A Judgment in Default of Appearance or in Default of Defence is a very different from a Judgment after full trial, where the Judge makes a decision after considering evidence and arguments of both sides.
A Judgment in Default, on the other hand, is technical in nature, because the Defendant failed to appear or file his/her Statement of Defence, and there was no full trial.
It seems like the MCMC's case against Murray Hunter was merely a Judgment in Default... but sadly media reports including BERNAMA report, which makes reference to MCMC statements is vague - also no mention of name of Judge, no mention of name of Federal Counsel(or lawyer) representing MCMC, and whether Murray Hunter was represented or not. WHY? No mention whether it a Judgment after TRIAL or not. I checked the MCMC website, and saw no MCMC statement referred to in some media reports.
In a statement, MCMC said the court’s finding reaffirmed its position that while individuals are free to express opinions, “such freedom must be exercised responsibly and within the bounds of the law”. “The right of speech does not extend to the making of false, malicious, or defamatory statements that harm the reputation of others,” it added. - High Court finds Murray Hunter liable for defamation - FMT, 16/10/2025
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. - BERNAMA, Malay Mail, 16/10/2025
VERY ODD - because Murray Hunter is stuck in Thailand - and now released on Bail, with his Passport taken - so, how exactly could he even attend the Court in Shah Alam. WORSE, he was arrested in Thailand because of a MCMC report..that led the Thai authorities to arrest Murray... In short, Murray Hunter cannot leave Thailand to attend the Shah Alam Court - and because what MCMC did...
On 29 September, the Thai authorities detained Murray Hunter, an Australian journalist, at Suvarnabhumi Airport at about 7:30 a.m. as he prepared to depart for Hong Kong...After being held at Yannawa Police Station for 48 hours, he was released on bail of 20,000 baht. “I’m tired from a night on the floor in jail,” he said after being released. His passport has been confiscated, preventing him from leaving Thailand. He was required to report to the court periodically, with the next appointment scheduled for 17 November. - Prachathai English, 9/10/2025
In such a situation, No good JUDGE will proceed with the case, knowing of Murray's predicament - the Judge will REASONABLY just adjourn to another the case to another date ... so, why did the High Court proceed and give such a Judgment?
Did MCMC lawyers (or Government Lawyers, possibly Federal Counsels) fail to inform the Judge/Court of this fact - and ask the Courts to fix another date so that Murray had a reasonable choice and ABILITY to attend court. In such cases, no one, especially lawyers and Judges, would want to proceed and make a Judgment knowing that the Defendant cannot at present easily leave Thailand, even if he knew of the Court date.
Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil, please LOOK into this matter immediately and CLARIFY.
# MCMC should know it cannot or JUSTLY make conclusion based on a Court Judgement in Default - which is very different from a Judgment after trial, where the Judge had the opportunity to consider all relevant facts and opinions - Was it MISREPRESENTATION? Was it a DECEPTION to the say that the Court's Judgment affirms MCMC position?
## MCMC said the court’s finding reaffirmed its position that while individuals are free to express opinions, “such freedom must be exercised responsibly and within the bounds of the law”. “The right of speech does not extend to the making of false, malicious, or defamatory statements that harm the reputation of others,” it added.
## 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.
A 'clear legal precedent' - as a lawyer, this is nonsense - a Judgment in Default, unlike a Judgment after a fair trial, will not be a 'legal precedent', in my opinion.
So, did the Communication Ministry, who should be TRUTHFUL and HONEST do wrong here...
Note, that according a media report, Murray allegedly did not even know about this Civil Suit, and was never served the papers...Mmm interesting
ACADEMIC and political commentator Murray Victor Hunter said he was shocked to learn of the civil suit by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) against him..."I have never served any documents and only learnt about the matter today when a friend informed me. - Vibes, 16/10/2025
Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil, please LOOK into this matter immediately and CLARIFY.
If it was just a Judgment in Default, then I call on the Minister to instruct MCMC to apply to court to set aside the said Judgment in Default...
