Are we promoting SILENCE, and a culture of not criticizing the PM and the government?
I expected that Anwar Ibrahim and the Pakatan Harapan will be better when it comes to freedom of expression and opinion, but sadly it has not been the case it seems, according to my opinion, he/they simply want praises, not criticisms. Confused or wrong statements - simply clarify..not sue for defamation or file police reports on criminal defamation.
When someone says something about Anwar, sadly his response on occasions have been by the commencement of defamation suits - when being the Prime Minister, he definitely has the media's attention as such it is most likely going to be reported if he issues a statement clarifying the misapprehension of peoples.
So, he could simply issue his own statement highlighting what he considers FALSE, and give his answers and the people will hear.
Simply because you sue, or make a police report does not mean what was uttered by another is WRONG. Only statements and proof of errors will do. That is what the people want
A defamation suit, on the other hand, is decided by 1 Judge, or more if there are appeals > and, honestly people may or may not believe or rely on court judgments.
After all, Anwar Ibrahim himself contests the correctness of the various court judgments that found him be convicted for corruption/abuse of power and sodomy. Note, the courts to date has NOT OVERTURNED Anwar's convictions on the corruption and the sodomy charge.
The law on PARDONS does not give the King or Rulers the power to say that a Court's conviction is wrong. But some seem to say otherwise, and in my opinion this is MISLEADING -
“One of the big concerns in Southeast Asia is that defamation laws tend to be used by rich and powerful individuals, often to suppress commentary from poor and weaker groups and individuals in the region,” Tapsell tells TIME.
Now, defamation suits are TOOLS of the RICH and the Powerful against the ordinary person, NGOs and Media. It COST a lot. About 2 decades ago, one law firm for just consultation charged RM70,000, and to take and handle the case, which can be dragged on for long time can cost between RM100,000 or even much more. Worse, Malaysian Courts have been awarding LARGE SUMS in damages, and even cost. The above average ordinary Malaysians earn about RM2,000 - RM3,000, and the RISK of being sued and ending up paying a HIGH DAMAGE and High COST results in a DETERENCE to the exercising of one's Freedom of Expression and/or Opinion.
A person will express what he thinks or knows - and he is not a lawyer, so it is easy for anyone to be sued for defamation.
In defamation suits, often the Defendant SETTLES - apologizes, etc...Why? Because he simply has no capacity financially or otherwise to continue the fight in court..This happened in the case involving Perak PAS Commissioner Razman Zakaria
The defamation suit filed by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim against Perak PAS Commissioner Razman Zakaria was resolved amicably today with the latter making a public apology to the prime minister in the Taiping High Court today. Anwar had filed the suit against Razman over a speech that allegedly linked the prime minister, who is also Pakatan Harapan (PH) chairman, with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) culture.
Razman, in reading out his statement of apology before Judicial Commissioner Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin, said his speech had offended and slandered Anwar.
“The (content) speech has morally tarnished and affected the good reputation of Yang Amat Berhomat (Anwar) as well as caused him embarrassment and distress.
“I take this opportunity to retract all the slander and accusations thrown at Yang Amat Berhomat and express my deepest regret and apology. I promise not to repeat the words in any form in the future,“ he said.
Now, “I take this opportunity to retract all the slander and accusations thrown at Yang Amat Berhomat... Why did he retract all accusations? Some may be valid and others baseless...Now, what exactly was the statement made by Razman Zakaria?
This strategy of defamation suits have been used against people protesting certain corporations and/or their actions. Also the media - end result today is that in most media reports where workers are fighting for their rights, OR where there was an industrial accident - the NAME of the factory/company is simply not mentioned.
Lynas and many other companies have used DEFAMATION SUITS, now called Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP suit)
In Malaysia, corporations have used it against ordinary people and human rights defenders. Some examples of this are :-
* Raub Australian Gold Mining (RAGM) filing three defamation suits against three members of the Ban Cyanide Action Group (BCAC), which has been critical of the company's gold mining in Bukit Koman, Raub, Pahang. - BCAC's chairperson Wong Kim Hoong, vice-chairperson Hue Shieh Lee, and secretary Hue Fui How.(Malaysiakini, 8/9/2013)
* In April 2012 Australian rare earths miner Lynas Corporation (ASX:LYC), has filed a defamation action against Malaysian protestors and opponents over their criticism of the company's rare earth plant (LAMP), which will process ores shipped from Western Australia.According to Brisbane Times, Lynas action at the Kuala Lumpur High Court targets mainly independent media Free Malaysia Today and blog-based opinionated opposition group Stop Lynas’s (SMSL) directors and committee members over an open letter published on the group’s web site
Lynas Corporation Ltd and Lynas Malaysia Sdn Bhd sued FMT’s parent company, MToday News Sdn Bhd, claiming that the article “Lynas Must Go” dated March 6 also contained “false”, “damaging” and “defamatory” statements.-Nurul,Najib,... if you are for Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Opinion, HR Defenders, Press Freedom... - Withdraw Defamation Suits?
