Monday, 13 August 2012

Amendment to the Evidence Act 1950


1. Are you sick and tired of the constant fitnah/lies being thrown forth and back?

2. Are you sick of the shitty politickings that have engulfed our nation since 2008?

3. Are you repulsed by the constant "baling batu sembunyi tangan" type of people?

4. Well, look no further folks; soon we will have an updated version of Evidence Act 1950.

5. Parliament is discussing to improve the old Evidence Act 1950 by introducing the 3 things:

  1. To update the name of the act to Evidence Act 2012
  2.  New definition of computer
  3.  Presumption of guilt

6. Amendment No.1 is not controversial - it is just changing the name.

7. Amendment No.2 is needed because the definition of computer in 1950 or even 1998 is very different compared to today. Today the line between what can be considered as a computer is almost non-existent - even a mobile phone can be considered computer!

Currently, the definition in the old Act about computer is:

“computer” means any device for recording, storing, processing, retrieving or producing any information or other matter, or for performing any one or more of those functions, by whatever name or description such device is called; and where two or more computers carry out any one or more of those functions in combination or in succession or otherwise howsoever conjointly, they shall be treated as a single computer;

Parliament would like to update it to:

“computer” means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other data processing device, or a group of such interconnected or related devices, performing logical, arithmetic, storage and display functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device or group of such interconnected or related devices, but does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, or a portable hand held calculator or other similar device which is on-programmable or which does not contain any data storage facility;’.

8. We are a developing nation in a modern world. Do we want to have a 50s Act for 2012? So no problem right for No.2? Good!

9. Now, we come to the controversial part of the amendment - No.3.Parliment would like to add 3 additional information. If you do not understand, read my summary in bold.

*** Publication here refers to photos/article/tweet/posting/chat/etc.

114A. (1) A person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner, host, administrator, editor or sub-editor, or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved.


Meaning: You are accused if your real name or your internet nickname is being used as the owner of an article, which is under investigation. HOWEVER if you can provide proof that you were framed and somebody else used your name to write that article, you should not be worry.

Scenario:
There is an article titled "Azmin makan duit rakyat Selangor". The author wrote her name as Nazmi. Azmin brings Nazmi to court. Nazmi in her defense said "it was not me Min, sumpah! Bukan I Min! Percayalah...".

Since the article was written in blogger.com (owned by Google), the police can request the IP of the "mysterious writer" from Google. Every time you log in to your blogger or Goggle account, your IP will be stored in Google system. From the police investigation, they found that the IP does not belong to Nazmi's account.
Turn out the actual writer is: Faekah.

(2) A person who is registered with a network service provider as a subscriber of a network service on which any publication originates from is presumed to be the person who published or re-published the publication unless the contrary is proved.

Meaning: You are accused if your account (UNIFI/STREAMYX/MAXIS/DIGI/etc) was used to publish an article under investigation. HOWEVER if you can provide proof that you were framed and somebody else used your name to write that article, you should not be worry.
Scenario:
There is photo of Izzah painted with the words "Izzah Penipu dan Gila Kuasa". The account was under the name Chua. Izzah brought Chuato court. Chua in his defense said : "Zah..bukan abang sayang...abang sayang Izzah..takkan la abang nak sabotage syg. Abg ni suka gigit...gigit telinga...sabotage ni tak main".

Every computer/phone/laptop/Xbox/etc has a MAC address. When you connect to the Internet your ISP can see this. The police check asked Chua whether he has any electronic devices and Chua replied "Only my phone sir" while looking at the officer's ear. Upon checking the MAC address of the phone, the MAC address did not match.

Turn out the actual writer is: Azmin.

(3)Any person who has in his custody or control any computer on which any publication originates from is presumed to have published or re-published the content of the publication unless the contrary is proved.

Meaning: You will get accused if your electronic devices have publications which is under investigation. HOWEVER if you can provide proof that you were framed and somebody else used your name to write that article, you should not be worry.
Scenario:
A tweet goes like this: "@anwaribrahim, you penipu kaum India! You promise macam2 sebelum GTX12 tapi skrg habuk pun tarak ada. @#$%@#%". The account was tweeted under the account psurendram. In anger, Anwar brought Surendran to court and in Surendran's defense he said: "Boss...sampai hati boss tuduh saya macam ini...lupakah janji2 kita dahulu? Sebangsa, Sejiwa, Sehidup, Semati? Cuma tak selubang sahaja...tu ka sebab boss marah?"

