loyarburok

GE13 Candidates and 114A

Published on LoyarBurok on 16 April 2013.



I am no expert in election laws but GE13 Candidates should take note of this. If you are running a blog, I suggest you moderate or close the comments section until and after the 13th General Election.

The reason why I say so is because s.114A(1) of the Evidence Act 1950 and the Election Offences Act 1954. S. 114A(1) provide the following:

“A 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”.
In simple words, if your name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting yourself as the aforesaid persons, you are deemed to have published the content unless you prove otherwise.

Also, if you have in any manner facilitated to publish or re-publish the publication, you are presumed to have published the content of the publication.

This means that website owners are deemed to be publishers of contents of a publication although the author of the publication is someone else.

Further, it is not possible for website owner to prove that he is not a publisher due to the wording of the section i.e. the words “in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication”. By providing a virtual platform, the website owners facilitate to publish or re-publish a publication.

In this regard, you will potentially commit an election offence if someone posts a comment which falls within the scope of corrupt practice. If found guilty of an election offence, the election of a candidate will be declared void (s. 32 of the Election Offences Act 1954).

What I have mentioned is not without basis. A similar scenario had happened after the 12th General Elections. In Kho Whai Phiaw v Chong Chieng Jen (Election Petition No.: 26-01-2008-I), an elector in the Bandar Kuching constituency presented an election petition to have Mr. Chong Chieng Jen’s (representative of the Democratic Action Party (DAP)) election declared void.

The elector sought to have Mr Chong’s election avoided on the ground that the latter had engaged in the corrupt practice of (i) undue influence and (ii) bribery, to procure his victory in the election. The elector alleged, among others, that a letter from one Mr Smith published on the comment section of Mr Chong’s blog site is said to contain certain threatening statement. The elector alleged that Mr Chong had exercised undue influence over the non-Muslim voters in the Bandar Kuching constituency through Mr Smith’s letter appearing on his blog site.

Fortunately for Mr Chong, the High Court held that Mr Smith’s letter was posted by one commentor by the name “Responsible Christian Voter” (‘RCV’). Mr. Smith was the author of the letter and it was RCV who published that letter through Mr Chong’s blog site. The Court held that Mr Chong is therefore not the publisher of the letter. The case is later upheld by the Federal Court. (see Kho Whai Phiaw v Chong Chieng Jen [2009] 3 CLJ 201)

But Mr Chong’s case is pre-114A case. If s. 114A applies, Mr Chong is considered as the publisher of the letter as his blogsite had facilitated the publication of the letter. Mr Chong could potentially commit an election offence if 114A applies. That is the effect of 114A. It creates liability on a virtual platform provider.

This, of course, is not tested in our Courts yet. One may argue that it is the blogsite provider (e.g. Google who owns Blogger.com) but this is only provided that such blog is hosted by such blogsite provider.

Nevertheless, as an abundance of caution, GE13 candidates should close their blog comments section to avoid such actions. Interestingly, Mr Chong’s blogsite has closed its comments section.

A Facebook Page is also another concern. It may be arguable to say postings made by users on a Facebook page is not published by the Facebook page administrator as it appears on a separate page. (Illustrated below).

However, Facebook comments appearing together with the postings by the Facebook administrator (illustrated below) is different. It is arguable that such comments are published by the Facebook page owner.

With this risk of having an election declared void, I hope that the new Parliament will relook into 114A when it convenes in the future.

It’s time to #stop114A.

Right to Privacy in Malaysia: Do we have it?

First published on “LoyarBurok and republished on Malaysia Insider on 21 February 2011

If someone installs a CCTV in front of your house, can you stop him from doing so? If our Prime Minister sends his best wishes for the festive seasons to your email and mobile, is he invading your privacy? Whats the state of the right to privacy, and invasions of your privacy, in Malaysia?

Long story short, yes, our constitution recognises the right to privacy under article 5 of the constitution according to the recent Federal Court case of Sivarasa Rasiah v. Badan Peguam Malaysia & Anor [2010] 3 CLJ 507 at 519. Article 5(1) of the Constitution provides that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.” According to Gopal Sri Ram FCJ (as then he was) in the Sivarasa case, the right to personal liberty includes the right to privacy.

What is a “right to privacy”?

