Nazri: Section 114A will not be repealed

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department stresses that the Act does not go against the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

KUALA LUMPUR: Section 114A of the Evidence Act will not be repealed as it is in line with human rights and freedom of expression, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz today.

In a parliamentary written reply to a query by DAP’s Karpal Singh, he said: “Section 114A does not need to be removed as it does not violate the principle of ‘innocent unless proven guilty’.

“Criticism over how Section 114A stifles freedom of expression is not true.

“On the contrary, Section 114A will encourage all people to be more ethical and responsible in practicing freedom of expression as well as taking care of their own items,” he added.

Malaysians expressed outrage over the amendment to the Evidence Act, gazetted in July this year, as it allegedly considered a person guilty until they could prove themselves innocent.

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam), Malaysian Bar along with numerous NGOs and politicians on all sides have called for a repeal of the controversial act.

The act also placed the country in the international spotlight, with the US-based Freedom House saying in its report earlier this week that Malaysia’s Internet freedom had worsened as a result of recently-passed preventive laws.

“Malaysia risks further decline due to amendments to the Evidence Act, apart from the consistent cyber attacks on prominent news portals and detention of bloggers,” said the report.

However, Nazri said that all criticisms levelled at the Act, whether from within or outside the country, was a result of the public not understanding the principle “presumption of fact.”

“Presumption of fact is not presumption of guilt as some people claim.

“…it is based on the principle of proving certain facts exist before that presumption of fact is used on someone who has been accused in court,” he explained.

The minister stressed that the court must be satisfied that the fact existed before placing the burden of proof on the accused.

Section 114A states that any “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.”