When a tweet is posted, all our tweets are stored in Twitter's many servers. Just like Facebook and Google, they also save for each tweet, info associated with that tweet e.g. time, date, location, IP, device name etc. The police can get these associated details of the tweet from Tweeter. Upon investigation, it was found that actually Surendran is innocent.

Turn out the culprit was someone who got jealous with Anwar's attention towards Surendran. He got so jealous that he took Surendran's phone while Surendran was busy entertaining Anwar and made that tweet. That person was Azizah!

10. If you are innocent then there is nothing to be worried. It is just an amendment to update the Act so that it is relevant according to our time.

11. Don't believe the hype that you can no longer FBooking or Tweeting. You can but post/tweet only truth! If you want to expose about the latest corruption involving Ministers or Agencies, please do so BUT provide evidence.

No Evidence = Fitnah. Simple no?

12. Freedom of speech and expression is upheld. Freedom of spreading malicious FITNAH is not!


Old Evidence Act 1950 - www.agc.gov.my/Akta/Vol.%202/Act%2056.pdf 
The New amendment - www.parlimen.gov.my/files/billindex/pdf/2012/DR162012E.pdf

60 comments:

  1. This was a good suggestion that you put up here...dude…..hope that it benefits all the ones who land up here. 
    Electrical Wholesalers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks bro! This is just another Lynas 2.0 all over again. Those Oppos are in a state of Perpetual Hysteria (pinjam ayat from Helen Ang).

      Delete
  2. This is the stupidest shit probably by a BN cybertrooper. Get a life and stop bugging people's tweets.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My Dearest MonteChristo,

      1. How are you?

      2. Thank you for visiting my blog & taking time writing your in depth and thought-provoking comment to my article above.

      3. Bye :-)

      Delete
    2. it does smell like a cybertrooper.

      Delete
    3. My Dearest Julie Anne,

      What is a cybertrooper? The only "trooper" i know is super trooper by ABBA...LOL ;-)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BshxCIjNEjY

      Delete
    4. Oh right, i forgot they now call it Unit Media Baru, right?

      Delete
    5. I think this link provides the logic that this woman is clearly missing. http://www.keithrozario.com/copyright-censorship-malaysia
      When I was reading her comments, a lot of things sounded really dodgy but I didn't have the technical know-how to refute her points. Glad someone took the time to point out the logical fallacies.

      Delete
  3. Hapuskan terus ACT lapuk tu, kita bukannya hidup zaman darurat.
    Kebebasan hak bersuara yang perlu dipertahankan, bukan sistem lapuk.

    KERAJAAN TAK ADA HAK NAK AMIK TAU APA YANG GUA POST ONLINE, BAIK ATAU BURUK, SEDITIOUS ATAU TAK... KEBEBASAN HAK BERSUARA ITU LEBIH UTAMA & PRIVACY & INDIVIDUALITY... BUKAN ORANG YANG ELIT BERKUASA.

    In other words Scrap this draconian act, we are in the 21st century.
    Limiting FREEDOM OF SPEECH is AGAINST HUMANITY!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My Dearest HeadSink

      1. Whoa, hold your horses there, big guy. What's up with the caps and all?

      2. You wrote:

      "KEBEBASAN HAK BERSUARA ITU LEBIH UTAMA & PRIVACY & INDIVIDUALITY..."

      I agree wholeheartedly with you there, big guy! *wink*
      However, no one wants to see what you do in your *ahem* online activities *ahem*.

      3. Pls read number 12 in the article above:

      "12. Freedom of speech and expression is upheld. Freedom of spreading malicious FITNAH is not!"

      Delete
    2. yg mamat tu tulis bukan freedom of speech. tapi freedom of loud mouth.

      Delete
    3. GOVERNMENT HAVE NO RIGHTS TO TRACE PEOPLE'S IP/MAC ADRESS, THIS IS OUR PRIVACY. The Internet is NEUTRAL NO GOVERNMENT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL IT..

      you MR. DAD is an ad-hoc new account just made up so shut your mouth.

