From Liew Li Xuan

Screenshots, WhatsApp messages, emails, and social media posts and other forms of digital evidence are now a normal part of court cases in Malaysia. They are often used to show what was said, agreed, or done.

These digital records can strongly influence the outcome of civil and criminal cases. But as courts rely more on what appears on screens, a simple question becomes harder to avoid: can we still trust what we see online?

The Evidence Act 1950 allows electronic evidence to be used in court. Section 90A, in particular, was introduced to recognise computer-generated documents. When it was first introduced, it was an important step forward. It helped the legal system keep up with early digitalisation and made it easier for courts to accept electronic records instead of only paper documents.

But the digital world today is very different.

Changing electronic records used to require more skill and was easier to detect. Now, almost anyone can edit messages, create fake screenshots, or even generate realistic-looking content using simple apps or artificial intelligence tools.

What used to be difficult is now quick, cheap, and hard to spot.

Burden of proof

This creates a real problem in court. On the surface, screenshots and chat logs look very convincing. They are clear, familiar, and easy to understand. Because of this, they often feel like strong proof. But in reality, they can be edited, cropped, or even fully fabricated while still looking completely real.

In many cases, digital evidence is accepted as long as it follows basic legal requirements. Unless someone challenges it, it may be treated as reliable. This creates a practical issue: the burden often falls on the other side to prove that the evidence is fake. But not everyone has the money, time, or technical knowledge to do that properly.

There are ways to check digital evidence, such as forensic analysis, metadata checks, and device tracing. However, these methods are not always used. In simpler or lower-value cases, they may be seen as too costly or unnecessary. This means the level of checking can be very different from case to case.

As a result, the system can feel uneven. In some cases, digital evidence is carefully tested. In others, it is accepted with very little questioning. This depends not just on the law, but also on the type of case and the resources available to the people involved.

It looks clean but is it real?

Another issue is that digital evidence often feels more trustworthy than it really is. A screenshot looks exact. A chat log looks precise. This visual “cleanliness” can make people believe it is automatically true. But what is shown may only be part of the story, or it may have been changed before being presented in court.

Traditional legal rules were built on the idea that lies are hard to maintain when tested in court. Cross-examination and questioning were expected to reveal the truth. But digital evidence changes this. Fake or edited content can now look very real and still hold up unless someone has the tools to prove otherwise.

This does not mean digital evidence should be rejected. That would not work in today’s world, where most communication happens online. Instead, the issue is how courts decide how much weight to give it, especially when someone questions whether it is real.

Right now, there are no clear, detailed rules that guide courts on how to deal with disputed digital evidence. Judges have to decide case by case. This flexibility is useful, but it also means similar types of evidence may be treated differently in different cases.

Easy to make, tough to prove

The bigger issue is simple: it is now very easy to create convincing fake digital content, but still difficult and expensive to properly verify it. This imbalance creates risk, especially in disputes where screenshots or messages are the main evidence.

As more of life moves online, courts will see more of these cases. The challenge is no longer about whether digital evidence should be allowed — it already is. The real question is whether the system is strong enough to make sure what looks real is actually real.

The law is not just dealing with new technology, it is dealing with a new problem of truth. When evidence can be easily created, edited, or copied, the legal system must find better ways to separate what is real from what only looks real.

Liew Li Xuan, a youth advocate and founder of LifeUp Malaysia, is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.