Saturday, March 31, 2018

BARU BIAN’S EASTER MESSAGE 2018


GOOD WILL TRIUMPH OVER EVIL

“Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” ~ 1 Cor. 15: 55

This prophetic verse foretold the coming of the messiah Jesus Christ to Earth by Prophet Hosea (Hosea 13:14) as referred to by Apostle Paul in his writings to the Corinthians and Christ’s ultimate sacrifice on the cross and eventual resurrection from death, so that good would triumph over evil. The purpose of Christ’s birth, death and resurrection is to overcome the power of sin and death, and thus giving hope to humankind.

The verse from Corinthians holds great significance for Christians, so much that it is inscribed on the tombstones of many who have died. Indeed my siblings chose this verse for my late father’s headstone because my father lived his life fully believing that he, as a Christian, would eventually rise to eternal life.

Easter is celebrated with much joy by Christians because it was the events marking Easter on which our beliefs are grounded and from which we draw courage and hope that good will never be defeated by evil. It was said by Apostle Paul that if ‘Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is our faith’ (1 Cor. 15: 14-17).

In the context of the nation and the world we are living in today, the essence of the Easter message is even more relevant and significant to us. Looking at what is happening – so much suffering and pain caused by man’s greed for wealth and power – sometimes one cannot help but despair that for many, it pays to be evil. However, we have been forewarned that there will be persecution and suffering in this world but that in the end, evil, sin and death will be defeated, as Jesus has paid the price for the victory of good over evil.

On the cusp of the most important elections in this nation, many of us are doing our part to ensure that good and honest representatives will be chosen to form the government so that we can put an end to greed, corruption, oppression and persecution. It is time for a brand new start and responsible citizens must come out to make sure that good will triumph in this nation.

I wish all Christians a blessed Easter.

Baru Bian
Chairman, KEADILAN Sarawak / ADUN N81 Ba’ Kelalan

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Stateless persons who are born and bred in Malaysia

 
MALAYSIA has a statelessness problem, but not in the way that many expect. Stateless persons in Malaysia are not foreigners, migrants or even “illegals”. They are born and bred in Malaysia.
Between January and April 2018, I conducted research in Malaysia interviewing stateless persons, lawyers, paralegals, civil society groups, and academics. Over the course of examining legal cases, reading news articles, and talking to Malaysian experts working in the field, I discovered there are six categories of stateless persons in Malaysia. These six categories include:

1. persons who were citizens before Malaysian independence (including those persons who came to work in plantations);
2. persons who have lost important documentation such as birth certificates or marriage licenses;
3. abandoned children (foundlings) and adopted children born in Malaysia;
4. children of mixed marriages or children born before a marriage was registered;
5. Indigenous persons;
6. some refugees and migrants.

Malaysia’s federal constitution plainly states that every person born within the federation and is stateless after the first year of their birth is entitled to citizenship automatically. Undoubtedly, there is current legal debate about whether the federal constitution renders citizenship in this manner, culminating at Malaysia’s highest court on April 2. In resolving the differing interpretations, however, Malaysian lawmakers should apply the plain meaning rule by using the ordinary meaning of the language of the constitution. The Malaysian government has read in requirements such as the burden of a stateless person to try to obtain citizenship elsewhere before applying for citizenship in Malaysia (especially where one parent of a child possesses foreign nationality). These kinds of requirements are not written in the text of the constitution and are also an unfair requirement given that many stateless persons are not foreigners or those that crossed borders to enter Malaysia. Many are born here and have made their lives in Malaysia.  Beyond looking at the face of the constitution then, there are other compelling reasons to interpret the constitution to confer automatic citizenship to stateless persons born in Malaysia: they are Malaysians in every sense except on paper.  

The automatic right to citizenship applies to persons in five of the six categories of stateless persons in Malaysia. Of these six categories, five of them involve persons born within the federation of Malaysia. This fact alone demonstrates that for the majority of stateless persons in Malaysia, they have a genuine connection to the country and therefore an automatic right to citizenship under the federal constitution. Some of the persons have an added genuine link to Malaysia: they also have a legal parent (biological or adopted) that is a Malaysian citizen. An important consideration is that in at least four of the six categories, the majority of stateless persons involve children.

