when law goes wrong

I would commence my article by a fictitious illustration : "We all know that students have to hand up their homework to teachers. There is a boy who handed up his homework as usual. When he got his homework back, he found out that there are scribbles of coarse language and drawing depicting the teachers as ' fat lady who like to wear expensive hand bag despite her ugly look' . The teacher required the student to come in front of class and to prove that she is 'fair and just', she required the student to prove that he did not write and draw on the pages'. The bewildered student could not go back to time to recollect evidence . Further, being a young student with limited knowledge, and his timid nature in face of the 'all-mighty' teacher, there are no way he could prove his innocence and hence he has to admit that he is guilty , albeit innocent at heart".

Since the inception of world wide web (WWW) , the world has been caught in a paradigm shift in term of the lifting the floodgates of information and citizens mobilisation and interconnection. In other words, every ordinary citizens can now access to a wide variety source of news and information and thereby formulating his or her own perspectives regarding certain issues. In particular, a person can share his ideas and information with the public with minimal restraints, at least until recently. The proposed amendment to the evidence act set off a firestorm of controversy. Under the new section 114 A, a person who publish, facilitate the publishing, or whose name appear in the publication is presumed to publish the contents until 'the contrary is proven'. Not only that, even a person who registered or subscribed to a network service provider on which the publication originates from is presumed to be he person who publish or republish. In the same vein, her or she has to prove the contrary. What this mean in lay man term is that you have to prove that you did not do something.

A fictitious example will illustrate this :This fictitious example, even though is not entirely accurate, serve to illustrate the helplessness of normal citizens when facing with the state's prosecution which is equipped with wide resources. Just how a person could prove his innocence, under such harsh circumstances - even republish or subscription to network provider is enough to implicate someone- is unknown to many. Worse of all, the amendment come in the ' speed of light' without any formal public consultation and debate within the parliament. This not only undermines the accountability and principle of representative democracy, but also contradicts the statement by the prime minister that ' the era where government know best is over'. Already we have seen mass opposition from the public with one of the activist groups proposing massive internet blackout.

In possible fear of further backlash from the public, the prime minister had asked the cabinet to review the law. Even though this direction from prime minister shows that he is concerned with the plight of the people, this direction come a bit too late. If proper consultation has been carried out before the proposed amendment, the government will not need to carry out such damage control when the damaged had already been done.

One of the possible justifications by the government in amending the law is to tighten the control over political dissent on the web. The more the government try to exert grip over possible dissent, the sooner it will lose power. This can be understood from a simple analogy: When there is imminent flood, the best way is not to block the water and it will eventually break the blockage, but to channel the water to other area. Similarly, government can best hold on to power by allowing freedom of speech and respecting human rights. This will channel the dissent and resentment into useful public participation in decision making.In the end, the common law presumption of innocence until proven guilty must be upheld to ensure sufficient protection to human right. The prosecution always carry the burden to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

In the word of Lord Sankey the golden thread in English Criminal Law is that the burden of proof always fall on the prosecution. It is really heart- warming to see that the public has taken proactive role in opposing the draconian law. Long live people’s power.

when law goes wrong

I would commence my article by a fictitious illustration : "We all know that students have to hand up their homework to teachers. There is a boy who handed up his homework as usual. When he got his homework back, he found out that there are scribbles of coarse language and drawing depicting the teachers as ' fat lady who like to wear expensive hand bag despite her ugly look' . The teacher required the student to come in front of class and to prove that she is 'fair and just', she required the student to prove that he did not write and draw on the pages'. The bewildered student could not go back to time to recollect evidence . Further, being a young student with limited knowledge, and his timid nature in face of the 'all-mighty' teacher, there are no way he could prove his innocence and hence he has to admit that he is guilty , albeit innocent at heart". Since the inception of world wide web (WWW) , the world has been caught in a paradigm shift in term of the lifting the floodgates of information and citizens mobilisation and interconnection. In other words, every ordinary citizens can now access to a wide variety source of news and information and thereby formulating his or her own perspectives regarding certain issues. In particular, a person can share his ideas and information with the public with minimal restraints, at least until recently. The proposed amendment to the evidence act set off a firestorm of controversy. Under the new section 114 A, a person who publish, facilitate the publishing, or whose name appear in the publication is presumed to publish the contents until 'the contrary is proven'. Not only that, even a person who registered or subscribed to a network service provider on which the publication originates from is presumed to be he person who publish or republish. In the same vein, her or she has to prove the contrary. What this mean in lay man term is that you have to prove that you did not do something.A fictitious example will illustrate this : This fictitious example, even though is not entirely accurate, serve to illustrate the helplessness of normal citizens when facing with the state's prosecution which is equipped with wide resources. Just how a person could prove his innocence, under such harsh circumstances - even republish or subscription to network provider is enough to implicate someone- is unknown to many. Worse of all, the amendment come in the ' speed of light' without any formal public consultation and debate within the parliament. This not only undermines the accountability and principle of representative democracy, but also contradicts the statement by the prime minister that ' the era where government know best is over'. Already we have seen mass opposition from the public with one of the activist groups proposing massive internet blackout. In possible fear of further backlash from the public, the prime minister had asked the cabinet to review the law. Even though this direction from prime minister shows that he is concerned with the plight of the people, this direction come a bit too late. If proper consultation has been carried out before the proposed amendment, the government will not need to carry out such damage control when the damaged had already been done. One of the possible justifications by the government in amending the law is to tighten the control over political dissent on the web. The more the government try to exert grip over possible dissent, the sooner it will lose power. This can be understood from a simple analogy: When there is imminent flood, the best way is not to block the water and it will eventually break the blockage, but to channel the water to other area. Similarly, government can best hold on to power by allowing freedom of speech and respecting human rights. This will channel the dissent and resentment into useful public participation in decision making. In the end, the common law presumption of innocence until proven guilty must be upheld to ensure sufficient protection to human right. The prosecution always carry the burden to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In the word of Lord Sankey the golden thread in English Criminal Law is that the burden of proof always fall on the prosecution. It is really heart- warming to see that the public has taken proactive role in opposing the draconian law. Long live people’s power.