The Shah Alam High Court’s ruling finding Murray Victor Hunter liable for defamation in a suit brought by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) reaffirms that free speech is not an absolute right; it must be exercised responsibly and is contingent upon legal boundaries.In a statement today, MCMC said the judgment serves as a clear legal precedent that the right to express opinions does not confer a license to make false, malicious, or defamatory statements that harm the reputation of others. -Malay Mail, 16/10/2025
Minister FAHMI - is this TRUE - the whole truth and not a manipulated truth because then we have Murray Hunter saying that he was never served with any court papers of the Malaysian suit - that he was unaware ...
A Court Judgment '..serves as a clear legal precedent that the right to express opinions does not confer a license to make false, malicious, or defamatory statements that harm the reputation of others...' only in Judgments where the court decided on the MERITS, after hearing and considering the evidence submitted by both parties, MCMC and Murray Hunter. This seems to be NOT the case - more so, when the Judgment was handed down - Murray could not leave Thailand, as his passport was taken as a condition of Bail, interestingly by reason of actions of including MCMC - as the criminal charge was about defaming MCMC..
SHOCKING how the Court and Judge continued to hand down judgment knowing (ought to know since MCMC reasonably would know what happened to Murray in Thailand). If the Court had known that Murray could not come to Malaysia and attend court on the said date, any Judge would have just adjourned and fixed ANOTHER date to allow the opportunity to attend Court. This is BASIC.
JUDGMENTS - there are several kind of Judgments - Judgment in Default, Judgment after hearing both party, considering all evidence and legal submissions of both sides, etc..
It is the later Judgment ONLY that will ' '...serves as a clear legal precedent that the right to express opinions does not confer a license to make false, malicious, or defamatory statements that harm the reputation of others...' - not a Judgment in Default or any Judgment without hearing the OTHER side..
It is THUS wrong to give the FALSE impression that it was a Judgment that Court delivered after both parties are heard, and the JUDGE decided on the merits after considering all the evidence and arguments from BOTH sides.
Again, what was reported in the MEDIA as what allegedly MCMC said was not found in any VERIFIABLE statement on the MCMC or the Ministry's official website... WHY?
Should not the government and government commissions be OPEN, TRANSPARENT and HONEST about such matters... [The MCMC and the government have been 'censoring' and blocking things on websites, apps, etc - and there is still NO LIST of these articles/websites/blogs that the have been blocked on denied access to internet users in Malaysia - this information must be easily available on the Ministry and/or MCMC websites - and so to the reason for the 'censorship'?]
What is a JUDGMENT in Default?
Judgment in Default of Appearance - When the Defendant(in this case Murray) after he has been duly served the Court papers and the Statement of Claim, he fails to enter appearance - then the Plaintiff(in this case MCMC) can apply for a Judgment in Default of Appearance, and the Court, without even considering the truth of what was alleged in the Claim, will hand down a JUDGMENT for the Plaintiff against the Defendant. (A TECHNICAL Judgment without hearing both parties)
Judgment in Default of Defence - Here the Defendant enters appearance in the case, but then fails to file his Defence (or Defence and counter-claim) - Again a 'technical judgment' without hearing both parties.
## There are other kinds of judgments on default...
Such judgment in defaults will 'easily' be set aside by Court on the application of the Defendant - because naturally JUSTICE demands that any judgment BEST be after hearing BOTH sides, and considering all evidence, arguements and submission of both side.
THUS, the Minister and MCMC should tell us what kind of Judgment was this - was it a Judgment in Default, or a Judgment after hearing both sides based on the merits.
SADLY, the way the Judgment seem to have been reported in the MEDIA may be misleading - as it gives people the impression that it was a Court Judgment, where the Judge after trial, considered the evidence, arguements and submissions of BOTH SIDES (MCMC and Murray Hunter) - So, Minister of Communication and also Malaysia's MADANI government spokesperson - Please enlighten us, as the problem of this 'misrepresentation' is still there, and continues to be reported in the media
MEDIA - be careful not to spread a misrepresentation - check the facts. Was it Judgment in Default because Murray failed to enter appearance, enter his defence or just did not turn up in court. A good reporter would have told us that on the day the Judgment was made, Murray could not leave Thailand because it was a bail condition, and his passport was taken in a criminal action by the same MCMC in Thailand > Bad Journalism?