One poignant example is Rosiah Abdullah. I had the pleasure of meeting this 20-year-old, Muslim, straight-A student who was born in Malaysia, abandoned and adopted by a Malaysian citizen. Rosiah was lucky because most stateless children cannot go to school, and if they do, they cannot take exams. She was an exception, and yet even though she is fortunate to have education, she is still at a disadvantage due to her lack of citizenship. She has known no other home than Malaysia. She wants nothing more than to have the opportunity to go to university and become a contributing member of Malaysian society, but her denial of citizenship prevents her from doing so. Her status of stateless is through no fault of her own. Rosiah has applied for citizenship three times in eight years and she does not know why her application has been denied. She turns 21 at the end of the month and will enter her adult life, but will she be allowed to become a Malaysian citizen?

I also met one father, a Malaysian citizen, whose daughter is stateless. He married an Indonesian citizen and shortly thereafter, his daughter was born in Malaysia. Before his daughter was born, this father tried to register his marriage, but was told by government officials to do it after the birth of his child. Officials assured this father there would be no problems. This was a fatal decision as without the registration of his marriage, his daughter was considered “illegitimate” and could not inherit her father’s citizenship. This father expressed deep regret as had he known that his child would be rendered stateless, he would have made every effort to register his marriage. The child was born in Malaysia, has one Malaysian parent and has only known Malaysia to be her home. This father has applied for citizenship for his child three times with no success. Each time, he did not receive any reasons why his application was denied. As a result, his daughter cannot attend school. Through no fault of the child, she is being punished for an inflexible system that has labeled her as “illegitimate” and stateless.

The term stateless is often intertwined with the terms foreigners, migrants and “illegals,” but research on stateless persons in Malaysia show otherwise. Stateless persons in this country are those that have a deep and genuine connection to Malaysia. They are persons who became stateless not because they crossed borders, but because there is a lack of political will to regularise their entitled citizenship status and also a lack of assistance on the part of government officials to assist stateless persons in a humanitarian manner. They are stateless not because they are undeserving or because they are cheats or deviants. They are stateless because of bad luck, unfortunate circumstances, and the lack of understanding of the processes and documentation needed to obtain citizenship. Most of all, they are stateless because the state refuses to acknowledge in law they are members of Malaysian society.

Malaysians have a vested interest in making sure their fellow compatriots obtain citizenship. Without it, generations of children will be denied education, health care and job opportunities – all necessary to promote a healthy economy. It is a social problem, one that will cost Malaysians because in the end, it is Malaysians who will have to take care of the uneducated, the unemployed and those that come into conflict with the law. It is not sufficient to say that Malaysians should follow human rights law or should be compassionate. It is about the rule of law in Malaysia; applying the federal constitution fairly, equally and plainly to confer citizenship to those that are entitled to it.       

* Jamie Chai Yun Liew is an associate professor at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law (Canada).
* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight.

~ The Malaysian Insight

The anti-fake news bill must be withdrawn

Published on  |  Modified on

   
COMMENT | The Malaysian Bar is deeply troubled by the introduction of the Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 in Parliament yesterday.

It is the stated intention of the government to have this legislation passed in the current sitting of Parliament, and it will likely be brought into force before the campaign period for the 14th general election.

The drafting of the proposed legislation raises many questions regarding its content, intent and impact. The Malaysian Bar highlights the following:

The definition of “fake news” does not simply include news but also information, data and reports, which in its broadest sense exists “in any…form capable of suggesting words or ideas,” that is/are “wholly or partly false.”

'Fake' undefined

What is ‘false’ is not defined. “False news” is already criminalised under section 8A of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA). The definition of “publication” in the PPPA is not dissimilar to the various definitions in the proposed legislation.

A “false” communication is also criminalised under section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA). These provisions beg the question of why there is any need to create a new law to criminalise “fake” or “false” news.


The proposed law criminalises “fake news,” but since that is not clearly defined, it could be used to suppress freedom of expression in the context of expressing views or opinions.

The wording of the provisions is sufficiently wide for an action to be brought challenging “correct” or “incorrect” views on, for example, the economy, history, politics, science, and religion. Such a law may be far too wide, and could be held to be ultra vires of the Federal Constitution.

The extra-territorial reach of the proposed legislation is, arguably, wider than that of any other law in Malaysia. It will apply so long as the “fake news concerns Malaysia or the person affected by the commission of the offence is a Malaysian citizen.”