      I will STAND WITH MY POINT, THE GOVERNMENT DON'T RESPECT US SO I WILL NOT RESPECT THEM. AGAIN, THIS ACT VIOLATES BASIC RIGHTS, NO MATTER WHETHER IT IS SEDITIOUS, SLANDEROUS, BLASPHEMOUS OR ANYTHING... THIS IS MY NEUTRALITY I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO FIGHT IT NAIL AND TEETH, THE WHOLE OF MALAYSIA MUST.

      SCRAP ACT114A, FREEDOM...

      Delete
    4. My Dearest HeadSink,

      1. Kalau tak nak juga scrap akta tu camne dek non? :-p

      2. Jangan marah...kalau marah, nanti kena jual... lol

      Delete
    5. tunggu dia kena bully dlm online, org publish semua cerita2 memalukan dia, only then he will crawl back to the parliament asking for the same law to save him... bodo punya olang...

      Delete
  4. You put it right,FZ. Remember the song 'knock three times' ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Replies
    1. Unknown,

      Silakan. Tolong juga sebarkan pada rakan-rakan cyber yang lain. Tak nak nanti ada yang salah faham pula pasal penambahbaikan akta ini

      Delete
  6. Dear FZ,

    This is a good article. thank you for publishing it. however, i do have nagging question about the crux of this Act. Why is it the normal maxim " innocent until proven otherwise" is not used in this Act? from what I understand it is " guilty until proven otherwise". The accused has to provide proof?!
    Could you please enlighten me in a simple term? tq in advance

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zakzak,

      1. I understand the concern regarding this burden on the accused to prove his/her innocence. I wanted to explain more in the article but if I did it will be too long. Therefore, please let me try to explain it here.

      2. If we refer to the old Section 114 of the 1950 Evidence Act: Illustration A

      The court may presume—
      (a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he
      can account for his possession;

      3. Is this not similar? In the old 1950 Act:

      - Mat rompak kereta Ali
      - Mat park kereta Ali dekat rumah James
      - Sebab kereta Ali ada di rumah James, maka polis akan menyoal James tentang penglibatannya dalam rompakan kereta Ali.
      - Kalau itu bukan kereta James, James akan jawab "Ini bukan kereta saya". Kalau James teragak-agak nak jawab or tak dapat nak nyatakan kereta siapakah itu, maka boleh diassume James terlibat (mungkin sebagai mastermind)

      4. Now, bear in mind, this Akta dah ada sejak Merdeka lagi. When was the last time we heard the about "guilty until proven otherwise"? Never right?

      5. I think if a policeman came to our house and ask questions (e.g. where we were when the FB posting was made) or check the IP address of our phone or laptop, i think that is normal.

      6. Similarly when PDRM do a road block, usually motorcyclist have to disembark and show their chasis number so that the police can check whether it is a stolen bike or not.

      7. Therefore, I am of the opinion if we all practice good internet ethics and precaution, we should be safe.

      Hope that clear the picture a bit. :-)

      Delete
  7. You mentioned about tracing IP/MAC address whatsoever. What about in cases where public Wifi/computers were used? Who will be held responsible?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Julie Anne,

      1. It is the duty of the owner of the cybercafes to put security measure. Please let me explain what I mean.

      2. In western Europen countries, most of the area are wifi. The WIFI is free but the internet, you have to pay lor.

      3. If you want to pay, you have to use your debit or credit card. So if you were to go to St Pancras in London and post "Morning Kit buaya darat!!!", the WIFI provider @ St Pancras have your details via your debit/credit card.

      4. Similarly, in UK for example, to use a wifi desktop, you have to insert your debit or credit card.

      5. My suggestion to cybercafe owners is to take down the following details when a customer want to rent a PC:

      a) Computer Number
      b) IC / Passport (if foreigner...e.g. awang hitam)
      c) Login time
      d) Logout time

      Actually there are tons of software that can do centralized system like this. Malaysian made software pun banyak dong.

      Delete
    2. Having just used cybercafes in London - this ain't the case! And you can even use wifi (for free) all over London Underground now.

      Delete
    3. Exactly. You can use free wifi in many places in New York even, there's no restrictions even on any site you can/can't visit. So how effective this act will be?

      And when I say public wifi I didn't just mean cybercafes. What about free wifi in Mcdonalds/Starbucks/KFC where one can bring their own laptop and browse without having to register.

      looking at the current government track record, we can almost foresee what might happen soon. Like a drowning person, desperate to remain alive.

      When law practitioners say something about this, usually it meant something and I am gonna stick with my belief, for now.