The settlement follows a ruling by the Shah Alam High Court in October 2025, which found Hunter liable for defamation.The court affirmed that freedom of speech is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly.At the time, the commission said the judgment underscored that the right to express opinions does not justify making false, malicious, or defamatory statements. - NST, 14/1/2026
Yes, the wrong possible 'misrepresentation of the judgment' of the Malaysian judgment is still circulating, and may have had consequences to Murray Hunter. I doubt any Judge when handing down a judgment in default will say even things like the 'right to express opinions does not confer a license to make false, malicious, or defamatory statements that harm the reputation of others...'. No,they would stick to the facts, i.e. cause papers served, Murray did not enter appearance or defence - thus judgment for MCMC?
Now, if that judgment was NOT a DEFAULT Judgment, but one made with the Judge having considered Murray's defence, arguments, evidence and submissions - one cannot say that such judgment 'The court affirmed that freedom of speech is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly.At the time, the commission said the judgment underscored that the right to express opinions does not justify making false, malicious, or defamatory statements.' - can they now.
Minister of Communication Malaysia has a DUTY to clarify this confusion - maybe the High Court judgment should be published and circulated to all. After all, how can a Judge in a default of appearance or a default of defence even make such a comment ...' The court affirmed that freedom of speech is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly.At the time, the commission said the judgment underscored that the right to express opinions does not justify making false, malicious, or defamatory statements.'
In such DEFAULT Judgments, judgment is just because the Defendant did not enter appearance or a Statement of Defence ... FULL Stop - it is a technical judgment - NO good Judge will go into the merits and make any decision on the merits, would they?
Malaysia, Minister of Communication is DUTY BOUND to correct FALSE News or wrong understanding of this judgment that has been reported in Media, both locally and globally - FAILURE to clarify the TRUTH is not an option - a Judgment without hearing ALL parties cannot even be relied as a Legal Precedence of anything but the fact that Judgment will be entered against you if you fail to enter Appearance after the Cause Papers(Writ and Statement of Claim) have been duly served on you (and you know about it), OR if you have entered appearance, you failed to file your Statement of Defence in time - then a Judgment in Default of Defence. In my opinion, you cannot conclude that the COURT agreed with your claim...or that the Defendant had no defence. Remember TRUTH, and jsutified opinion also could be a Defence in cases of defamation.
Now, even in trying to obtain Judgments in Default - the Plaintiff(and/or the Court) must still inform the Defendant of any or all court dates when the case is coming up for hearing - even for that applications for a Judgment in Default...That is JUST.
Here, as mentioned earlier, MCMC most likely knew that Murray Hunter's passport have been taken by Thai Court as a condition for Bail - thus Murray would not be able to be present in court on the day fixed by the Court in Malaysia, when the Judgment was handed on - Did they not inform the Court, and ask for another date? Did the Judge deny MCMC's application and proceed to hand down judgment for MCMC? As a lawyer myself, I would have informed the Court of Murray's situation and applied for another date giving Murray the opportunity to attend the Malaysian Court - and always wanting a FAIR Trial where Murray will be able to attend court and fight this case - I would prefer a Court Judgment on the merits handed down by Court after hearing both parties.
The government, the Minister of Communication and MCMC must know how the Judgment is being reported (or seen) by the media and the public who most will reasonably believe that it is a judgment after the court heard both parties - based also on MCMC's reported media assertions as reported in media...
Some Plaintiffs may not bother as it is positive for them - but in this case, that Plaintiff is the Government of Malaysia, more so the Ministry of Communication' when the Plaintiff is MCMC - whose DUTY is also monitoring media and is duty bound to correct FALSE/FAKE news or even misrepresentations in the media - so, the FAILURE of the Minister of Communication, also the spokesperson for this government, where MCMC is a Commission under the said Minister - it is VERY DIFFERENT - they should have ensured that only the TRUTH is circulated, and actively correct any statement that give people the wrong idea..
I wonder whether Murray Hunter now can sue the government, the Minister and maybe even MCMC for this FALSE/FAKE news OR misrepresentation possibly for Defamatory or something else??
Would the Criminal Court in Thailand been affected by the said misrepresentation if the case had proceeded? [Now there is some settlement, and the case is no more - yet again the details of that settlement is not made public in the Ministry's or the MCMC's website - why? Government must be TRANSPARENT.]
I acknowledge that my comments and articles about MCMC and its related persons can be read as inaccurate, misleading, and have led to misunderstandings.“I therefore apologise and regret if such actions caused any damage to MCMC and/or related persons, and I hereby fully retract all such comments and articles in their entirety.
Perusing the words of the settlement 'damages to MCMC and/or related persons' - Who are this related persons?
Did MCMC sue in Malaysia because of wrong did to MCMC, or because wrong was done to other persons?