An apology to Lynas Corp Ltd
Re: Lynas Corporation Ltd & Anor v Mtoday News Sdn Bhd
Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No 23 NCVC-52-04-2012
We refer to the articles previously published by us which claim that the Lynas plant may be unsafe. We apologise for these publications as such claims do not have a scientific basis. The regulatory review of the Lynas plant has been thorough and diligent.MToday’s counsel, Rueben Mathiavaranam, told reporters that as part of terms of the settlement, Lynas withdrew the suit and the defendant gave the undertaking not to publish any more anti-Lynas statements.
[ http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/07/17/an-apology-to-lynas-corp-ltd/#ixzz21omXEMfv ]
What, who is Mtoday to say 'The regulatory review of the
Lynas plant has been thorough and diligent...? So, after this MToday cannot any more report on any anti-Lynas statements???? So, what about the ROLE and duty of the MEDIA - they are supposed to report on the views of the people - but now they only can report of pro-LYNAS matters?
GERAK makes it 28 Groups that say Azam Baki and Pahang Government must not sue HRDs - SLAPPs?
FEAR makes media fail its duties and/or be seen as anti-Human Rights and even Democracy?
Anwar Ibrahim and other politicians against Press Freedom? High awards of damages for defamation should be abolished?
Reports lodged against trio for alleged criminal defamation against Anwar
PUTRAJAYA: The Prime Minister's Office today lodged police reports against three people for alleged criminal defamation against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim over his residence and vehicle.
The reports were lodged by the prime minister's political secretary, Ahmad Farhan Fauzi, at the district police headquarters.
He named Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia information committee member Badrul Hisham Shaharin, better known as "Chegubard", Bersatu supreme council member Datuk Wan Saiful Wan Jan and blogger Raggie Jessy Rithaudeen.
Farhan claimed all three had made statements which had criminally defamed Anwar on social media.
He claimed that several days ago, at a ceramah in Jerlun, Kedah, Wan Saiful had defamed the prime minister over the same issue.
On Tuesday, Badrul had lodged a report with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission over Anwar's residence in Sungai Long, Kajang.
He had urged MACC to investigate the prime minister as he claimed that the house was actually owned by a "mysterious Chinese towkay".
Speaking to the media after lodging the report, Badrul had also brought up the issue of a luxury car used by Anwar, which he had claimed was not owned by the Pakatan Harapan chairman and PKR president.
Farhan said he had also lodged a report against Badrul for breaking MACC laws by revealing the contents of his report to the commission which had defamed the prime minister.
"The statements made by certain irresponsible parties are baseless, malicious and politically-motivated," he told reporters outside the district police headquarters, accompanied by Anwar's lawyer, Datuk Sankara Nair.
Farhan said he had solid proof that Badrul's claims were false.
The proof, he said, would be handed over to police for investigation.
Meanwhile, district police chief Assistant Commissioner A. Asmadi Abdul Aziz confirmed that the reports had been lodged.- NST, 13/7/2023
Anwar files defamation suit against Sanusi’s ‘immoral character’ inference
The prime minister says the Kedah MB’s remarks damaged his reputation.
Share
Tweet
Share
Email
PETALING JAYA: Anwar Ibrahim has filed a defamation suit against Kedah menteri besar Sanusi Md Nor for allegedly insinuating he was immoral.
In the suit filed by Messrs S N Nair & Partners at the Alor Setar High Court, Anwar, the prime minister is seeking damages for slander and/or libel against Sanusi for damaging his reputation.
Sanusi allegedly made the remarks in a speech ahead of the general election. Subsequently, a video of the speech was posted on Facebook.
On Nov 17, Anwar demanded that Sanusi immediately retract his remarks. However, Sanusi said a day later that he would not apologise and was ready to face Anwar in court.
Anwar is also seeking an injunction against Sanusi from uttering, writing, publishing or distributing the impugned remarks that are deemed defamatory.
The contents of Sanusi’s speech were also reported in the media.