      To quote Cornelius Fudge; "The trouble is, the other side can do magic too."

      Delete
  8. bro, let's look at your "scenarios" one by one shall we..

    1) what if the actual writer registered the blogger's account at a cybercafe? at mcdonald's? at starbucks? now we can't get the identity of him/her, how should I prove that I am not the writer?

    2) MAC address? come on la bro.. what if I run a virtual machine on my laptop? I can easily spoof any MAC address I want... even if I am using my phone have you heard of TOR network?

    3) again do you know how easy is it to hack into others' social network account? i am not sure about twitter, but facebook didn't force users to use https by default until recently. i was even able to hijack others facebook account in mcd/starbucks using a freely available app on my phone. now if that happen to me how should I prove myself innocent?

    3)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. by the way did you notice something? all of the scenarios require me to prove myself innocent! why should that be the case? so can I now simply accuse anyone I don't like just to keep them busy proving themselves innocent?

      Delete
    2. Hi Ah Beng,
      How did you do it to hack ppl a/c, tech me pls. I suffer like a fools !
      share with me @ my email hengmas1@gmail.com

      Thousand TY.

      Delete
    3. That's why Government or any big entity don't have the right to spy on our IP/MAC, it is our privacy.

      Come on, only thief does that kind of job. Easiest argument here is that, no matter what we say it is our right to say. Those people up there don't have the right to control it, no matter what. We have brains, just scrap this ACT114a a.k.a EVIDENCE ACT.

      Delete
    4. Dear Ah Beng

      1. Cybercafe - please read my respond to Julie Anne at 14 August 2012 07:00

      2. Tor? Of course la I know beng...coz I also use one mah. hehehe but be honest beng, even Tor also can be detect one.

      Facebook always send me msgs asking to register my phone or update my password. Sekrang lu pakai Tor ke proxy beb? Kalau la the whole last week lu pakai proxy dr negara Cavemen Island pastu hari ini pulak lu pakai IP from Nigeria, FB akan keluar warning beb. Dia suruh masuk apa benda lah.

      Tak caya cuba tukar :-)

      3. In regards to burden of proof, pls read my response to ZakZak at 14 August 2012 06:54

      Delete
    5. HeadSink 14 August 2012 02:39,

      1. The Govt is not spying la bro. We don't hv such thing here. Maybe in US adalah.

      2. It is not like you jumpa police tengah jalanraya, pastu polis minta lu bagi laptop lu utk check your IP.

      3. Bila laptop lu or IP lu terlibat dalam kes je yang kena bagi.

      Apala....

      Delete
    6. Dear Fatimah Zuhri,

      TOR: You can set your TOR exit nodes to a certain country, or even a specific node (if it's always available)

      Burden of proof: it's very different to prove I didn't steal a car and to prove I didn't post an offensive comment online. Let's say now I didn't set password to my wifi router, or use weak protection like WEP, and my neighbour used the connection to post a comment here accusing Rosmah went on shopping spree paid by public fund.. now being an average internet user without extensive networking and security knowledge how should I prove it was not me?

      Delete
  9. saya suka part izah n abg gigit gigit...

    Btw... org bodoh dan tak paham akan bagi banyak alasan yg tak munasabah utk tak terima mende nih... Otak malas nak pk...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bzz,

      Itulah...I asyik imagine je si Abg Gigit tu bila menulis perenggan tu...

      Imagine gigi dia..cara dia renung telinga orang...eeee seram eden. i wonder, eli tu tak takut ke ngan Abg Gigit ni? LOL

      Delete
    2. Btw bzz... org bodoh dan tak paham akan bagi banyak alasan yg tak munasabah utk TERIMA mende nih... Otak malas nak pk...

      aku tambah sikit ja.. keja nak senang..bikin susah lain orang..kah kah kah

      Delete
  10. Reading this, I realized how corrupt the amendment is. Credits to the writer.

    Apa salah 'orang yang kena hack' sampai kena pergi buktikan dia tak bersalah bila kena tuduh?

    "Kalau tak salah jangan risau, mesti lepas."

    This is flawed argument. Ia menyenangkan kerja pendakwa. tapi menyusahkan rakyat biasa.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear hzrhkamal,

      1. Tang mana pulak yang korup tu dek non oi?

      2. Klu x puas hati psl burden of proof, sila baca respon saya kepada ZakZak at 14 August 2012 06:54

      Delete
    2. You explained the whole picture of amendment to 114A. Good job. :)

      and given the arguments you put forward, I still find the law to be CORRUPTED. A person is presumed guilty until proven otherwise. What kind of law is this?