Therefore, neither the complainant nor the person complained of needs to be physically present in Malaysia for the offence to have been committed. Further, a court order to remove the publication can be served “by electronic means,” which is not defined but could conceivably include service by email, Twitter, WhatsApp, or other forms of text messaging or social media.

An individual or entity affected by “fake news” can apply to the courts for an ex parte order to remove the news, i.e., without informing the person being complained of. There is no opportunity to have both parties present in court to argue the veracity of the “fake news.”

The likely procedure is for the Sessions Court to evaluate the complaint and any supporting evidence or documents submitted by the complainant and, if the court decides that the item is “fake news,” to grant an order.

An order can be challenged, but an application to challenge does not operate to suspend or defer the original order, which must still be complied with.

However, if it is the government that obtains the order, and it alleges that the “fake news” is prejudicial or likely to be prejudicial to public order or national security, and the court agrees, the order cannot be challenged.

The proposed legislation does not deal with a situation if the government publishes “fake news.” Looking at what is taking place around the world, this is an omission that needs to be addressed.

If the offence is committed by a body corporate, the proposed law allows for criminal liability to attach to its directors and officers, but it can also attach to anyone “to any extent responsible for the management of any of the affairs of the body corporate or was assisting in such management.”


Thus, for example, if a news reporter writes a story about Malaysia that is held to contain “fake news,” the editor or subeditor of the company employing the news reporter would also be criminally liable.

Failure to abide by a court order leads to the commission of a criminal offence, which carries a fine of up to RM100,000 and a continuing fine of RM3,000 for each day of non-compliance. Such failure also results in a contempt of court, and arrest is allowed under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Why is new legislation necessary?

The many illustrations, in the proposed legislation, of how an offence is committed under the proposed legislation actually involve the issue of civil or criminal defamation, for which Malaysia has adequate legislation and legal procedures.

This again raises the question of why new legislation is required. Of serious concern is the fact that publishing a “caricature” can also constitute an offence of “fake news.” Parodies and poking fun, which by their very nature may involve some embellishment, would now constitute a criminal offence.


While the use of the word “knowingly” in the elements of the offence denotes a requirement of intention, there is no requirement of malice or ill intent, unlike section 8A of the PPPA. However, there is another offence in the proposed legislation, of failing in one’s duty to remove news, “knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe” that it is “fake news.”

What constitutes “knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe” is not defined. This lack of certainty gives cause for concern.

The real issue of “fake news,” which is what is currently in the minds of many governments around the world, is about the setting up of fake social media accounts and publishing news through it, of sending tailored messages based on someone’s online profile, and the funding of the same, and influencing outcomes of elections.

However, these matters are not adequately addressed in the proposed legislation. Only the issue of funding is dealt with and criminalised in the proposed section 5.

Again, other existing legislation already caters for the offence of aiding and abetting the spreading of false news, so this provision does not serve any purpose except for the provision of a huge maximum fine of RM500,000 and/or a heavy maximum jail sentence of 10 years, to act as a chilling deterrent.

Previous issues of the prime minister receiving a vast donation prior to the last general election, and what may have been done with those funds, have been wholly overlooked.

The presence in Malaysia of a foreign company involved in data analytics and online profiling is also ignored.

If the Malaysian government were genuinely concerned about the possibility of foreign funding and foreign influence on the outcome of our upcoming general election, surely it should have focused instead on campaign finance reform, data security, and personal privacy.

Ultimately, the public is left to ponder the “value add” of this proposed new legislation.

Regrettably, the intended provisions enable:
  • The Government to immediately silence “fake news”;
  • Court orders to be rendered unchallengeable if there is accepted evidence of prejudicing public order or national security; and
  • Intimidation of the media and honest practitioners of freedom of expression, who must now be 100 percent correct in their reporting, postings or statements, or else stand accused of being “partially false.”
Sensitivities about the reputation of Malaysia by way of negative comments and criticisms can now be attacked through an extremely wide extra-territorial application of the proposed legislation, putting this in the same category as international terrorism, cross-border corruption, money-laundering, and trafficking in persons.

While this issue should not be ignored, the proposed broad-based law to criminalise the dissemination of news amounts to legislative overkill.

The Malaysian Bar calls on the government to withdraw the proposed legislation from consideration at this current sitting of Parliament, and to convene a proper select committee to look comprehensively and publicly into the issue.

The government must not legislate in haste.

