The court established that defamatory statements must be proven false, refer to the plaintiff, and be published, with the defendant bearing the burden of proof in defamation cases.

Headnote:(A) Defamation Act 1957 - Claim for defamation due to impugned statements regarding the plaintiff's role in COVID-19 vaccination - The plaintiff must prove that the statements were defamatory, referred to him, and were published - The court found that the defendant's statements were false and malicious, causing significant damage to the plaintiff's reputation and integrity. (Paras 40, 44, 46, 48, 50, 66)

(B) Legal principles - Three elements must be proven in defamation: (1) the statements were defamatory; (2) they referred to the plaintiff; (3) they were published - The burden of proof shifts to the defendant if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case. (Paras 40, 41)

(C) Findings of Court - The defendant's failure to appear and provide evidence led to a presumption that the plaintiff's evidence was true. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding RM2,500,000 in damages. (Paras 70, 119)

(D) Issues - The court addressed whether the impugned statements were defamatory, if they referred to the plaintiff, and if they were published. (Paras 40, 61, 66) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The court emphasized the importance of public trust in the plaintiff's position and the harmful impact of the defendant's statements, which were found to be intentionally misleading. (Paras 60, 90) (F)

Result: The plaintiff's claim was allowed with damages awarded. (Para 119) (G) Parties involved: Plaintiff (Minister of Health) and Defendant (self-represented religious scholar).

Table of Content
1. court's observations on the trial process. (Para 1 , 2 , 8 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
2. defamation action context and background. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. defendant's absence and trial proceedings. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. elements of defamation and burden of proof. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
5. analysis of defamatory statements. (Para 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)
6. identification of the plaintiff in statements. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)
7. publication of defamatory statements. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69)
8. defenses raised by the defendant. (Para 70 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80)
9. damages and final judgment. (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119)

Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah J:

Preliminary

[1] As I begin to contemplate the issues at hand and make my final decision, let me quote Imam Al-Ghazali, a renowned Muslim Shafi'i Sunni theologian, philosopher, scholar and jurist who was also considered one of the greatest Sufis of his time. Imam Al-Ghazali said:

"Declare your jihad on thirteen enemies you cannot see — egoism, arrogance, conceit, selfishness, greed, lust, intolerance, anger, lying, cheating, gossiping and slandering.If you can master and destroy them, then you will be ready to fight the enemy you can see."

[2] Within the confines of the above quote lies a lesson on how to become a better person.

[3] This is a defamation action.

[4] As a result of the alleged defamatory statements, videos and photos ("impugned statements") and their publications ("impugned publications"), interchangeably known as the impugned statements and/or impugned publications, this action has been brought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The defendant is accused of making the impugned statements and/or impugned publications through social media accounts allegedly targeting the plaintiff in relation to the implementation of the COVID-19 vaccination programme.

[5] The plaintiff claims that by publishing the impugned statements, the defendant has caused substantial damage to the plaintiff's credibility, credit, goodwill and reputation. In addition, the defendant has caused distress to the plaintiff.

[6] During the time of the filing of this action on 25 January 2022, the plaintiff was the Minister of Health and Member of Parliament for Rembau since 2008. Between 10 March 2020 and 16 August 2021, the plaintiff served as Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation.

[7] The defendant, on the other hand, appears to have represented himself as a religious scholar and an Islamic preacher.

[8] Unfortunately, the defendant deliberately chose not to participate in the trial. As a result, he was unable to offer evidence to defend himself.

An Overview Of The Background Facts

[9] At the height of the respiratory disease called Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), which was and still is an infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ("SARS-CoV-2") virus, the plaintiff was tasked with the following responsibilities as Minister at the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation ("MOSTI"):

(a) facilitating science diplomacy towards securing a vaccine for COVID-19;

(b) overseeing the National Science Policy to encourage the development of science in Malaysia;

(c) championing technology adoption acceleration across the public and private sectors, including the creation of the National Innovation and Technology Sandbox;

(d) Co-Chairperson of the Digital Economic Task Force together with the Minister of Communications and Multimedia;

(e) Chairperson of the National Innovation and Technology Sandbox Working Committee; and

(f) committee member of the National Food Security Council.

[10] During his time as Minister for MOSTI, the plaintiff also served as Co-Chair of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 MarsdenLR 1721

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURKHAIRY JAMALUDDIN ABU BAKAR – AppellantVersusMOHD RASYIQ MOHD ALWI – Respondent[Civil Suit No: WA-23CY-4-01/2022]

The court established that defamatory statements must be proven false, refer to the plaintiff, and be published, with the defendant bearing the burden of proof in defamation cases.

Cases Referred (4)

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
KHAIRY JAMALUDDIN ABU BAKAR – Appellant
Versus
MOHD RASYIQ MOHD ALWI – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-23CY-4-01/2022]