In the statement of claim, Anwar alleged that Sanusi implied that he had abused his powers as an MP, was deceitful, a traitor, a hypocrite and not a good Muslim.
Anwar said the previous Yang di-Pertuan Agong granted him a full pardon on June 16, 2018, for his three convictions – one for abuse of power and two for sodomy – on the basis that there was a “miscarriage of justice”.
He said the pardon was also granted on the basis that there was a conspiracy to destroy his character. - FMT, 13/12/2022
U.S. Politicians Are Rarely Sued for Defamation. In Malaysia, It’s a Regular Occurrence
A federal jury in New York on Tuesday found former President Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll in the 1990s and for defaming Carroll by branding her a liar after her allegation was made public in 2019. The jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million in total damages, a decision he says he plans to appeal.
In the U.S., it’s rare for a politician—let alone a former President—to be sued for defamation. Politicians make false claims all the time, especially about opponents in the heat of campaigns. But when it comes to statements made about public figures, the First Amendment and legal precedent set a high bar for proving “actual malice” and “reckless disregard of the truth.” The costs of taking a defamation case to court, combined with the low chance of success for relatively little reward anyway, have proved a reliable deterrent. On the other hand, Trump, who is campaigning once again for the presidency, has actually mused about “opening up” American libel laws to make it easier for politicians like him to go after critics.
What might such a system look like? In many ways, it’s what’s already happening in Malaysia, where it’s almost rare for a high-profile politician not to be embroiled in a defamation case.
Just last week, the country’s former Prime Minister sued the current Prime Minister—entangling two of the most prominent political figures in the Southeast Asian nation of 33 million people. On May 3, 97-year-old Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia’s longest-serving leader, filed a 150 million Malaysian ringgit ($33.8 million) defamation suit against his longtime political foe, incumbent Anwar Ibrahim over comments Anwar made in a March 2021 press conference. Anwar had implied that Mahathir used his former perch to enrich himself and his family, which Mahathir denied. Anwar made the allegation before last year’s general elections, in which Mahathir would ultimately suffer his first electoral defeat in 53 years and Anwar would take the country’s top office. Mahathir claims Anwar’s comments marred his reputation as a respected statesman.
“Let the lawyers handle it,” Anwar reportedly said in response to the lawsuit, according to the state news agency.
It’s not the first defamation case involving the two, and not even the first against a sitting Prime Minister in Malaysia. Mahathir’s latest legal action is just one of several defamation suits involving high-profile politicians in the country. In fact, an analysis by TIME finds that every Malaysian Prime Minister since 2009 has faced at least one such complaint at some point in their career, often lodged by political opponents.
Many Malaysian politicians argue that defamation lawsuits are their only recourse against people who spread disinformation about them, though Ross Tapsell, associate professor and director of the Malaysia Institute at Australian National University, says defamation laws are commonly used to silence critics.
“One of the big concerns in Southeast Asia is that defamation laws tend to be used by rich and powerful individuals, often to suppress commentary from poor and weaker groups and individuals in the region,” Tapsell tells TIME. He points to the judicial inequity in the country, noting that it’s rare to hear of defamation cases between members of the Malaysian general public. As for the lawsuits that do occur, he says—even if they’re contested between two members of government—they create a chilling effect that supplements the already stringent laws against freedom of speech in the country.
How Malaysia’s defamation laws work
In Malaysia, defamation can be prosecuted as a civil or criminal offense. Civil defamation is punishable by law under the Defamation Act of 1957, while criminal defamation is covered by Sections 499 to 502 of the country’s Penal Code. Those convicted of criminal defamation may be fined or imprisoned for up to two years, whereas successful civil claims can result in the awarding of financial damages and, in some cases, formal retractions and apologies.
Guok Ngek Seong, a lawyer who has handled defamation cases in Malaysia, says “any statement which has the tendency to bring down a reputation of the person, usually, from the eyes of a reasonable person” can be considered defamatory. Most politicians take the civil route, Guok says, which he believes is wise.
“You may as well try to vindicate yourself through civil action rather than criminal,” Guok says. With criminal cases, he reasons, “you are also basically wasting the taxpayers’ money by asking the authorities to investigate the case, which could have been settled by way of a civil case.”
Guok says defamation suits can serve to vindicate those whose image has been unjustly impugned. But he laments that it’s become too common a recourse for Malaysian public figures of late. “Gone were the days that the politicians took filing defamation suits against any party especially the[ir] political opponents as something serious,” he tells TIME. “They should be taking responsibilities if they lose the defamation suit commenced by them,” he says, but instead, regarding that aspect at least, some appear “thick-skinned.”