GEORGE VARUGHESE is president of the Malaysian Bar.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Electoral group defies Pandikar, will upload redelineation report

Noel Achariam Liow Sze Xian

Electoral group defies Pandikar, will upload redelineation report
Wong Chin Huat, member of electoral reform group Engage, says the group will upload the redelineation report embargoed by Parliament on its website. Wong will also pay the RM1,000 that comes with the offence. – The Malaysian Insight pic by Farhan Nazmi, March 27, 2018.
AN electoral reform pressure group will be uploading the embargoed redelination report on its website, in defiance of a directive by Dewan Rakyat speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia.

Wong Chin Huat, a member of Engage said, it will upload the more than 1000-page report on its website in the next few hours.

"This is report is crucial for all Malaysians to read because what is being done in the redelineation process is not right.

"The report should be scrapped because the inquiry processes in the report was a complete sham," he said at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall today.

Wong said that the report should be up on the website within the next hour.

“After this press conference, I will go to Parliament and pay my RM1,000 fine.

“I am breaking the law consciously and respectfully for all Malaysians so they will be able to view the report,” he declared.

The EC's report was issued to MPs on Thursday but lawmakers are barred from releasing or distributing it before it is debated and endorsed by Parliament tomorrow.

Pandikar had said the document, which is available only to MPs, cannot be distributed or published until it is tabled by the government. 

"Why is the report under embargo, as it will affect the future of all Malaysians for the next two elections?

"The powers that be don’t want Malaysians to know (the content before their MPs vote on it tomorrow) so I feel compelled to reveal what I have learned from studying through the two volumes of the reports.

"Malaysians need to know some of the alarming and disastrous implications of this proposal."

Wong said he violated Section 9 of the House of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act by releasing the report.

He also called on all parliamentarians to vote against the report.

Selangor Menteri Besar Mohamed Azmin Ali had said Pandikar’s decision to embargo the report is a betrayal to democracy.

The Gombak MP said the redelineation proposal for Peninsular Malaysia had been displayed to the public in one form or another over the past 18 months.

"There is no valid reason that the speaker of Parliament should withhold the final report from the public since it directly affects their democratic right to elect representatives to Parliament.  

"Withholding this is nothing more than an act of sheer arbitrariness," he said. – March 27, 2018.

~ The Malaysian Insight

Anti-Fake News Bill is unconstitutional, says former judge

Published on   |  Modified on 

The Anti-Fake News Bill will be unconstitutional if it is passed by Parliament and made into law, former Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram said.
However, Sri Ram, now a practising lawyer, said it may depend on how the Federal Court looks at the matter (if there is a challenge).
He gave two reasons why he personally thinks the proposed law is unconstitutional.
"First, it is vague and uncertain and therefore it offends the Rule of Law, which is part of Article 8(1) and forms part of the basic structure of the Federal Constitution," Sri Ram told Malaysiakini.
Article 8 concerns equality, where sub-section (1) states that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law.
"Second, it is a disproportionate response under Article 10(2) because there are other laws that criminalise such conduct, for example the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission Act. Also, sufficient protection is available under the law of defamation," Sri Ram added.
Everyone has the right to freedom
Article 10 (1) stipulates that everyone has the right to freedom of speech, expression, assembly and to form association but subject to clauses (2) (3) and (4).
Meanwhile, Article 10 (2) stipulates that Parliament may by law impose:
  • (a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence;
     
  • (b) on the right conferred by paragraph (b) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order; and
     
  • (c) on the right conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order or morality.
The law of defamation, Sri Ram referred to is the country's Defamation Act 1957. Besides this, criminal defamation is also punishable under the Penal Code.
Articles 5 to 13 are under Part II of the Federal Constitution and these stipulate the Fundamental Liberties of every Malaysian.
Sri Ram qualified his opinion that it may depend on how the apex court looks at the new law.
"If it takes the approach it took in the Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd case, then it will strike down the Act. If it takes the approach in the Azmi Sharom case, then it may uphold the Act," he opined.
In a landmark decision made in the Semenyih Jaya case last year, the Federal Court ruled that that the court's power for judicial review is essential to the constitutional role of the courts and inherent in the basic structure of the constitution.
That unanimous decision, written by Federal Court judge Justice Zainun Ali, states that judicial independence and the separation of powers are recognised as a basic structure of the Malaysian Constitution, where under Article 121 (1) the constitutional role of the civil courts is as a check-and-balance mechanism.
In the Azmi Sharom's case against sedition, then Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria ruled that Section 4 of the Sedition Act 1948 is constitutional as it does not go against Article 10 (2) (a)
Another lawyer, Syed Iskandar Syed Jaffar Al Mahdzar, also questioned who would get to determine what is false news, for this is not stipulated in the Anti-Fake News Bill presented to Parliament.
"The question of fake news… the question is who gets to decide what news is false, either wholly or partly. That is a valid question and cause for concern," Syed Iskandar said.
The controversial bill was tabled for its first reading yesterday and already many quarters, especially lawyers, lawmakers and media practitioners, have questioned it.
~ Malaysiakini

