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  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.