Tan Seng Giaw

For starters the presumption of innocence is a qualified presumption in law. It is not absolute. As an example a speeding motorist when caught is issued a ticket and fined on the spot in most common law jurisdictions. Guilt is presumed in such a situation unless of course the motorist wishes to challenge the matter. This is a simplification of the point. There are numerous others. A person found to have stolen goods in his possession has the reversal off the burden of proof imposed on him. he is guilty unless he is able to discharge the burden of proof that the goods in his possession were either not stolen or that he came by them lawfully even though they were stolen and that he had no knowledge that they were stolen. A more pervasive manifestation of the innocent till proven guilty rule is the detention of a person suspected of an offence. They are often held in detention pending a hearing before a bail magistrate such as in the case of homicides.

On to the more exaggerated issue of in point 2 above. The removal of comments is a right in the hands of any power. That includes editors of the highly suspect and partial Nutgraph, Lim Kit Siang & RPK blogs and other publications like them who will entertain nothing short of a sycophantic reinforcement of the politically biased views they hold. Why should the same powers not be in the hands of a legitimate gvernment with a lawful mandate to keep the peace? It occurs with impunity in the US, UK, France and Australia so why not Malaysia?

The evidence act or the part of it you call unfair is something a trained and skilled journalist can overcome with subtlety and tact. However until we are able to raise Malaysian journalists to that level we will have to keep fighting reasonable legislation to a point anything and everything including religious and terrorist propaganda becomes acceptable as “journalism”.

But there are some others that think this law will ‘nab’ identity thieves and thus, protect those whose identities have been stolen and made to bear the consequences, especially finance-related like obtaining credit, purchases etc.
How true is this?

thanks
have a good day!

Leaders under the one party system are at the liberty to create laws to ensure their own party survival rather than taking their citizens interest. For all proposed laws curbing human rights, national survey should be conducted so that every citizen are given the opportunity for their voice to be heard whilst the government should get NGO’s to participate with a greater role.

If the government cares for the people than this amendment – Evidence (Amendment) (No2) Act 2012 should be withdrawn immediately.

I AM FOR PRESS FREEDOM!
I DO NOT WANT MY RIGHTS TO BE TAKEN AWAY BY THE GOVERMENT!

Dev