Is Nazri's speech about 114A controversial?

Disclaimer, This note is not for me to bash up on who is right or wrong. I am currently making a fuss because I feel incompetent to not know what 114A is all about, and would like to share my thoughts out in hope that some lawyers out there will teach me wtf is 114A all about. As such, I hope this message will be spread far and wide until a good law teacher is willing to educate me on this.

Have you read this article entitled, "No necessity to review amendment to evidence act?"

If you have not, let me summarize some of the key points which Nazri has pointed out that really makes one wonder, wtf is this guy trying to say.

  1. Section 114A presumes that 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 proven. 

 2. Commenting on the Facebook page where Umno Youth purportedly posted a provocative religious message that sparked an uproar, Nazri said the calls to prosecute Umno Youth did not make sense because the public prosecutor had not received any report of investigation from the police.

 This new (BS) law that was fully supported by the man himself CLEARLY states that until the contents of the publication is proven, ANYONE, and this means any soab is to be (quote) "presumed to have published or republished the contents of the publication".

 So when UMNO Youth, or any jokers out there that uses this "pseudonym" to publish this racial and religious hatred online, doesn't that means, by this law, that UMNO Youth is to bear whatever consequences FOR NOW until proven otherwise? I would love to see someone from Oxford and UCL to explain himself about this incident, just for the fun of it. Especially after that particular someone made an insulting joke about Kg Buah Pala and Kg Buah Dada.

 Next.

  3. Nazri said there was no necessity to review the amendment. He also said that the matter did not receive any objection from opposition MPs when the bill was debated in Parliament. 

 4. "The bill was tabled in April and debated for four hours, and I replied to all questions raised by the opposition. They (the opposition) were not totally against the amendment because they are also potential victims," he said.

 No objection from opposition MPS during debate, but can have 4 hour debate about it. Hm...

WHAT TALKING YOU NAZRI??????? 

 I wonder how this peaceful and "no objection" debate went. I curse myself for failing to watch this epic 4 hour debate >.<

Anyways, clearly, either Nazri is going senile, OR

  "It does not make sense. If you do not understand the law, it is better to remain silent and not make a fuss and confuse the people," 

~ Nazri 

 I need some good Malaysian Law 101 lecturing. As I am relatively more naive than this "wise" old man, I have thus written this in hope to find a good law teacher. Anyone here free to teach me?

  Disclaimer, again, 
This note is not for me to bash up on who is right or wrong. I am currently making a fuss because I feel incompetent to not know what 114A is all about, and would like to share my thoughts out in hope that some lawyers out there will teach me wtf is 114A all about. As such, I hope this message will be spread far and wide until a good law teacher is willing to educate me on this.

 Cheers