      We get the rationale of the amendment, why it's being done. It makes the prosecution process easier. tapi kita bukan bercakap soal scam dari african man sahaja, tapi possibility law ini digunakan untuk trap orang tak bersalah.

      I stick to my point that it is unfair to shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant. It should be prosecution's job to prove the def is guilty, not him to prove his innocence.

      p/s - And I am quite surprised taht you used the analogy of robbery up there. There was no part of penal code which state "a person is presumed liable for robbery if he is found with the vehicle which had been used for the said robbery". kalaupun dia disoal, itu cuma proses siasatan. Dia tak boleh dibawa ke mahkamah cuma dengan fakta itu. Our situation here is different.

      Delete
    3. Salam hzrhkamal,

      1. You wrote : "kalaupun dia disoal, itu cuma proses siasatan."

      2. That is exactly what is happening with this situation.

      3. Mungkin scenario akak salah sikit sebab akak tulis bawak ke court. Klu nak bawak ke court mesti ada kes yg kukuh, betul x?

      4. So konsep innocent before guilty still apply :-)

      Delete
    4. Some laws memang ada concept presumed guilty till proven innocent, which I certainly do not prefer(personally). Tapi memang ada, dan ada better examples untuk konsep ini daripada robbery. Our law on drugs misalnya.

      Tapi saya rasa amat berbahaya untuk kita perangi jenayah dalam internet menggunakan konsep ini. Ia mungkin suatu ubat, tapi untuk sakit yang salah.

      Anyway, I seriously understand your whole point from the article. Yet, I still find 114A as not a good law and should not be implemented.

      Delete
  11. I totally + 200% support this art as I am the Victim of those idiot. helpless....need this art to protect the innocent ppl like me....even I report to polis, they comment that they cannot do anything at all on this defamation...we need this art for sure !
    Pls strongly support !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heng,

      1. Do you know who this act will scare the most?

      The Awang Hitam from Nigeria

      2. I have heard stories from friends in PDRM, where they are 90% confident that Nigerian fella is involved in scamming local ladies.

      3. However since cannot get into their computer, these criminals get scot free!

      Delete
  12. Thanks.

    Good info!!

    Appreciate it very much.

    Gonna whack PR goons that don't know head and tail dan nak berlagak pandai.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ahmad,

      1. It is weird is it not that they are against a good act to curb fitnah and also to curb our local ladies from being scammed by Awang Hitam.

      2. Where are the "Pejuang Wanita" in PKR/DAP/PAS?

      3. Where are the "Mat Lebai" that 24/7 always quote the Quran ? Don't they read Al Baqarah 191 - fitnah lebih buruk drpd mmfitnah.

      Hypocrite all of them! :-p

      Delete
    2. The Evidence Act amendments will put a stop to the distortions and misrepresentations from characters like Rafizi Ramli.

      Delete
    3. Azahari,

      1. Agree!

      2. Certain confused ppl think Rafizi is a hero. If I went to a bank and the banker me gave the details of Anwar Ibrahim's bank transactions, account number and so on.

      3. Then, I go back to my home and publish it all the details on the net.

      4. Will I be a hero in their eyes?

      LOL

      Delete
  13. Dear Kak Timah,

    Finally, a place where serious issues addressed with a little sense of humor. I like... keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  14. (2) A person who is registered with a network service provider as a subscriber of a network service on which any publication originates from is presumed to be the person who published or re-published the publication unless the contrary is proved.

    Isn't this exactly the thing that people fear? That comments that appear on a blog are the responsibility of the blog owner and he can be persecuted for whatever the comments are? And these days everything is sedition and defamation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Sans,

      1. Try create a blog.

      2. Then go to the Editor mode.

      3. Go to the comment section. Usually they have something like:

      "Moderate blog comment"

      4. "Moderate blog comment" = Kena tapis dulu komen. Blog owner have to go through comments. Therefore the hysteria of blog owner being blackmail by their visitors is simply laughable.

      LOL

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry but that is not the point. This means all blog owners must practice censorship on their commentators and decide (arbitrarily) what people can say or can't say as they will be made responsible for the comments.