The right to privacy is basically the right to be left alone and to live the private aspects of one’s life without being subjected to unwarranted, or undesired, publicity or public disclosure. It is also a right of an individual to seclude oneself or information about himself and thereby reveal himself selectively. For example, the right of being strip searched (and probably do some squats and get recorded see: squatgate).

Invasion of Privacy

However, althought the right to privacy provided by the Constitution, is there an actionable right against someone who invaded your privacy?

Notwithstanding the recognition of such right, such right may not be enforced by an individual against another private individual for the infringement of rights of the private individual as constitutional law (substantive or procedural) will take no cognisance of it (Beatrice Fernandez v. Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia & Anor [2004] 4 CLJ 403).

The tort of invasion of privacy is not a recognized tort under common law (Malone v MPC [1979] Ch 344; Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62 (CA); Khorasandjian v Bush [1993] QB 727, 744 (CA); Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53, [2003] All ER (D) 279 (Oct), House of Lords).

The tort of invasion of privacy is not recognized in Malaysia. This basically means that you cannot sue someone for invading your privacy.

The Malaysian High Court cases of Ultra Dimension Sdn. Bhd. v. Kook Wei Kuan [2004] 5 CLJ 285 and Lew Cher Phow @ Lew Cha Paw & 11 Ors v. Pua Yong Yong & Anor [2009] 1 LNS 1256 Johor Bahru High Court Civil Suit No. MT 4-22-510-2007 had held that invasion or violation of privacy is not a recognized tort or a cause of action in Malaysia. In the former case, the Plaintiffs failed in their action for invasion of privacy against the Defendant for taking a photograph of a group of kindergarten pupils, including the Plaintiffs child, at an open area outside the kindergarten and published it in two local newspapers. As for the latter case, the Plaintiffs failed in their application to restrain the Defendants from having a CCTV which faces their house and to remove the same.

Similarly in the High Court case of Dr Bernadine Malini Martin v. MPH Magazines Sdn Bhd & Ors [2006] 2 CLJ 1117, the Court again stated that invasion of privacy is not an actionable wrongdoing.

However, the Court of Appeal judgement of Maslinda Ishak v. Mohd Tahir Osman & Ors [2009] 6 CLJ 653 gave light to the tort of invasion of privacy. Some of you may recall the incident where a guest relations officer (GRO) was photographed easing herself in a truck by a volunteer reserve corps member (Rela) after the GRO was detained in a raid at a club in 2003. The GRO sued the Rela member, Director General of RELA, the Director of JAWI and the Government of Malaysia. She was granted damages for the wrongdoing. However, the case was not on point as to whether the tort of invasion of privacy is a recognized tort in Malaysia.

YB Elizabeth Wong, YB Dr Chua Soi Lek & Actress Nasha Aziz were all victims of privacy invasion.

The case of Lee Ewe Poh v Dr. Lim Teik Man & Anor [2010] 1 LNS 1162 is the first reported Malaysian case that recognizes the invasion of privacy as an actionable tort. In this case, the doctor had taken picture of the Plaintiff’s anus during a medical procedure without informing the Plaintiff. The doctor’s reason for taking such picture was for medical purpose and claimed that taking of photographs during the course of the medical procedure without the consent of the patient is an acceptable practice.

The Court of Appeal judgement of Maslinda Ishak was referred in the judgement of Lee Ewe Poh and the learned Judicial Commissioner relied on the said case to hold that invasion of privacy rights is actionable in Malaysia.

The Learned Judicial Commissioner held in the case of Lee Ewe Poh that (at page 6 of judgement):

The learned trial judge found for Maslinda Ishak against the 1st defendant but not against the other respondents for whom she appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal and held the respondents to be jointly and severally liable for the wrongful act of their agent as well as vicariously liable. Although Maslinda Ishak’s case is not directly on point, the fact remains that the High Court in so finding has departed from the old English law that invasion of privacy is not an actionable tort and our Court of Appeal indirectly, though this issue was not canvassed, seems to endorse such cause of action when the pleadings were specifically referred to and C.A. did not overrule invasion of privacy as a cause of action on ground that it is not one in line with the English law. Since such a cause of action has been accepted as a cause of action under our common law, it is thus permissible for a plaintiff to found his/her action on it. Drawing an analogy of this Court of Appeal case, I am inclined to hold the view that since our courts especially the Court of Appeal have accepted such an act to be a cause of action, it is thus actionable. The privacy right of a female in relation to her modesty, decency and dignity in the context of the high moral value existing in our society is her fundamental right in sustaining that high morality that is demanded of her and it ought to be entrenched. Hence, it is just right that our law should be sensitive to such rights. In the circumstances, Plaintiff in the instant case ought to be allowed to maintain such claim.