Not only draconian, anti-fake news bill is unconstitutional




Not only draconian, anti-fake news bill is unconstitutional
The writer says the Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 is inconsistent with 'free speech and expression' in Article 10(1)(a) of the federal constitution and the guarantee that the internet will not be censored under the Communications and Multimedia Act. – The Malaysian Insight file pic, March 27, 2018.
The Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 tabled in Parliament yesterday ranks as one of the most repressive bills drafted in recent years. 


Even by the very low standard of Prime Minister Najib Razak's administration in protecting civil liberties, this bill is terrible in its scope and effect. Essentially, it criminalises the publication of “fake news”, with the punishment being extreme and intended to create a climate of fear. 


Clause 4(1) states that upon conviction, an accused is liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine not exceeding RM500,000 or both.


Presently, the publication of “fake news” (to use the very unattractive choice of words by the draftsman) may lead to a civil action suit for defamation, with the defendant being ordered to pay damages. Additionally, contempt of court may be engaged. 


Acts like the Sedition Act and Communications and Multimedia Act already provide the government considerable power to prosecute, as has happened in recent times against opposition personalities and critics.


But the Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 takes censorship to a new level. 


The timing indicates that the Najib government intends to use its awesome powers under the bill during the election campaign for the 14th general election.


“Fake news” is defined in Clause 2 to include “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false …” 


And who is to judge whether news is “wholly or partly false”? Would this definition extend to opinion, comment, analysis or critique? And what is “partly false”? Does it mean that a lengthy news article with a single factual error violates the law?


The bill contemplates criminal prosecution, which means the sessions court that tries the case is expected to interpret and determine whether an article contains “fake news”. 


This is wholly inconsistent with freedom of speech and a free press.


Article 10(1)(a) of the federal constitution guarantees free speech and expression to every citizen.  


Like all the other fundamental liberties enshrined in Part II of the constitution, they are not absolute – Parliament may impose restrictions on certain grounds specified in Article 10(2)(a).


The possible grounds in the instant case would be “security” or “public order or morality”. 


But by any objective yardstick, what the Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 endeavours to cover does not come within the meaning of “security” or “public order or morality”.


Additionally, case law exists in Malaysia for the proposition that restrictions imposed by Parliament must be “reasonable”. 


The draconian effect of the entire bill renders it unconstitutional, because it is not only inconsistent with “free speech and expression” under Article 10(1)(a) of the federal constitution, but also renders the exercise of that fundamental right “ineffective or illusory”.

 
Censorship of the internet


The illustrations of criminal offences listed in Clause 4(3) of the bill contain references to “social media account”, “blog” and “website”, thereby indicating that these channels of communication come within the new law. 


This would be in breach of the Bill of Guarantees given to the world in 1997 when the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) was launched, with the promise that there would be no censorship of the internet. 


This guarantee became law when Section 3.3 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, 1998 came into force, stating: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet.”


The anti-fake news bill is a serious departure from this legal guarantee, and puts the Najib government in the same category as authoritarian regimes in Russia, China and Turkey – each with a strongman in power. 


This is a disgraceful piece of legislation drafted by a desperate government determined to crush dissent and silence critics.


The bill is so hastily and poorly drafted that it cannot under any circumstances be improved by amendment. Instead, it must be rejected outright.


But that is not what the Najib administration will do. Instead, the three line whip will be imposed, the bill will be rushed and passed in both houses by comfortable majorities. 


The voters of Malaysia fortunately have their say at the ballot box.


* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight.