Did what MCMC do a crime? A government entity must never disclose 'false information' or information which have a tendency to mislead, or give a wrong impression to the public' - it should be a CRIME - enact such a law if there is none now.The government or government entity must always speak the TRUTH - and so even 'insufficient truth' which can lead to a misunderstanding of the Public is wrong.
In this case, MCMC should have been totally HONEST - and tell everyone that the Judgment was not a judgment after TRIAL, but a Judgment in Default only - because maybe the Defendant did not enter appearance, or did not enter Statement of Defence.
MCMC and the Government should never have proceeded with even a Judgment in Default, when it is aware that the Defendant is overseas, and more importantly he cannot leave Thailand to come to Malaysia because he was barred from traveling since his passport was retained by court. Was even Murray informed of the trial date - and the consequence of his failure to attend?
As it is, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's MADANI government has been disappointing including in the issue of FREEDOM of Expression and Opinion, Press Freedom and our right to be able to freely communicate and share with one other.
No good government, especially a democratic government, must fear CRITICISMS or other views of people...
Malaysia has been allegedly blocking posts/comments of Malaysia, sometimes without even the person who posted knowing that it was the Malaysian governments doing - leading many to believe that it was some social media platform actions on their own. Even Anwar Ibrahim's post was once blocked by FB - and the government made 'big noise' - do the Malaysian government also act the same way if it some ordinary citizen who had his/her post blocked..
Of late, there is also allegations that have arisen of the attempt to 'falsify' public perception by wrongly giving the impression that MANY support the PM and this government... professional astroturfing – a campaign designed to create a false impression of grassroots support - where a small organised set of actors tries to create the appearance of broad grassroots support
A Malaysiakini investigation has uncovered a network of at least 263 accounts engaging in a coordinated campaign to artificially boost support for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim on his official Facebook page. - Malaysiakini, 30/9/2025
### Not the 1st time - '...The discovery comes two years after Meta removed a separate, 600-account network engaged in pro-government manipulation, which it linked to the police...While the two networks operated under different administrations, and the police have denied involvement, the findings suggest that the use of coordinated inauthentic tactics to shape political discourse in Malaysia persists...' - Was this then also after Anwar Ibrahim became Prime Minister?
NOW, this should be a SERIOUS CRIME - especially when government and/or politicians manipulate public perception - by giving the impression that there is much public support for the government - when in reality it may be otherwise. The government must make this a CRIME - and even the PM and Government should be liable to be prosecuted for such crimes...
Will Fahmi have the courage to investigate and prosecute PM Anwar Ibrahim for this crime? Or is it acceptable behavior as far as this MADANI government is concerned.
Manipulation of PUBLIC PERCEPTION happens by such 'professional astroturfing' - use of people to post pro-government comments, and by the removal or blocking of anti-government or Anwar comments (be it by direct actions of the State, or by compelling/'forcing') social media providers to remove or even block accounts - ALL MUST STOP - the freedom of expression/opinion and the freedom of the press must always be respected by any democratic government especially...
Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil, have you INVESTIGATED and prosecuted this wrong or 'crime' YET? IS IT NOT A CRIME FOR ANWAR AND/OR OTHER PERSONS TO MANIPULATE PUBLIC PERCEPTION THIS WAY - an answer by the Minister would be appreciated..
Back to Murray Hunter - it was wrong for MCMC or Malaysia to make police reports in Thailand, and compel Thailand to act against persons who 'criticized' MCMC or Malaysia - Malaysia should have just tried to get Thailand to 'deport' or extradict any such person to be charged and tried in Malaysia for crimes/wrongs committed in Malaysia.
A government or government agency especially should never have done that - it maybe OK for individual persons to file reports elsewhere..
I wonder, whether Malaysia may even one day file report about some person have a critical comment/opinion about the King or Rulers of Malaysia in Thailand - hoping that Thailand uses its draconian lese majeste laws against them. NEVER do that, only use the Malaysian laws for such cases...
The arrest of Murray Hunter in Bangkok over a Malaysian defamation case underscores Southeast Asia’s growing trend of cross-border political crackdowns.
On 29 September, the Thai authorities detained Murray Hunter, an Australian journalist, at Suvarnabhumi Airport at about 7:30 a.m. as he prepared to depart for Hong Kong.