Both Maslinda Ishak and Lee Ewe Poh’s cases are in respect of women’s modesty. It will be interesting to see whether how our right to privacy would extend to. For example, will it extend someone’s surfing habits? If someone had recorded everything you serve on the Internet, would that be an invasion of privacy? (On an interesting note, Google does store your Google search keywords).

Lee Ewe Poh’s case is a High Court decision thus may not be followed by other courts of the same or higher jurisdiction. However, Sivarasa’s case was not referred in the decision of Lee Ewe Poh. With Sivarasa’s case, it will be interesting to see whether the recognition of tort of invasion of privacy will be strengthened by it.

Misuse of Private Information

The recognition of right to privacy in Sivarasa’s case may be a stepping stone to the expansion of the tort of breach of confidence to include “misuse of private information”, a term coined by Lord Nicholls in the House of Lords case of Campbell v. MGN Limited [2004] UKHL 22, in Malaysia. In this case, the House of Lords held that the publication of articles by the Mirror newspaper regarding well known model Naomi Campbell’s attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings and her efforts to overcome her addiction to drink and drugs was a misuse of private information. Basically, this tort protects information that is “private”. It affords respect for one aspect of an individual’s privacy.

Closing

If the tort of invasion of privacy or misuse of private information is recognised in Malaysia, this may be used as a remedy against those who had breached the Malaysian Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (which is not in force yet). The present Personal Data Protection Act 2010 does not provide for damages to data subjects for the breach of the said Act unlike the UK Data Protection Act 1988. With such torts, this may bridge the gaps in the Malaysian Personal Data Protection Act 2010.

The effect of the recognition of the privacy rights in Malaysia is far reaching. It may, in no particular order, affect the following:

  • Employees’ rights especially when it comes to employee monitoring;
  • Authorities’ right to conduct searches such as strip searches or search of a premise or vehicle;
  • Internet users’ rights such as the right to remain anonymous (note: bloggers have problem claiming anonymity pursuant to the case of The Author of a Blog v Times Newspapers Limited [2009] EWHC 1358 (QB) where the UK Court held that blogging is a public activity);
  • Details of relationships such as intimate details of partners including intimate pictures;
  • The right of the media to report news regarding individuals;
  • Rights of public figures such as politicians and celebrities; and
  • The position of the admissibility in Court proceedings of illegally obtained evidence which infringes’ an individual’s right to privacy

Well, if you ask me whether the Prime Minister has infringed your right to privacy or had committed misuse of private information, when he sent festive greetings (although I understand it is for good intention) to your emails or mobile phone, my answer is that, it will be an interesting test case in Malaysia!

Internet Service Provider Liability Act: Do we need one?

An analysis of the potential repercussions of the proposed Internet Service Provider Liability Act.

Recently, The Star reported that the Malaysian Parliament will be tabling the ISP Liability Act (”Act”). According to The Star, the Act makes internet service providers (ISPs) responsible for curbing online piracy. The ISP will be fined if they don’t take action against illegal downloaders.

The ISP will send two warning letters to illegal downloaders. Should the downloaders persist, their internet access will be suspended or even terminated.

It is unclear at this juncture on how far-reaching the Act would be. Will it cover all methods of downloading copyrighted materials, such as music and movies, or only through P2P file sharing software? If a user streams videos or music through a website, would they be caught under this Act? Technically in such case, there is a download of copyrighted materials into a user’s computer.

It is also unclear at this juncture on how the Act would require ISPs to monitor their users’ activities. Are they compelled to keep track of all their users’ internet activities? Or would there be a need for active participation of intellectual property rights (IPR) holders to tell the ISPs that certain IP addresses are infringing their rights, so that the ISPs can reveal the users’ details?

How it works

Making ISPs responsible for their users’ actions is not something common. Jurisdictions such as United States of America and United Kingdom have laws in place to compel ISPs to take action their users.