There are limits, however. For one, defamation only applies to living individuals. And for its part, Guok notes, the Federal Court held in a ruling last year that political parties, as an entity, do not have any reputation to protect.
Still, Tapsell says, with Malaysia’s defamation laws, it’s becoming “very common to see that politicians will use the courts in order to get what they want … or even to threaten to use the courts can be enough in some cases.”
Here are just some of the publicized defamation cases involving—on one end or the other—the most recent Malaysian Prime Ministers.
Najib Razak (Prime Minister, 2009-2018)
Since 2015, Najib Razak has been locked in litigation with lawmaker Tony Pua over comments the latter made linking Najib to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal. Najib’s 2015 suit against Pua is believed to be the first case of a sitting Prime Minister suing a lawmaker for defamation in Malaysia.
Najib is also due in court for a couple of defamation cases. In 2021, he became the defendant when former health minister Dzulkefly Ahmad took issue with a Facebook post he made that accused Dzulkefly of nepotism and cronyism. That case will go to trial in June 2024. Also in 2021, Najib sued former Attorney General Tommy Thomas over statements in the latter’s book that allegedly overstate Najib’s ties to the 2006 murder of Mongolian Altantuya Sharibuu. That trial begins in September.
And just last year, Najib said he had sued Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin, a former deputy minister and current senior political secretary to Prime Minister Anwar, over allegedly false details in a post on Facebook about Najib’s role in the 1MDB scandal.
Najib was voted out in 2018 over the 1MDB scandal. More than 40 charges were filed against Najib for corruption, and he was convicted of several charges and sentenced after losing on appeal to 12 years last August, while a separate but related $436-million trial remains underway.
Mahathir Mohamad (2018-2020)
Anwar, after being sacked as Mahathir’s former deputy prime minister during the latter’s first term from 1981-2003, filed a suit in 1999 against his mentor for slander. The case was based on Mahathir’s September 1998 statements on Anwar’s alleged sexual misconduct that prompted his firing that year. Anwar claimed 100 Malaysian ringgit ($26 million) in damages, but the case was dismissed. He was eventually charged with sodomy twice. Anwar was convicted for the first but Malaysia’s federal court overturned the ruling, and Malaysia’s King Sultan Muhammad V pardoned him in 2018 for the second.
Anwar filed another suit against Mahathir in 2006 similar to his 1999 one, in hopes of getting even with his former mentor. The case was based on comments Mahathir made in September 2005, alleging that Anwar was gay and that his orientation could be a threat to Malaysians should he become Prime Minister. The case was dismissed in 2007.
Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, president of Mahathir’s former political party United Malays National Organization (UMNO), filed a defamation case against Mahathir in 2022. Zahid’s suit was based on Mahathir’s statements that Zahid sought to have his dozens of corruption-related court cases dropped by being friendly with Mahathir. Mahathir filed a separate defamation suit against Zahid for remarks over his ethnicity. As of April 2023, a High Court official has suggested an out-of-court settlement for the two cases.
On May 3, Mahathir filed a suit against Anwar for alluding in a speech at a March 2021 political event that a former leader—who remained unnamed though Anwar mentioned his two stints as Prime Minister for “22 years and (another) 22 months”—had used his post to amass wealth.
Muhyiddin Yassin (2020-2021)
Former Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin is involved in two ongoing defamation cases filed against him. In 2022, Anwar, as sitting Prime Minister, sued Muhyiddin over statements he made in December 2021 about Anwar making a large salary as a local government adviser. And last March, former finance minister Lim Guan Eng lodged a complaint accusing Muhyiddin of maligning him three times by repeating an allegedly false claim about Lim revoking the tax exemption status given to a renowned Muslim charitable organization.
Ismail Sabri Yaakob (2021-2022)
In 2015, former lawmaker Nurul Izzah Anwar sued Ismail Sabri Yaakob, then rural and regional development minister, and the Inspector-General of Police for statements that painted her as a traitor to Malaysia. Ismail Sabri and his co-accused ended up having to pay Nurul 850,000 ringgit ($193,000) in damages in 2019. Losing the case, however, didn’t stop Ismail Sabri from becoming Prime Minister a few years later.
In 2022, amid a shake-up in Malaysia’s parliament, Ismail Sabri filed a suit against former UMNO supreme council member Lokman Adam. Lokman had said on a video posted to social media that Ismail Sabri met with opposition party leaders, and let down his own party’s interests in order to try to stay in power. As of January, Ismail Sabri obtained an injunction to take down the video, and Lokman has in turn filed his own counterclaim against Ismail Sabri, alleging that he’s suffered as a result of the original case.