Monday, March 26, 2018

Anti-fake news bill prescribes RM500k fine, 10 years' jail

Published on   |  Modified on 

Putrajaya's Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 has proposed a hefty penalty - up to RM500,000 fine or up to 10 years' jail, or both - for those found guilty of spreading "fake news".
The bill defines "fake news" as "any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas".
The same hefty penalties also apply those who provide financial assistance or abet the production of "fake news". 
Section 6 of the bill stipulates that publishers have the obligation to immediately remove "fake news" after "knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that such publication contains fake news". 
The bill also prescribes extra-territorial application to both foreigners and Malaysian citizens, as long as the content involved Malaysia. 
The proposed law also includes provisions to allow for the application of a court order, on an ex-parte basis, for the removal of materials deemed to be "fake news". Failure to comply will result in a maximum fine of RM100,000.
Although there are provisions to challenge this order in court, Section 8 (3) of the bill states that no appeal can be made if the government obtains the order on the grounds of national security. 
"If an order… is obtained by the government relating to a publication containing fake news which is prejudicial or likely to be prejudicial to public order or national security, there shall be no application for the setting aside of such order by the person against whom the order was made."
Three stages
Section 13 indicates that if a company commits an offence under this law, the director, chief executive officer, manager, secretary or other similar officers shall be liable for an offence as well.
The bill was tabled in the Dewan Rakyat today by Minister in the Prime Minster’s Department Azalina Othman Said for its first reading.
The Dewan Rakyat’s order paper states that the Anti-Fake News Bill and several other government bills will be taken through all three stages - the first, second and third readings - of the legislative process during the current meeting, which would conclude on April 5.
Other bills presented for its first reading today are the Arbitration (Amendment) (No 2) Bill 2018, Civil Law (Amendment) Bill 2018, Limitation (Amendment) Bill 2018, and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Bill 2018.
~ Malaysiakini

What constitutes 'fake news' according to AFN bill?

Published on   |  Modified on 

The Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 was tabled today and once passed will have wide reaching consequences on how any information is published.
According to Section 2 of the bill, "fake news" is defined as "any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas".
The application of the law is detailed in illustrations contained in Section 4 of the bill:
(a) A offers false information to B, for B to publish the information in B's blog. B, not knowing that the information offered by A is false, publishes the information in his blog. A is guilty of an offence under this section, B is not guilty of an offence under this section.
(b) A fabricates an information by stating in an article published in his blog that Z, a well-known businessman has obtained a business contract by offering bribes. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(c) A fabricates an information by stating in an article published in his blog that Z, a well-known businessman has obtained a business contract by offering bribes. B, knowing that the information has been fabricated, shares the article on his social media account. Both A and B are guilty of an offence under this section.
(d) A published an advertisement containing a caricature of Z depicting Zas a successful investor in an investment scheme knowing that Z is not involved in the investment scheme. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(e) A publishes a statement in his social media account that a food product of Z's company contains harmful ingredients and is being sold to the public knowing that the production of the food has been discontinued several years ago and the food product is no longer sold to the public. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(f) A creates a website impersonating a government agency's website. In the website, A publishes a guideline purportedly issued by the head of the government agency which requires the public to apply for a licence to carry out a particular activity. There is no such guideline issued by the government agency. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(g) A gives a speech during a public forum held at a public place. In his speech, A informs that Z has misappropriated money collected for charitable purpose knowing that the information is false. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(h) A holds a press conference where he claims that Z, an owner of a supermarket, will give out free gifts to the first one hundred customers of his supermarket on every first Saturday of the month knowing that Zhas no intention to do as claimed by A. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
~ Malaysiakini

Saturday, March 10, 2018

PAKATAN HARAPAN SARAWAK GE14 CAMPAIGN LAUNCH



PAKATAN HARAPAN SARAWAK FACT SHEET
RELEASED 10TH MARCH, 2018
SLOGAN: NEW DEAL, NEW HOPE
THEME: UNITE, UNITY, UNITED
OUR 7-POINT HIGHLIGHTS OF OUR NEW DEAL FOR SARAWAKIANS:
 
ENGLISH
1.     ABOLISH GST AND MAINTAINING BR1M.
2.     STABILISE THE PRICE OF PETROL AND RESTORE PETROL SUBSIDY   ACCORDINGLY.
3.     RETURN 20% OIL AND GAS ROYALTY AND 50% TAX REVENUE COLLECTED IN THE TERRITORY OF SARAWAK TO SARAWAK.
4.     RESTORE DECISION RIGHTS OVER EDUCATION AND HEALTH TO SARAWAK.
5.     BUILD CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE TO ALL LONGHOUSES AND VILLAGES, AND SUPPLY BASIC AMENITIES LIKE TREATED WATER AND ELECTRICITY TO ALL AREAS IN SARAWAK.
6.     PROVIDE 100,000 JOBS FOR SARAWAK’S UNEMPLOYED YOUTH.
7.     INTRODUCE POLITICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS:
i.               A maximum of two terms for the Prime Minister;
ii.              The Prime Minister cannot hold the office of the Minister of Finance; and
iii.            Ensure independence of institutions like the Judiciary, the MACC, the Election Commission, etc etc.

IBAN
1.     NGAPUSKA GST ENGGAU NGETANKA BR1M.
2.     NGATURKA REGA PETROL LALU MULAIKA SABSIDI PETROL NGENA AGIH TI BETUL.
3.     MULAIKA 20% ROYALTI MINYAK ENGGAU GAS ENGGAU 50% ASIL CHUKAI TI DIULIH ARI MENUA SARAWAK PULAI NGAGAI SARAWAK.
4.     MULAIKA KUASA SENENTANG ATUR UPIS PELAJAR ENGGAU ATUR UPIS PENGERAI NGAGAI SARAWAK.
5.     NGAGA PUGU INFRASTRUKTUR NGAGAI SEMUA RUMAHPANJAI ENGGAU KAMPUNG ENGGAU NYENDIAKA AI PAIP BERESI ENGGAU KARAN API NGAGAI SERATA MENUA SARAWAK.
6.     NYENDIAKA 100,000 PENGAWA KUSUNG NGAGAI NEMBIAK SARAWAK TI BEDAU BISI PENGAWA.
7.     MERAMBUKA ATUR BARU POLITIK ENGGAU CARA MEGAI MENUA:
i.               Ngurangka timpuh Menteri Besai ngagai dua penggal aja;
ii.              Menteri Besai enda tau mangku pengawa Menteri Wang; enggau
iii.            Nerantingka adat ngambika sistem Hakim (Judiciary), Upis Pemansik Makai Suap (MACC), Upis Pengawa Bepilih (EC/SPR) enggau iya ti bukai ulih bejalaika pengawa enggau lurus.

CHINESE
1.     废除消费税和保留一马援助金。
2.     稳定汽油价格并恢复汽油津贴。
3.     归还20%石油与天然气开采税及将在砂拉越征收的50%税收归还给砂拉越。
4.     归还教育及医疗权益给砂拉越。
5.     为所有的长屋及村落建设基本设施;并为全砂各地提供清洁水供及电流供应等。
6.     为砂拉越失业青年提供10万个就业机会。
7.     落实政治与行政改革:
i.               首相任期不得超过两届;
ii.              首相不得兼任财政部长职;
iii.            确保司法、反贪污委员会及选举委员会等机构的独立性。

BAHASA MELAYU
1.     HAPUSKAN GST DAN MENGEKALKAN BR1M.
2.     MENSTABILKAN HARGA MINYAK DAN MENGEMBALIKAN SUBSIDI PETROL   BERSASAR.
3.     MENGEMBALIKAN 20% ROYALTI MINYAK DAN 50% PENDAPATAN CUKAI WILAYAH SARAWAK KEPADA SARAWAK.
4.     MENGEMBALIKAN HAK KEPUTUSAN DALAM PENDIDIKAN DAN KESIHATAN KEPADA SARAWAK.
5.     MEMBINA INFRASTRUKTUR AWAM DAN MENYEDIAKAN KEMUDAHAN DASAR SEPERTI JALAN KAMPUNG DAN RUMAHPANJANG, BEKALAN AIR TERAWAT DAN ELETRIK DI SEMUA KAWASAN.
6.     MENYEDIAKAN 100,000 PEKERJAAN UNTUK BELIA SARAWAK YANG MENGANGGUR.
7.     MEREFORMASI INSTITUSI PENTADBIRAN DAN POLITIK:
i.               Maksimum dua penggal untuk Perdana Menteri;
ii.              Jawatan Menteri Kewangan tidak boleh disandang oleh Perdana Menteri; dan
iii.            Pastikan institusi-institusi yang bebas seperti Kehakiman, MACC, SPR, dan lain lain.