114A was wide but did not think the procedural rules outlined in the amendment would unduly burden the accused, reiterating that the presumption of guilt was rebuttable in court. Fellow lawyer K. Shanmuga, however, referred to Section 114A as the bluntest instrument that could have been used to combat cyber-crime and stated that the amendment was not  the only or most effective solution to the problem.

The forum was also open to questions from the audience. In addition to asking questions about accountability, Bloggers, Facebook and Twitter users, and those involved in the IT industry also found the amendment’s potential effects on Internet surveillance particularly worrisome. Both a systems administrator and the creator and administrator of a Facbeook group, for instance, were concerned that they would need to track the online activities of service users or commenters in order to avoid wrongful accusations made against them under Section 114A.

As they entered the venue, audience members were asked to vote on whether they supported, did not support, did not care, or did not know about Section 114A of the Evidence Act. Before the forum, six individuals supported the amendment and 39 did not support it. Another round of voting took place at the end of the forum, and an astounding 57 votes were casted against Section 114A!

Check out some early news coverage of the forum to learn more:

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/08/11/deputy-minister-against-changes-to-evidence-act/

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/206066

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/saifuddin-backs-repealing-law-that-could-curb-net-freedom/

Pernahkah anda dengar mengenai Seksyen 114a yang merupakan pindaan terbaru terhadap Akta Keterangan 1950?
Pindaan terbaru ini meletakkan beban membuktikan kesalahan pada pihak yang dituduh dan bukannya pihak yang menuduh.

Sebagai contoh, jika seseorang menyamar sebagai anda dan melakukan kesalahan di internet, andalah yang bertanggungjawab untuk membuktikan bahawa anda tidak bersalah.

Undang-undang yang baru ini jelas bercanggah dengan prinsip asas keadilan yang menyatakan bahawa seseorang itu tidak bersalah selagi tidak dibuktikan kesalahannya.

Pindaan yang baru ini boleh mendatangkan kesan-kesan yang negatif kepada seluruh pengguna internet dan pihak yang terlibat dalam industri tersebut.

Jika anda memiliki akaun Facebook, Twitter, blog atau forum, anda akan dipertanggungjawabkan atas setiap isi kandungan yang terdapat di laman-laman tersebut termasuk komen dan artikel yang ditulis oleh pihak lain.

Selain itu, pembekal perkhidmatan wifi juga akan dikenakan tindakan jika ada pihak yang menyalahgunakan perkhidmatan tersebut. Lebih malang lagi, jika rangkaian wifi rumah anda dicuri atau dihack, anda juga bertanggungjawab atas segala yang dilakukan oleh pencuri terbabit.

Jika ada pihak yang mencipta akaun Facebook, Twitter atau emel menggunakan nama anda, Seksyen 114a yang baru ini menganggap bahawa andalah pemilik sebenar akaun terbabit.

Akta yang baru dipinda ini sebenarnya bertujuan untuk menakut-nakutkan rakyat daripada mengemukakan pendapat mereka di internet. Hal ini juga mengancam kebebasan berinternet di negara kita.

Kebebasan bersuara serta kebolehan menyatakan pendapat merupakan tunjang sebuah demokrasi yang berfungsi dan berinovasi.

Seksyen 114a Akta Keterangan ini jelas bercanggah dengan konsep hak asasi manusia dan aspirasi ekonomi negara berasaskan ilmu.

Jika anda fikir pindaan terbaru terhadap akta ini perlu dihapuskan, marilah bersama kita mendesak Kerajaan supaya menarik semula pindaan tersebut. Sertai Hari Internet Blackout 14 Ogos 2012!

Full support for “Internet Blackout Day” launched by Center for Independent Journalism (CIJ)

The DAP would like to fully support the campaign launched by The Centre for Journalism (CIJ)Malaysia to hold Malaysia’s first ever internet blackout day to protest against the introduction of the Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2012.

On May 9 2012,the Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2012 was passed in the Dewan Negara and gazette by the Law Minister last month. We deem the amendment as a blatant intrusion upon the fundamental human rights of Malaysia’s internet users and thus urge the government to repeal this amendment immediately.

Section 114(A)severely infringes upon the freedom of online expression and undermines the civil liberties of Malaysia’s internet users. We believe the amendment may be construed as an attempt by the powers that be to censor and police what can and cannot be said on the Internet. Such regulation passed with an ulterior motive in mind, only serves to undermine the purpose of the internet to disseminate information and facilitate an environment of open discussion.

Due to the broad scope of the terminology employed in the amendment, situations may arise where the act may impair the delivery of justice to wronged parties and even be used to persecute them. Internet subscribers may be held accountable for any comments or content deemed slanderous or offensive published through their internet connection even though it was published by somebody else without their consent. Victims of online identity theft may be charged under the act if offensive content is published online using their stolen accounts.

It is plain for all to see that the act just makes it easier for the prosecution to find scapegoats when dealing with cyber crimes instead of finding the real perpetrators. Under this act, identity thieves, con-artists and hackers will remain at large so long as they ply their trade using an internet connection that is attached to somebody else’s name.

Furthermore,the following sentence “is presumed to have published … unless the contrary isproved” found in Section 114(A) places the burden of proof on the defendant.This runs counter to the principle of law where the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

The act also openly discourages people from sharing their internet be it access to their internet connections or to the websites they operate. Hotels, restaurants and even cyber cafes will no longer be able to offer internet access to its patrons for fear of falling afoul of the law. This clearly runs contrary to the objective of making Malaysia one of the most “connected”countries in the world.

Thus, we would hereby like to reiterate our support for CIJ’s initiative to launch an Internet blackout day on 14 August to voice our protest and dissatisfaction against the implementation of the Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2012.

Tony Pua

Visit my blogs @

http://tonypua.blogspot.com

http://puakiamwee.blogspot.com (Chinese Blog)
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/MPTonyPua
Twitter: @tonypua