According to Asia Sentinel, Hunter was quoted as saying “I was shocked by what happened. I have not done anything wrong in Thailand.” As a political commentator and a former lecturer at the University Malaysia Perlis, he has been widely recognized for his criticism of Anwar Ibrahim’s Pakatan Harapan coalition government, notably for highlighting alleged corruption.
AP reported that “Hunter said one [summons] was delivered to his home when he was on an extended stay in another region of Thailand and the local police where he was staying advised him the copy forwarded to him by a neighbour appeared to be a scam.”
According to a set of police documents reviewed by Prachatai’s reporter, Hunter was charged with defamation over several Substack articles published in April and June 2024. The articles are now blocked in Malaysia. Investigators also stated that an article published on 21 June 2024 was posted from a hotel which Yannawa Police Station claims to be within its jurisdiction.
Thai authorities were granted power of attorney by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). The regulator confirmed it had filed police reports in both Malaysia and Thailand in 2024, and had also filed a separate civil lawsuit against Hunter in Malaysia.
Earlier this month, MCMC fined two media outlets 100,000 ringgit (770,000 baht) each for an incomplete depiction of the national flag and for allegedly publishing false information.
Hunter said that his troubles with the MCMC began early last year. In April 2024, the MCMC accused Hunter of making “slanderous postings” for alleging that the Commission had exceeded its authority, engaged in conflicts of interest, and spread fear among the public. The Commission denied all allegations as unfounded.
An arrest warrant (No. 404/2025) was issued by the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court on 27 March 2025, six months before his arrest at the airport. After being held at Yannawa Police Station for 48 hours, he was released on bail of 20,000 baht. “I’m tired from a night on the floor in jail,” he said after being released.
His passport has been confiscated, preventing him from leaving Thailand. He was required to report to the court periodically, with the next appointment scheduled for 17 November. The case remains under police investigation. If found guilty of defamation under Section 328 of the Criminal Code, he faces a maximum prison term of two years and a fine of 200,000 baht.
Hunter was arrested amid growing concerns over transnational repression of free speech, particularly in Southeast Asia, where increasing numbers of dissidents are deported back to their home countries. Lim Kim Ya, a Cambodian opposition politician, was shot dead in Thailand.
According to Asia Sentinel, “critics are comparing Hunter’s arrest to a May affair in which Malaysia cooperated in the return of Cambodian domestic worker Nuon Thoeun, who was deported back to her home country after she posted on social media criticizing Cambodian government leaders. Thailand itself returned four women and two men in 2024 to be charged by Cambodia with treason for posting social media statements criticizing Cambodian policies, and has returned other nationalities to China.”
The detention of Hunter “immediately sent jitters through the journalism fraternity,” said the outlet. “Thailand, particularly in Bangkok and Chiang Mai, has long been a regional home to foreign journalists for major news organizations reporting critically across the area, particularly on repression in Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar, which is locked in a bloody five-year civil war with rebels seeking a return to democracy.”
“It’s unbelievable. The police forces are working together to suppress free speech,” Hunter told Asia Sentinel. “The MCMC conned the Thai police to use criminal defamation on me. Now journalists in Thailand are not safe if third countries seek Thai assistance to prosecute people they don’t like.”
The Cross-Cultural Foundation (CrCF) issued a statement on Wednesday (8 October) saying that these charges are a severe violation of press freedom and freedom of expression, and that it shows a trend of Thai laws being used for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Hunter’s arrest could also be a case of transnational repression, where the government of a foreign country uses Thailand’s justice system to silence journalists and critics outside of their jurisdiction. Such action is a violation of fundamental human rights principles, which Thailand is obligated to protect. It could also affect international relations and damage Thailand’s reputation.
CrCF called on the Thai authorities to drop charges against Hunter, and to investigate whether the process of charging him was lawful. It also called on the Malaysian authorities to drop the complaint against Hunter and for both countries to end their attempts to use legal systems outside their jurisdictions to harass journalists.
The statement noted that extraditing Hunter to Malaysia could be against Thailand’s anti-torture and enforced disappearance act.
Thailand must also repeal the criminal defamation law to prevent it from being used for SLAPP and to ensure that freedom of expression is protected in line with international standards Prachathai, 9/10/2025.
MCMC suit: ‘It is unfair and pure victimisation’ – says Murray Hunter
The Shah Alam High Court had earlier found Hunter liable for defamation in a civil suit brought by MCMC.
Updated 22 hours ago · Published on 16 Oct 2025 4:08PM
ACADEMIC and political commentator Murray Victor Hunter said he was shocked to learn of the civil suit by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) against him.
Describing it as a 'slap action', Hunter said he had never received any documents related to the suit and that the action was beyond the MCMC's regulatory responsibilities.
"I have never served any documents and only learnt about the matter today when a friend informed me.
"At the moment I am facing a similar suit in another country and it my priority to fight that first," he told The Vibes.
The Shah Alam High Court had earlier found Hunter liable for defamation in a civil suit brought by MCMC.
The court ruled on 15 October 2025 that a series of articles authored by Hunter between April and November 2024 contained false and defamatory statements which seriously damaged the reputation of the MCMC.
The publications were found to include baseless allegations that misled the public and undermined confidence in the Commission, prompting the regulator to pursue legal action.
In a statement, the MCMC said the verdict affirms the principle that freedom of speech, while fundamental, must be exercised responsibly.
"It looks like this whole incident was done in secret and super-fast ... faster than any other court action in fact.
"I find it grossly unfair and liken it to pure victimisation," he said.
Hunter added that the MCMC had gone beyond the powers of a government agency. - October 16, 2025, Vibes
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.
MCMC said that Hunter, an Australian blogger based in Thailand, produced content that was accessible in Malaysia.
A civil suit was subsequently filed against him in Malaysia, and the court papers were served to him in Thailand.
Last month, he was arrested in Bangkok after failing to comply with summonses related to the case from Thai authorities. — Bernama, Malay Mail, 16/10/2025
High Court finds Murray Hunter liable for defamation
The political commentator had published a series of articles which MCMC deemed to be false and defamatory.
In a statement, MCMC said the court’s finding reaffirmed its position that while individuals are free to express opinions, “such freedom must be exercised responsibly and within the bounds of the law”.
“The right of speech does not extend to the making of false, malicious, or defamatory statements that harm the reputation of others,” it added.
According to MCMC, Hunter published a series of articles between April and November 2024 deemed to be false and defamatory of the country’s internet regulator.
MCMC lodged police reports in Malaysia and Thailand in relation to these publications which it said carried serious and unfounded allegations that misled the public and damaged the reputation of the commission.
The High Court’s ruling comes weeks after Hunter was arrested by Thai authorities as he was about to leave the country for a personal trip to Hong Kong.
The Australian, once a long-time resident of Malaysia, now stays in Thailand. He is known for his critical writings on Malaysian politics. - FMT, 16/10/2025
MCMC: Murray Hunter’s Bangkok arrest linked to ongoing Thai investigation
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 3 — The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) today said political commentator Murray Hunter was arrested in Bangkok last month for failing to cooperate with Thai authorities in an ongoing investigation initiated by the commission.
Hunter, an Australian citizen, was detained by Thai immigration at Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport on Sept 29 as he was about to depart for Hong Kong.
He was arrested under a warrant issued by a Bangkok court, jailed overnight, and later released on bail pending a future court appearance.
In a statement, MCMC confirmed it had lodged police reports against Hunter in both Malaysia and Thailand in April and June of last year regarding his publications about Malaysian institutions, including the commission itself, Free Malaysia Today reported.
A separate civil suit was also filed in Malaysia, with the legal papers served on him in Thailand.
MCMC said it understood that Hunter’s recent arrest was directly linked to his non-compliance with summonses issued by Thai authorities as part of their investigation.
“All matters relating to the arrest, potential offences, and possible charges fall under the jurisdiction of the Thai authorities,” MCMC stated.
“MCMC respects, and will abide by, the due process and decisions of the Thai justice system.” - Malay Mail, 3/10/2025
Summary
A Malaysiakini investigation finds a network of 263 Facebook accounts engaged in astroturfing to artificially boost support for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
The highly coordinated campaign, which uses shared phrases and a professional work schedule, includes an account of a state-level PKR Youth official.
Following the investigation, 76 accounts - including the high-priority ones - were removed or made inaccessible, though Anwar’s office denies involvement.
(Editor’s note: This article has been updated with a response from Meta.)
A Malaysiakini investigation has uncovered a network of at least 263 accounts engaging in a coordinated campaign to artificially boost support for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim on his official Facebook page.
The operation includes the Facebook account of Syukur Aiman Shukri, a state-level PKR Youth official.
The discovery comes two years after Meta removed a separate, 600-account network engaged in pro-government manipulation, which it linked to the police.
While the two networks operated under different administrations, and the police have denied involvement, the findings suggest that the use of coordinated inauthentic tactics to shape political discourse in Malaysia persists.
Experts who reviewed the findings said the patterns clearly indicate professional astroturfing – a campaign designed to create a false impression of grassroots support.
“(These patterns are) a strong indication of astroturfing, where a small organised set of actors tries to create the appearance of broad grassroots support,” said Nuurrianti Jalli, an expert on online propaganda at Oklahoma State University.
Over a three-month period, comments from this 263-account network comprised nearly one-quarter of all comments sampled by Malaysiakini from the prime minister's posts.
The shared script
The network relied on a shared script of pre-written phrases. These include generic praise like “bukti kerajaan Madani…” (proof that the Madani government is…) and specific talking points such as “gaji minima RM1,700” (RM1,700 minimum wage).
This tactic was designed to create an “illusion of consensus”, according to Ross Tapsell, an expert on Southeast Asian digital media at the Australian National University.
“If voters check the comments, they usually only read the first five to 10, and those comments form their opinion,” he said.
A professional operation
The evidence of coordination goes beyond shared text. The network's most revealing pattern is its work schedule.
An analysis of over 6,000 comments showed the network's activity consistently peaks during weekday afternoons and evenings, with sharp drops on weekends.
In stark contrast, authentic users show the opposite pattern, with their highest engagement occurring during evenings and on weekends.
A compartmentalised structure complemented this professional schedule.
A network analysis revealed the operation is organised into 27 distinct clusters of accounts that frequently post within the same 10-minute windows.
This cellular structure indicates that different groups are activated in coordinated pockets, rather than acting as a single, spontaneous mob.
Unsophisticated machine
While the evidence pointed to a professional and organised campaign, experts who reviewed the findings noted that the operation itself appeared to be of low quality.
A linguistic analysis found the accounts’ vocabulary to be significantly more repetitive and less diverse than that of authentic users on the page.
Benjamin Loh, a researcher who studies Malaysian cybertroopers, described the operation as “lazy and clearly lackadaisical”.
“Cybertroopers of yore... were far more adept at varying their posts,” Loh said, comparing the current network to more sophisticated operations that existed before 2018.
The PKR connection
After the data established the existence of this machine, further investigation identified one of its operators as Syukur, the communications director for the Perlis PKR Youth wing.
When contacted by Malaysiakini, Syukur denied being a “cybertrooper” and stated that he acted independently out of genuine support for his party's president.
“I am a party man, not a cybertrooper,” he said in a text message.
“I comment on my own because I am a party person and the prime minister is the party president, so when he does good things, I comment in support.”
However, Syukur's claim that he comments "on his own" is inconsistent with the on-platform data from his account.
The investigation found that Syukur's account used the same pre-written scripts as the wider network and engaged in rapid crossposting.
On July 23, for example, his account posted six comments on five different posts in under two minutes, using the network's signature phrases.
Furthermore, the data confirmed he was not acting in isolation. His account is a member of one of the 27 coordinated clusters, frequently posting in the same 10-minute windows as other network members.
These behaviours - using shared scripts and posting at around the same time with a larger network - are inconsistent with the spontaneous, individual support he described.
Denial and disappearance
The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) denied any knowledge of or involvement with the network, stating there is “no basis or necessity” to direct the MCMC to investigate.
In a response to Malaysiakini, the office confirmed that no taxpayer funds were used and stated that “neither the government, the party leadership, nor its youth wing has issued any directive or provided any funding for such an operation.”
The PMO attributed the activity to individuals exercising their freedom of expression.
However, evidence of shared scripts, professional work schedules, and a coordinated cluster structure contradict this explanation.
Furthermore, in the days following Malaysiakini's enquiries, a significant portion of the network was dismantled.
At least 76 of the 263 identified accounts (29 percent) were removed or made inaccessible.
The removals targeted the network's most important assets: 11 of the 13 high-priority accounts flagged in a dossier sent to Meta – including that of the PKR Youth official Syukur – were among those that vanished.
It remains unclear whether Meta removed the accounts or if the operators acted pre-emptively. Both possibilities point to inauthentic, coordinated activity.
‘Consequences for democracy’
Experts warned that such operations, regardless of their scale or sophistication, pose a risk to democratic discourse.
The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) warned such behaviour can “distort perceptions of public sentiment, drown out dissenting voices, and weaken the public's ability to engage meaningfully in debate”.
Nuurrianti echoes this view. “That has consequences for how citizens interpret online debate and for the health of democratic discourse,” she said.
In response to Malaysiakini’s queries, Meta emphasised it has policies in place to prevent coordinated inauthentic behaviour (CIB), but has yet to find signs of wrongdoing on Anwar’s Facebook page.
“At this time, our review has not found evidence of violations of our CIB policy related to the prime minister’s Facebook page,” a spokesperson said.
This is despite the dossier detailing specific instances where CIB accounts have engaged in rapid crossposting and commenting from a shared script, as well as examples where the accounts have misrepresented their identity to lend authority to their comments.
Part 2: Deception and data: Inside the investigation of pro-Anwar CIB network
Part 3: Experts: Systemic challenges enable persistent influence networks
Analysis by Koh Jun Lin. Additional reporting by B Nantha Kumar and Qistina Nadia Dzulqarnain.
Putrajaya has been urged to intervene and stop the MCMC from using public funds to file defamation suits against its critics, following the Shah Alam High Court’s ruling against Australian blogger Murray Hunter.
Former MACC chief commissioner Latheefa Koya argued that government agencies have “no business” suing members of the public over criticism, warning that such actions could have a chilling effect on free expression and public debate over the conduct of public institutions.
“They (MCMC) have to stop acting like they are a private person whose feelings are wounded by criticism.
“If the people in charge of MCMC think anyone has made a false statement about (or) in relation to it, the right thing for them to do is issue a statement denying, explaining, or clarifying (the matter),” Latheefa told Malaysiakini.
Yesterday, MCMC said the court’s verdict holding Hunter liable for defamation in a suit brought by the commission reaffirms that free speech is not an absolute right, as it must be exercised responsibly and is contingent upon legal boundaries.
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.
Using public resources against public
Latheefa, however, asserted that it was unacceptable for a public agency funded by taxpayers to use those same resources to take legal action against the public.
“Why is MCMC using our tax dollars to fund litigation against critics? You cannot use public-funded resources against the public,” the Lawyers for Liberty co-founder said.
She added that the government must step in and make it a clear policy that government agencies or statutory bodies are not to sue individuals over statements or criticism directed at them.
“Also, the MCMC statement does not make it clear whether this is a judgment after trial or a judgment in default because Hunter was not in the country to defend the suit.
“As is well known, he is in Thailand fighting a criminal case against him, pursuant to a report lodged by the MCMC itself,” she highlighted.
Earlier this month, Hunter told Malaysiakini that Thai authorities had acted on MCMC’s orders in detaining and charging him with defamation over several of his blog articles critical of Malaysian authorities.
Based on official court documents and police reports, the political commentator was charged under Section 328 of the Thai Criminal Code with defamation, where four of his Substack articles were quoted as defamatory material.
The documents also included links to Hunter’s Substack posts, where he had criticised the MCMC, the Malaysian police, and Umno leaders as allegedly flouting the Constitution for their own benefit and disregarding public interests.
When questioned on the matter at an Oct 1 press conference, Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil directed queries to be addressed to the MCMC. = Malaysiakini, 17/10/2025
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment