Non-trading corporations can sue for defamation if statements affect business or reputation; association with criminal activities may be actionable per se.

[1] This is a defamation case. The plaintiff is the chairman of an organization known as Syria Care, which was estab-lished under the Societies Act 1966 (the SA ) and is filing the action in this suit in her capacity as the public officer of Syria Care under s 9(c) of the same.

[2] Before I proceed in deliberating the evidence given at the trial and the liability of the parties herein, let me dispose a preliminary issue, even though it has not been canvassed by the parties. It is this. Can the plaintiff, being a society un-der the SA , institute an action in defamation? In other words, does Syria Care have the necessary locus to maintain this action?

[3] The short answer to this can be found in proposition of law as expounded by the Court of Appeal in the case of Amber Court Management Corp & Ors (suing in their capacity of council members of Amber Court Management Corp Management Committee) v. Hong Gan Gui & Anor, [2016] 2 MLJ 85 (CA). In that case, Badariah Sahamid JCA in delivering the decision of the Court of Appeal held as follows:

[51] In the case of Chinese Empire Reform Association v. Chinese Daily Newspaper Publishing Co Ltd [1907] 13 BCR 141, the Court held that non-trading and trading corporations can maintain actions in defamation provided that there was injury to its property or business. In this case the plaintiff, a non-trading corporation was incorporated under the Benev-olent Societies Act with express powers to transact business, acquire and purchase property as well ass ell, exchange, mortgage let or otherwise dispose of property, real and personal.

[52] Morrison J observed:

a non-trading corporation has the right to acquire property which may be the source of income or rev-enue. And the transaction of the business incidental thereto creates a reputation, rights and interests, in no essential respects different from that of an individual or trading corporation.

In reiterating the position at common law, the Court of Appeal further held that a trading corporation and non-trading corporation can sue for defamation on proof that the defamatory statements affect its business, revenue or income or good will.

[4] The long and short of it is this. If the alleged defamatory words had one way or the other affected the revenue, income or good will of Syria Care, then it can maintain an action in defamation. The plaintiff, Siti Sakinah, who is also SP3, had testified this in answer to Q9 of her witness statement (WS -- SP3):

Pihak kami juga menghantar susu dan pakaian musim sejuk sumbangan orang ramai dari Malaysia dan juga tempahan baju musim sejuk baru dan susu dari China yang dihantar terus ke Turki seterusnya dikeluarkan dari pelabuhan dengan kerjasama IHH sebuah NGO terbesar di Turki dan di bawa masuk ke dalam Syria dan diuruskan seterusnya oleh rakan NGO yang bekerjasama dengan kami.

It goes without saying that the alleged defamatory words, if proven, would tend to lower Syria Care in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or tends to make them shun or avoid the organisation. Donations would have been adversely affected and goodwill tarnished.

[5] In the circumstances, applying the principle of law as stated in Amber Court Management, my preliminary finding is that: (i) Syria Care has the necessary locus standi to institute this defamatory action; and (ii) proper procedure under s 9(c) of the SA was adhered to by the plaintiff.

The Factual Background

[6] The first defendant is an officer with the Ministry of Home Affairs where he works on rehabilitating extremists charged or convicted under th