In some jurisdictions, IPR holders would engage a third party to monitor the internet to see whether anyone is sharing copyrighted files online. If they detect someone, they will obtain the IP address, and thereafter pass it to the relevant ISPs for them to take action against their user. If the user persists notwithstanding that warning letters have been issued, the ISPs may suspend or terminate the user’s internet access.

This is also commonly known as graduated response, or in another words the “three strikes rule”.

Repercussions

It is argued that such a law would curb online piracy. Thousands of people are dependant on the music and movie industries, and online piracy is affecting these industries severely. I do not deny that online piracy has affected these industry, but the objective of this article is to show that the repercussions of such a law are severe to internet users.

What has happened in jurisdictions containing such a law is a good indication on where the implementation of such a law will take us.

In many cases, IPR holders take additional steps against alleged online infringers. IPR holders would normally request for the identity of the internet user (normally after obtaining a Court order) from the ISPs. Some ISPs are ready to divulge such information, whereas some ISPs put up a fight. Once the identity of the user is revealed, the IPR would initiate action against the user and such active enforcement has caused terrible impact on users.

In the United Kingdom, it was reported that IPR holders will send a letter to illegal file sharers demanding payments of between GBP500 and GBP700, failing which the file sharer will be brought to Court. In the United States, a lady decided to fight it out with the recording industry instead of settling out of Court after being accused of encouraging the illegal sharing of songs. She lost the case, and was fined US$220,000. It is a classic case of David against Goliath.

Such a law will also affect internet users who do not know that their internet connection has been piggy-backed by third parties. There are many cases where users do not know that someone has used their internet connection — especially those with unsecured Wi-fi connection — and subsequently receive a demand letter for an offence they did not commit. This happened to a 78 year old man in the United Kingdom, who received a demand letter from a lawyer accusing him of downloading pornography. The 78 year old man didn’t even know what file-sharing was!

At this juncture, we do not know whether the Act would provide for a defence of innocent infringement. But the fact that one can receive a demand letter from lawyers for something that one has not done is quite frightening.

Children are now exposed to the internet at very young age. They may not know that their act of sharing and downloading music or videos will cause serious repercussions to them. A child would obviously choose to download the latest single of Justin Bieber from the internet instead of begging and pleading with his or her parents to buy it. One would argue that we ought to teach our children against online piracy. But all parents know that not all of their advice is always heeded.

In Singapore, it was reported that Odex Pte Ltd, a distributor of Japanese anime in Singapore, had issued demand letters to children as young as 9 years old accusing them of illegal downloads. Further, in the United States, 16 year old Whitney Harper was sued by the recording industry after she was found sharing music via a P2P file sharing program. She claimed that she didn’t know the program she used was taking songs from the internet illegally. Notwithstanding that, judgement was entered against her.

The enactment of the Act would also be another deterioration of our (almost non-existence) privacy rights. Malaysian laws do not recognize invasion of privacy rights as an actionable wrongdoing (see Ultra Dimenson Sdn Bhd v. Kook Wei Kuan [2004] 5 CLJ 285; Dr Bernadine Malini Martin v MPH Magazine Sdn Bhd & Ors and Another Appeal [2010] 7 CLJ 525; and Lew Cher Pow @ Lew Cha Paw & 11 yang lain lwn. Pua Yong Yong & Satu Lagi [2009] 1 LNS 1256) except in very limited circumstances (Maslinda Ishak v. Mohd Tahir Osman & Ors [2009] 6 CLJ 655).

ISPs are the “guardians” of our rights of privacy. They hold the key to our identity in the internet. Our identity, surfing habits and internet activities are our personal data and ISPs ought to give priority of such data over commercial interest of others.

By giving access to our personal data to third parties, our privacy is at risk, and such a risk is real. Recently, ACS:Law, a law firm specialising in taking action against file sharers in the United Kingdom, had accidentally divulged information of thousand of broadband users who were accused of illegal file sharing. The information that was leaked were unencrypted Excel spreadsheets, listing the names and addresses of people that ACS:Law had accused of illegally sharing media. One contained details of customers whom they had accused of illegally sharing pornography!