When MCMC commences legal action in Malaysia(or in Thailand) - who pays for it - the Malaysian government meaning the Malaysian people? If certain individuals also benefited, or got MCMC to take action - who were these persons, and should not they BEAR their own cost when they went after Murray Hunter? Since, the 'wordings' talks about related persons - the question naturally arises as to who is the these 'related persons'? Are they members of the Commission who decided that MCMC goes after Murray - when if they have a 'personal interest', should they have not stayed out from MCMC decision making process of actions to be taken against Murray Hunter - that would have been the right way.
Who filed the report in Thailand on behalf of MCMC? Who signed the 'settlement agreement' on behalf of MCMC? Does the law allow MCMC to delegate its power/authority to some individual? Was it an MCMC Commissioner or a person authorized by the Communication Minister.
From the media report - it seems like Murray Hunter did not say the assertions were FALSE - all he said was that some could be '...read as inaccurate, misleading, and have led to misunderstandings...'. YES - he apologized and retract the comments and articles - BUT, I believe, that rightly all the said allegations have still to be INVESTIGATED THOROUGHLY - and if there is any subtance or truth, action even criminal prosecution have to be taken still - do not just 'sweep it under the carpet'.
Who should investigate? It cannot be MCMC - maybe a Parliamentary Select Committee. MCMC also should be put under EAIC, as it now seems to be not under the jurisdiction of EAIC. How can people complain about MCMC to MCMC - best if such complains be addressed to some other - maybe the EAIC - Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission
Maybe we should look at Murray's writings, especially what MCMC complained as being defamatory to MCMC - and consider whether there are things that ought to be investigated irrespective whether Murray and MCMC had come to any settlement about the case...
See also
Malaysia Must Withdraw Government SLAPP action against HRD Murray Hunter in Thailand’s Criminal Court (44 Groups)
PM Anwar MURRAY HUNTER's criminal case/MCMC - RESPECT Sovereignity, Constitution and Malaysian Laws > Stop MCMC from using Thai Criminal Courts and Laws against Murray Hunter for crimes against MCMC
Murray-MCMC 'SCANDAL'??? -Miscommunication/Misrepresentation by Fahmi's Communication Ministry? Judgment in Default or Judgment after trial? TRUTH please
Will Malaysia file a police report in Thailand,etc against Bloomberg, like it did for Murray Hunter? Have the allegations against Anwar, MACC, etc been INVESTIGATED yet? Will a civil suit be commenced...?
Anwar & MADANI - stop violating our right to freedom of expression, freedom to communicate with others, and FREEDOM to have a different view from PM Anwar and the TRUTH? The Murray Hunter saga...
MCMC: Court ruling against Australian blogger Murray Hunter underscores legal boundaries of online expression
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 16 — The Shah Alam High Court’s ruling finding Murray Victor Hunter liable for defamation in a suit brought by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) reaffirms that free speech is not an absolute right; it must be exercised responsibly and is contingent upon legal boundaries.
In a statement today, MCMC said the judgment serves as a clear legal precedent that the right to express opinions does not confer a license to make false, malicious, or defamatory statements that harm the reputation of others.
“MCMC therefore initiated this legal action to protect its institutional reputation and uphold the principles of accountability, integrity, and responsible communication within the digital ecosystem,” it said.
According to MCMC, Hunter had published a series of articles containing false and defamatory statements against the commission between April and November 2024, which carried serious and unfounded allegations that misled the public and damaged its reputation.Earlier, MCMC stated that police reports had been lodged in Malaysia and Thailand in April and June 2024 over these publications. - Malay Mail, 16/10/2025
Murray Hunter apologises, retracts articles on MCMC to settle legal dispute
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 14 — Thai-based political commentator Murray Hunter has issued a public apology and fully retracted a series of articles about the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) as part of a settlement agreement with the regulator.
The apology follows a period of legal action against Hunter.
In October 2025, the High Court in Shah Alam found him liable for defamation in a civil suit brought by the MCMC.
Weeks earlier, he had been arrested by Thai authorities acting on the MCMC’s complaint, and was later charged there with criminal defamation over the same matter.
In a public apology published on his Substack page yesterday, Hunter acknowledged the impact of his writings.
“I acknowledge that my comments and articles about the MCMC and its related persons can be read to be inaccurate, misleading and have led to misunderstandings,” he wrote.
“I therefore apologise and regret if such actions caused any damage to the MCMC and/or related persons, and I hereby fully retract all such comments and articles in their entirety,” he added.
The retraction covers several articles published between April and November 2024, which the MCMC had deemed false and defamatory.
The commission had lodged police reports in both Malaysia and Thailand, claiming the publications contained serious and unfounded allegations that damaged its reputation. - Malay Mail, 14/1/2025
Posts