      And who decides what is acceptable or not?

      This is too much power to the govt, whoever they are

      Delete
  15. I apologize for reacting rather badly in an earlier comment. After a thorough read,I acknowledge that your article does provide a certain degree of insight about the Evidence Act. And it was helpful that you explained the technicalities.
    However you fail to explain key concepts which I hope you do answer:
    1. How is it justified to contradict the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
    2. Is there really a need for government intervention especially when there already exists things such as lawsuits and Sedition Laws under status quo?
    3. Isn't it ridiculous that you create an environment of fear where people are even afraid to leave their computers unattended? And why is it the onus for normal citizens with limited knowledge of law to defend themselves against baseless, unproven government allegations?
    Your explanation would be highly appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear MonteChristo,

      Macam tu la dek non oooi...baru la sedap sikit orang membacanya. Nak reply pun hati senang je.... :-)

      1. In regards to the concept of innocent until proven guilty, pls read my response to ZakZak at 14 August 2012 06:54

      2. How Sedition Laws can capture Awang Hitam meh? If Mat Niger scammed you out of your money, we need the IP of this Mat Niger computer no? How to get it from him?

      PDRM cannot just knock on Mat Niger door and say -

      Police:
      Pls sir, can i see your laptop? I just want to check your IP, whether it match with our list.

      Mat Niger:
      Get lost!

      Police:
      But I have Sedition Law

      Mat Niger:
      Who cares? When did I make seditious statement?

      Police:
      I have to call MonteChristo....LOL

      Delete
    2. FZ... that was the best reply ever..still cant stop laughing.....

      Delete
  16. I was being fooled before by this「stop114a」campaign. Felt so suspicious with the people behind this campaign. After someone shared your blogpost's link to me, now I know the real condition. Thanks for this!! :D Oh God, the oppositions (and their fanatics) really don't understand (or don't want to..) the real meaning and intention of section 114a yet they don't want to help themselves search the real meaning :(

    I would like to share this with others so that they'll know what's really happening :)

    THANK YOU AGAIN!!

    p/s your examples are so funneh and cute :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. You are doing well, Puan Fatimah.
    Long time no see/read after "we" left .
    I reposted your "masterpiece" on 114A on AHJIBGOR's FACEBOOK (BM & English column): http://www.facebook.com/myAhJibGor
    I also quoted your passage on the AHJIBGOR's Chinese facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ahjibgor
    Salam hormat.

    tehtarik

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bagi orang senang dan ada duit nak bayar lawyer mungkin tak ada masalah. Kalau bagi pemakan gaji yang tak seberapa, itu yang masalah. Presumption of guilt itu yang mengundang rasa marah. Kerana ia meletakkan orang yang dituduh untuk membuktikan ia tidak bersalah. maknanya burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt itu jatuh kepada tertuduh dan bukan pendakwa...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sdra Awang: Betul kata Sdra, burden of proof dah dipindah drpd pendakwa kpd tertuduh. Ini pindaan prinsip perundangan yang memang drastik. Tapi S.114A ni kita perlukan sangat pada zaman meledaknya fitnah dunia siber bagi mencegah salahguna....Oleh kerana pemfitnah akan ditangkap,didakwa di mahkamah dan dikehendaki membela diri (misalnya komputer -barang kes-bukan dia punya), saya yakin golongan ini akan menjadi "segan" @ "takut" sikit nak memfitnah orang lain. Soal duit tak jadi masalah, kerana seseorang penulis yang benar mestilah berani membela diri sendiri tanpa peguam.Saya juga percaya Polis/pendakwaraya tak akan menganiayai sapa-sapa yang tak buat kerja jahat tu. Salam sejahtera.Tehtarik.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think I just wasted my time reading your post. Seriously did you even do some research before posting. Anyway please read the following, it might teach you a thing or two. http://www.keithrozario.com/2012/08/evidence-act-114a-technological-misconceptions.html.

    Somehow I think you are just trying to get attention.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hai ya Rm Billions are missibg from the cooperative system no one seems to be bothered even parliament has been not provided with details, small thing like this everyone is exciteed, dont worry the persistant would beat the system

    ReplyDelete
  22. Please, after reading Fatimah's article. Please, please, refer to this:

    http://www.keithrozario.com/2012/08/evidence-act-114a-technological-misconceptions.html#more-2709

    ReplyDelete