1984 - My Past...and Our Future? Beware Of What You Post Online!

I personally believe that this has got more to do with protecting those with vested interest and those who walk along the corridors of powers as if they own them, than the "kids who are connected online", as claimed by the MCMC chairman.

Read the following link for The Star's report on the amendment to the Evidence Act passed recently in relation to comments or Internet postings which are deemed "hateful, seditious, or slanderous" (Cyber bullies and stalkers often get away because of lack of evidence).

To elaborate on my opening statement, as a nation we seem to be regressing towards a police state, where fear is used as a tool to keep the flock in check. The Internet's position as the last bastion for free and bias-free (albeit unfiltered and error-prone) information and news is under attack. With the amendment to the Evidence Act which shifts the burden of proof from the prosecutors to the defendant, it seems the Malaysian government is trying to control the Internet, just like how most mainstream media is under their control.

Also noteworthy is the cyber troopers initiatives recently rolled out by the ruling parties to "combat lies and propaganda of the Opposition". This initiative which includes having a Facebook page for the cyber troopers, coupled with the amendment to the Evidence Act, should be a cause of concern for any reasonable and rational netizen. Are the cyber troopers suppose to trawl the Internet to seek for potentially "hateful, seditious, slanderous" comments or statements and then report them to the MCMC or the authorities?

I may be stretching this a little too far, but doesn't these developments just reminds you of George Orwell's 1984, his masterpiece about a dystopian future, where the Big Brother and the Thought Police spies on the people and dissidents are captured by the Ministry of Truth, and is reintegrated into society via torture and brainwash.

A couple of thoughts and comments about the article published in The Star.

• The MCMC chairman said that owners of Internet accounts where hate messages had originated could easily rebut charges against them if they were innocent.  “For example, if you can produce witnesses to say that you were nowhere near your computer or any other communicating device at the time the message was sent out, you can get off", the chairman said. My question is, since almost everyone has a smartphone now, and most carry their smartphone with them everywhere they go, how are we going to prove that we are nowhere near a communicating device?
• The Minister in the PM Department cited that one of the reasons for the amendment is that the conviction rates of suspected cyber offenders was very low, and that it was very difficult to prosecute the offenders before the amendment. One begs the question then, that how about the other crimes that have low conviction rates? If murder, rape, kidnapping records similarly low conviction rate, would the law be change to make it easier to prosecute the suspected murderers, rapists, kidnappers? Another inconsistency to note is that our Attorney General Chambers and the prosecutors that works within are paid to prosecute. It is their job, their burden, to ensure that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the suspects. We, the public, are not paid to defend and prove our innocence, so why should we make their jobs easier?

Is this a violation of human rights? Loyarburok seems to think so (Bad laws won't stop cybercrime). When one is deemed guilty until proven innocent, there should be a louder out pour of criticism and cries of injustice from the public. Have these voices already been curbed by fear of being hauled up by the government?