In light of the ACS: Law case, some ISPs in the UK resist efforts to divulge customer details to IPR holders. I urge the same is followed by our local ISPs in order to protect internet users’ privacy.

It should be remembered that customer data is protected under the upcoming Personal Data Protection Act 2010, which provides for a fine or imprisonment or to both in the event of a breach.

Lawyers appointed to act for IPR holders should also be vigilant when dealing with internet users. Solicitors who had been representing IPR holders were subject to public humiliation and harassment by internet users.


A partner of ACS: Law, one of the main targets.

Assuming that the Act would push through in any event, I urge our local ISPs to only take action or to provide customer information to IPR holders if they are satisfied that –

1. there is strong evidence to show infringing act has been committed by user, if possible only provide information if infringement is on a large or commercial scale or for commercial gain;
2. the requester’s storage system is secure, and they have given an undertaking that information will be kept securely e.g. encrypted;
3. the requester will only use that information for the purpose of pursuing legal action only and not to published it anywhere else; and
4. the requester is compelled to give access to the information obtained from ISPs to customers to ensure that a fair case can be fought.

Closing

I am not a file sharing advocate, and I do not condone internet piracy. I am only seeking to raise awareness of the repercussions of such a law. I hope what I have mentioned above is considered by the law and policy makers.

I would like to express my gratitude to David Wang of Blogjunkie.net for raising this issue on his blog.

Quick, throw your CDs away! There’s a roadblock!

First published on LoyarBurok on 2 November 2010

For the past few months, an email has been circulating alleging that police and the enforcement division of the Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry’s (now the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Co-operatives And Consumerism) have started operations to search and fine anyone who keeps pirated discs inside their cars. The email alleges that these operations were carried out through roadblocks at main roads and expressways, and that persons caught in possession of pirated discs were fined RM400 per disc.

In fact, these stories have been circulating for some time now. A report in the Sun newspaper in April 2009 stated that the police set out roadblocks to nab anyone with pirated discs. However, the same report stated that the Ministry denied having such roadblocks being set up.

Whether or not such roadblocks have been set up, it leaves us with the question: Do the police or the Ministry have the power to search our vehicles for pirated discs?

Section 24 of the Police Act 1967 allows any police officer to stop and search without warrant any vehicle which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting is being used in the commission of any offence against any law in force. The Ministry has also authority to enter and search a vehicle without warrant provided that he has reasonable grounds for believing that delay in obtaining a search warrant would lead to the destruction of evidence.

Under section 41 of the Copyright Act 1987, it is an offence to possess, other than for private and domestic use, any infringing goods. Any person who has in his possession, custody or control three or more infringing copies of a work or recording in the same form is presumed to be in possession of such copies otherwise than for private or domestic use. This basically means that possession of a pirated disc for private and domestic use is allowed provided that the pirated disc do not exceed three or more copies of the same form.

The offence would attract a fine not less than RM2,000 and not more than RM20,000 for each infringing copy or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.

Can the police or the Ministry stop and search your vehicle?

In short, for now, if the police or Ministry have reasonable grounds to think that you are distributing pirated goods, (e.g. if you’re suspected to be a pirated VCD/DVD seller), they can stop and search your vehicle. Otherwise, they have no authority to stop and search your vehicle for pirated discs.

This situation may soon change.

The Government recently announced plans to amend the Copyright Act 1987 to make it an offence to keep pirated goods, similar to the offence of possessing stolen goods. Although the Government has not announced the details of the amendment, such news is worrying. This basically means that anyone in possession of pirated goods is committing an offence. Hence, any police, with reasonable grounds that there are pirated goods in a vehicle, may stop and search the vehicle.

What if the driver had purchased genuine songs from the internet and had it copied into a CD? The driver would have to prove and explain that he had genuinely purchased the song.

If I had downloaded software, music or movies into my computer from the Internet, does the police or Ministry has the authority to enter my house and search my computer? Based on the proposed amendment, the police or Ministry has the authority to do so.

Guidelines to allow the authorities to stop and search a vehicle for pirated goods should be clearly spelled out and made available to the public. The public should be given the right to use or copy copyrighted materials for their private use. Certain levies or exemptions should be given to the public if they are in possession of pirated goods unintentionally.

An outright ban of unauthorised possession copyrighted materials will create fear and chaos to the country and society.

 Scroll to top