Categories

Login

Law & Judiciary >>>

Your are guilty until you prove you are innocent, a new law enacted by our monkey parliament

CID Chief Bakri has to prove himself innocent under the amended Evidence Act, otherwise we can assume he is the owner for Facebook account because his name is used to register the FB acoount.

It’s ridiculous, but this is how Malaysia is turning into a pariah state under BN government.

Fake Facebook account of CID chief surfaces

KUALA LUMPUR: The emergence of a fake Facebook account of top cop Datuk Seri Mohd Bakri Mohd Zinin has received a rebuke from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) director.

Mohd Bakri in a statement Monday clarified that he did not have a Facebook account either in his personal capacity or as the director of the CID.

“It has come to my attention that an unscrupulous individual has created a fake Facebook account in my name and posting fake statuses,” he said in the statement posted on the Royal Malaysia Police facebook site.

Checks on the social network uncovered a Facebook account impersonation of Mohd Bakri Mohd Zinin which used rude connotations on the profile information and on the wall with intention to tarnish the police’s image.

Based on the log recorded, the fake account was created last Friday with 14 friends confirmed currently.

Mohd Bakri in the statement reminded the public that anyone who created a fake Facebook profile to impersonate someone else and caused annoyance could be face action for improper use of network facilities or services under the Communications and Multimedia Commission Act 1998. – Bernama

Welcome Malaysia to join Communist international pariah club with China and North Korea with these new amendments.

Repost from email I received.

The Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2012 was one of the bills rushed and passed by the Parliament recently. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz, when winding up the Evidence (Amendment) Bill 2012, said the use of pseudonyms or anonymity by any party to do cyber crimes had made it difficult for the action to be taken against them. Hence, the Evidence Act 1950 must be amended to address the issue of Internet anonymity.

The new s. 114A(1) states that “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”.

In simple words, if your name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting yourself as the aforesaid persons, you are deemed to have published the content. So, for example, if someone creates a blog with your name, you are deemed to have published the articles there unless you prove otherwise. If you have a blog and someone posts a comment, you are deemed to have published it. If you have a Facebook page and an user posts something on your wall, you are deemed to have published it!

This is even more scary……

If a posting originates from your account with a network service provider, you are deemed to be the publisher unless the contrary is proved. In simple terms, if a posting originates from your TM Unifi account, you are deemed to be the publisher.

(1) You have a home network with a few house mates sharing one internet account. You are deemed to be the publisher even though one of your house mates posts something offensive online.

(2) You have wireless network at home but you did not secure your network. You are deemed to be the publisher even though someone “piggybacks” your network to post something offensive.

(3) You have a party at home [guest over for a visit] and allows your friends to access your PC or wireless network.You are deemed to be the publisher even though it was a friend who posted something offensive.

(4) Someone use your phone or tablet to post something offensive. You are deemed to be the publisher.

As for subsection (3), you are presumed to have published a content if you have custody or control of any computer which the publication originates from. Here, you are deemed to be the publisher so long your computer was the device that had posted the content. So if someone “tweetjacks” you or naughtily updates your Facebook with something offensive, you are deemed to be the publisher unless you prove otherwise.

Section 4 of the Sedition Act specifies that “Anyone who does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do” an act with seditious tendency, such as uttering seditious words, or printing, publishing or importing seditious literature, is guilty of sedition. It is also a crime to possess a seditious publication without a “lawful excuse”. The act defines sedition itself as anything which “when applied or used in respect of any act, speech, words, publication or other thing qualifies the act, speech, words, publication or other thing as having a seditious tendency”.

Under section 3(1), those acts defined as having a seditious tendency are acts with a tendency:“

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;
(b) to excite the subjects of the Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or
(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of part III of the Federal constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution. ”

Section 3(2) provides certain exceptions, providing examples of speech which cannot be deemed seditious. It is not seditious to “show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures”, nor is it seditious “to point out errors or defects in the Government or Constitution as by law established”. It is also not seditious “to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the territory of such Government as by law established” or “to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of the Federation”. However, the act explicitly states that any matter covered by subsection (1)(f), namely those matters pertaining to the Malaysian social contract, cannot have these exceptions applied to it.

Section 3(3) goes on to state “that the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted (a seditious act) … shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the act had, or would, if done, have had, or the words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency”. This latter provision has been criticised for overruling mens rea, a legal principle stating that a person cannot be guilty of a crime if he did not have the intent to commit a crime.[1]

A person found guilty of sedition may be sentenced to three years in jail, a RM5,000 fine, or both.

The nkkhoo.com comment board with Facebook account.