Siri Pemikiran Kritis | Section 114A of the Evidence Act 1950

I will be speaking at this event jointly organised by the Bar Council National Young Lawyers Committee, Malaysian Centre for Constitutionalism and Human Rights (“MCCHR”) and Centre for Independent Journalism (“CIJ”).

Topic: Section 114A of the Evidence Act 1950
Date: 11 Aug 2012 (Saturday)
Time: 10:00 am
Venue: Raja Aziz Addruse Auditorium, First Floor, Bar Council, No 15 Leboh Pasar Besar, 50050 Kuala Lumpur

The purpose and intent of the forum is to have a general and critical discussion on the operation of section 114A, which was inserted by the Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2012.

The forum will feature Faisal Moideen, Member of the Bar and Former Protection Assistant of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”); Foong Cheng Leong, Member of the Bar, Co-Chairperson of the KL Bar Information Technology Committee and blogger; K Shanmuga, Member of the Bar, one of the founders of LoyarBurok and a mover for UndiMsia; and Dato’ Saifuddin Abdullah, member of UMNO Supreme Council, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Higher Education and Member of Parliament. The session will be moderated by Mahaletchumi Balakrishnan, Member of the Bar and former Co-Deputy Chairperson of the Bar Council Constitutional Law Committee.


2 responses to “Siri Pemikiran Kritis | Section 114A of the Evidence Act 1950”

  1. tin Avatar

    firstly i enjoyed today’s SPK and thank you as you are one of the speaker.
    i have a question to ask and im not sure where or how to ask you,if its okay i ask the question here,if not then you may delete this comment.

    correct me if im wrong, the purpose of this act is to solve issues such as internet fraud and etc. is there any other alternative to solve it legally besides s114a of the evidence act.or this kind of issue can only be solve by using technology and not law.

    im just wondering of the alternatives and what should the government do to ensure our internet freedom and overcome the problems with internet such as fraud and defamation.
    that’s all

    thank you.

    1. FCL Avatar

      tin: the purpose of the amendment is actually to facilitate the identification of anonymous online users. For me, the use of technology is imperative to trace users online. IPv6 is one example which can help in tracing people online ( With IPv6, each device is assigned an unique address. If an online posting can be traced to an IPv6 address, then tracing people online will be easier. Another one is through “fingerprinting” e.g. identification through browser (see Of course, there are many other methods. This will all come from the development of technology. Laws are helpful and should compliment technology but unfortunately 114A is not one of them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *