Widespread
worry that Section 114a of the Evidence Act will make it easier for the
authorities to convict netizens are “misplaced fears”, said Liew Vui
Keong, a deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department.
The
clause assigns culpability to those who own networks or whose images
and names are posted on a website as publishers of offending content,
unless they can rebut the assumption.
"In Section 114a, it is clear that the person is only assumed to be involved. All assumptions are open for rebuttal in court, all are only assumptions until (these) can be proven," Liew countered during a press conference in the Parliament lobby today.
He said prosecutors are still required to prove the charges, using the "balance of probabilities" as in a civil case.
Liew had earlier received a memorandum from the Centre for Independent Journalism, seeking to stop the amendment from being gazetted, although it has been passed by Parliament.
“All these fears by the public, I want to allay,” he said, adding that he will hold discussions with stakeholders to further explain the matter, but stopped short of agreeing to hold off the gazetting of the amendment.
Liew had earlier received a memorandum from the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) , seeking to stop the amendment from being gazetted, although it has been passed by Parliament.
Met by reporters later, CIJ director Jac SM Kee agreed that the amendments is tantamount to an indirect government censorship of the Internet.
“While that may not be the intention, that is outcome, the chilling effect.”
[More to follow]
The
clause assigns culpability to those who own networks or whose images
and names are posted on a website as publishers of offending content,
unless they can rebut the assumption. "In Section 114a, it is clear that the person is only assumed to be involved. All assumptions are open for rebuttal in court, all are only assumptions until (these) can be proven," Liew countered during a press conference in the Parliament lobby today.
He said prosecutors are still required to prove the charges, using the "balance of probabilities" as in a civil case.
Liew had earlier received a memorandum from the Centre for Independent Journalism, seeking to stop the amendment from being gazetted, although it has been passed by Parliament.
“All these fears by the public, I want to allay,” he said, adding that he will hold discussions with stakeholders to further explain the matter, but stopped short of agreeing to hold off the gazetting of the amendment.
Liew had earlier received a memorandum from the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) , seeking to stop the amendment from being gazetted, although it has been passed by Parliament.
Met by reporters later, CIJ director Jac SM Kee agreed that the amendments is tantamount to an indirect government censorship of the Internet.
“While that may not be the intention, that is outcome, the chilling effect.”
[More to follow]
No comments:
Post a Comment