Anwar Ibrahim (2022-)
Then Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan sued Anwar for a police report Anwar produced in July 2008 that alluded to Musa and the police fabricating evidence to cover up Anwar’s beating in 1998. In 2012, Musa withdrew the case.
In 2022, Anwar filed a suit against lawmaker Sanusi Nor for remarks that suggested he was of immoral character, had abused power as an MP, and was not “a good Muslim.” Anwar claims that his 2018 full pardon had cleared his reputation.
Correction, June 9
The original version of this story misspelled a lawyer’s name. It is Guok Ngek Seong, not Guok Ngek Song. - Time, 8/6/2023
KUALA LUMPUR: The defamation suit filed by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim against Perak PAS Commissioner Razman Zakaria was resolved amicably today with the latter making a public apology to the prime minister in the Taiping High Court today.
Anwar had filed the suit against Razman over a speech that allegedly linked the prime minister, who is also Pakatan Harapan (PH) chairman, with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) culture.
Razman, in reading out his statement of apology before Judicial Commissioner Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin, said his speech had offended and slandered Anwar.
“The (content) speech has morally tarnished and affected the good reputation of Yang Amat Berhomat (Anwar) as well as caused him embarrassment and distress.
“I take this opportunity to retract all the slander and accusations thrown at Yang Amat Berhomat and express my deepest regret and apology. I promise not to repeat the words in any form in the future,“ he said.
The court then recorded the settlements that were agreed by both parties. Anwar was represented by lawyers Datuk S. N. Nair, Jaden Phoon Wai Ken and Wong Guo Jin, while lawyer Datuk Naran Singh represented Razman.
Nair, when contacted by Bernama, confirmed the matter and said that his client accepted the apology.
Anwar filed the suit on Dec 5 last year, 2022, claiming that on Nov 6, the defendant had made a speech while campaigning in the 15th general election at Tebuk Pancur night market.
He claimed the speech was broadcast live on the defendant’s Facebook under the user name “Haji Razman Zakaria” and was viewed over 94,400 times, received over 5,100 reactions, 429 shares and over 2,600 comments.
The Facebook video was then published in an article, with the title “Razman dakwa Anwar bawa agenda LGBT, bimbang kerjasama PH-BN” dated Nov 6 in Malay and English in a news portal.
The Tambun MP claimed that the defamatory statements and published article brought the meaning that he was a liar, practiced and supported communist ideology and encouraged same-gender marriage.
Anwar also claimed that the defamatory statements were made to ruin his reputation and that the allegations stated in the article were untrue as he had always championed Islamic values and a wider reformation agenda for administration.
He said the speech was intended to tarnish his good name by inciting the public and creating hatred towards him and the party during the GE15 campaign period.
He was seeking
general, compensatory, aggravated and exemplary damages as well as an
injunction to stop the defendant or his agents from repeating or causing
the publication of the slanderous article in addition to claiming
costs, interest and other relief deemed fit by the court. - Bernama - The SUN Daily, 9/2/2023
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s defamation suit against former Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin has been set for nine days in August next year.
The Tambun MP’s counsel Sankara Nair today confirmed that the High Court in Kuala Lumpur set the hearing dates on Aug 5 to 7, Aug 12 to 14, and Aug 26 to 28 in 2024.
The Harapan chairperson’s lawyer adds that the civil court had directed all parties to file interlocutory applications by June 15 this year and that the matter is set for further case management on June 21.
Sankara was speaking after case management of the civil action before Judicial Commissioner Roz Mawar Rozain earlier this afternoon.
Muhyiddin was represented by counsel Chetan Jethwani and Ivy Shu.
Lawyer Jaden Phoon Wai also appeared for the PKR president. On Dec 20 last year, Anwar filed a defamation action against Perikatan Nasional (PN) over the allegation that the former received RM15 million for serving as Selangor’s economic adviser.
The plaintiff claimed the defendant defamed him via a statement purportedly made during the PN grand finale ceramah on Dec 5 last year.
In his statement of defence filed on Jan 17 this year, Muhyiddin claimed, among others, that Anwar, as prime minister, should not be offended by legitimate criticism and queries during political speeches.
In his reply filed against Pagoh MP’s defence, Anwar countered that the defendant should have known better than to inflame voter sentiment with allegedly malicious and defamatory statements. - Malaysiakini, 22/5/2023
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment