The MCA today said that it would continue to support the amendment to the evidence act 114A, but called for greater engagement with the public from the government where implementation was concerned.

Speaking at a press conference today at party's Kuala Lumpur headquarters, MCA president Chua Soi Lek said that it chose to  maintain the controversial amendments to the evidence act, but stressed that there should be well-defined guidelines in the implementation to ensure they are not abused.

"The evidence act is not to victimize the rakyat. It is to protect the rakyat. Today, we talk about cyber crime, cyber terrorism, even cyber bullying. Do you know about the case in America where a student committed suicide after he was cyber bullied? The other student was charged in the end.

NONE "There is a need to look into the abuse of the internet by people, as cyber crime is becoming more and more common. However, the guidelines of the act must be clear, so that innocent people are not penalized," Chua ( right ) said.

He acknowledged that the government should engage the public more often, to ensure that the act would not be abused to imprison innocent people.

Responding to a question about whether individuals brought to court under the act would be guilty until proven innocent, Chua maintained that this was not the case in Malaysia.

"In this country, nobody is guilty until proven innocent. There is no presumption of guilt. You are assumed to be the publisher of offensive content, but this must be proven in court.

"However, the MCA central committee feels that the government should engage the public more, especially internet and social media users, about how the Evidence Act, section 114, will not be subjected to abuse," he said.

Another sign of changing times

Several controversial amendments to the evidence act were made in April 2012, including clauses that presume that the publisher of any seditious statement on a web page "is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proven".

These amendments have sparked outrage among members of the NONE online community, who have interpreted the act to mean that anyone may initiate legal or criminal action against website publishers for seditious comments that appear on their publications, even if they did not personally publish the statements.

On the issue of what measures should be taken, Chua said that there could be security features implemented in computers to ensure that innocent people were not penalized.

"Security features being features you can install in your own computer, in case you go to the toilet and someone makes a posting, or someone does a posting from the same server in the internet, there are security features we don't know.

"There must be some sort of mechanism in place to prevent what we call abuse. But the guideline needs to be clear, so that the innocent are not penalized," he said.