August 16, 2012
Gobind: Need to Repeal Section 114A
(08-15-12)
MP SPEAKS: Barisan Nasional must accept and acknowledge that the 
amendment to Section 114 of the Evidence Act was a mistake.
Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has admitted in a tweet that he has asked the Cabinet to discuss Section 114A. He said, “whatever we do, the people must come first”.
With respect to the Prime Minister, while the voice of the people plays a significant role in the matter and must be given due regard and respect, he should also reflect upon why and how, if the people come first, his government allowed this law to be passed in the first place.
The Bill to amend the Evidence Act was debated in Parliament and it was none other than Mohd Nazri Aziz who responded to concerns raised by the parliamentarians.
Nazri (left) is himself a lawyer. He is said to be the de facto law minister.The concerns over the reversal of burden were raised by me and other MP’s squarely to him during the debate. He was made well aware of the problem, but chose to do nothing about it.
As BN parliamentary whip, Nazri could have stopped the Bill then but, as in the case of all other Bills, it was pushed through.
And now, when there is public outrage, we see the MPs from BN, including the PM, joining in the call for a review. This is good, but really, and with the greatest of respect to them, it makes a complete mockery of Parliament!
BN’s failure to understand issues
What we see is failure on part of the BN to understand and properly acknowledge the issues when debating Bills in Parliament, a failure on part of BN to respect and take seriously the views and concerns of all MPs.
Perhaps we ought to reconsider pushing through Bills in the middle of the night, stopping the clock, and relying on the might of parliamentary majority to pass anything tabled, whatsoever it is.
The Attorney-General should advise the cabinet properly this time, and the
rationale behind presumptions should be re-evaluated. It is where facts that need proof, that are within the knowledge of the accused and beyond that of the state, that presumptions are applied.
So where the information is within the personal knowledge of the accused, the presumption will be invoked and it would be upon the accused to provide proof of facts showing he is not guilty of the offence.
This is what we call the reversal of burden as the burden of proof in criminal prosecutions is ordinarily on part of the prosecution.
The state has all the resources and information required to prove those matters sought to be presumed under Section 114A of the Evidence Act. As such, Section 114A loses its purpose. Therefore, there is really no need to depart from the norm here. There is no need for a reversal of the burden.
The existence of Section 114A, on the other hand, opens very many innocent persons to prosecution. It is to my mind, unfair and unnecessary and must therefore be repealed as soon as possible.
Shud be ” “whatever we do, we do the people first”.
___________
I see nothing wrong with the original sentence,“whatever we do, the people must come first”, Mo. But I know what you mean. That is the motto of Bro Bendover. –Din Merican
We need educated, brainy people with a heart for the rakyat the likes of Gobind Singh Deo, Zairil Khir Johari, Teresa Kok, Tony Pua, Elizabeth Wong, Khalid Samad, Rafizi Ramli, etc to be in Parliament… just compare this bunch I mentioned with the ones running the circus like Zulkifly Noordin, Bung Mokhtar Radin, Puad Zarkashi, Chua Tee Yong, and you know what I mean…
My family and I will take the ‘risk’ for change this GE13, tak bisa dipakai, ubah balik dalam 5 tahun lagi…
What were the 222 Members of Parliament doing when the amendments to the bill was debated and then passed for 2nd reading? Were majority of those present in Parliament sleeping?
Government servants like the Police, AG Chambers, MACC etc were always accused of sleeping on their jobs. In this case the MPs were not discharging their duties sincerely and honestly. They were not committed to their duties. Easy way out blame the ministers and the Cabinet.
“We do the people first” – the rallying call of a new party aptly named “BENDOVER”. Rather than the 1Malaysia nonsense. If slogans can build nations then Malaysia is a nation many times over.
Ok here’s the deal, ladies.
Malaysia does not have the equivalent of the First Amendment which inter alia seeks to protect the freedom of the press. And so the attempt to attach culpability to defamation and introduce strict liability would likely fail. Defamation is a major concern here, isn’t it. Of course there are others. Making racial slurs to stir up racial discord etc are among others. But making the ISP, for example, bear the brunt subject only to notice has a chilling effect on internet freedom, and has caused a storm elsewhere in jurisdictions like the U.K. and the U.S. Here the amendment to Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act casts the net even wider.
Malaysia has gone one step further and reversed the shoe and put it on the other foot. It did so through statutory intervention and we can see this in its security laws like the ISA. In the case of the ISA you can perhaps defend the need to reverse the burden of proof for security reasons as the government fears disclosing its sources, for example, and how it gathers information could negate its efforts.
But from making the ISP the publisher of defamatory articles to making Dato Din Merican the publisher of defamatory comments made by his readers who make postings on his blog is one quantum leap into space and in a downward spiral from which it would not be easy to recover The chilling effect it has on our freedom of speech under Article 10 is obvious and far reaching.
It took only a mere four hours for an UMNO led Parliament to tear to shred our fundamental right to freedom of speech – or whatever is left of it.
It’s good that Najib has asked the cabinet to review the Section. Govind has raised a good point.
who hussin? Rais? Hishammuddin? Nazri? Himself? Entire BN?