A Malaysian court cannot adjudicate on the validity of a foreign law, invoking principles of international comity and sovereign immunity.

JUDGMENT

Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff had on 18 September 2020 filed an application by way of Originating Summons (OS) (OS 46) seeking, inter alia the following orders:

(1) That the Plaintiff have a right to express their opinions in Malaysia with regard to any matters as part of their right to freedom of speech under art 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution;

(2) That the Plaintiff's right cannot be impaired by a law in Singapore, namely the Singapore Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (POFMA), which purports to extend its laws beyond Singapore, that is assuming extra-territorial jurisdiction; and

(3) That the Plaintiff cannot be subjected to any process within Malaysia in furtherance of the Singapore law.

[2] The Plaintiff had also on 2 October 2020 filed an application by way OS (OS 51) seeking, inter alia the following orders:

2.1 A Declaration that the direction dated 22 January 2020 issued by the Defendant under s 11 of the POFMA cannot be enforced against the Plaintiff in Malaysia;

2.2 A Declaration that the Defendant or anyone acting under his authority cannot take any action to enforce any provision of POFMA against the Plaintiff within Malaysia; and

2.3 An injunction to restrain the Defendant, his servants or agents or anyone acting on his direction from enforcing Singapore's laws, in particular POFMA, or taking any action related thereto, within Malaysia against the Plaintiff.

[3] Vide an Order dated 23 December 2020, the Attorney General of Malaysia was granted leave to intervene in OS 51 as intervener.

Brief Facts

[4] The facts leading to the filing of OS 46 and OS 51 are as follows:

4.1 On 16 January 2020, the Plaintiff had issued a press statement [the 16th Article] on their website regarding the method of the execution of death penalty in Singapore;

4.2 According to the Plaintiff, the 16th Article was issued in the public interest because there are many Malaysian citizens facing the death penalty at Changi Prison in Singapore and their fair and just treatment is a matter of public concern in Malaysia;

4.3 Vide letter dated 22 January 2020, POFMA Office notified the Plaintiff that:

4.3.1 the 16th Article which was being communicated in Singapore contained false statement of fact;

4.3.2 the Defendant in exercise of his statutory powers under POFMA directed them to insert a correction notice no later than 23 January 2020 [Correction Direction];

4.3.3 failure to comply with the Correction Direction without reasonable excuse was an offence under s 15 of the POFMA;

4.3.4 they could apply to the Defendant to vary or cancel the Correction Direction; and

4.3.5 in the event the application for variation or cancellation was refused they could appeal to the High Court of Singapore to set aside the Correction Direction;

4.4 on 22 January 2020, the Defendant also issued a press statement informing that the 16th Article was false and the Correction Direction had been issued;

4.5 the Plaintiff did not comply with the Correction Direction or avail themselves to the other option; and

4.6 instead, the Plaintiff released another press statement on 22 January 2020 [22nd Article] demanding that the Singapore Government withdraw the Correction Direction; contending amongst others that Singapore could not interfere with the freedom of speech of Malaysians in Malaysia and that Singapore was attempting to extend their jurisdiction to Malaysians in Malaysia.

The Striking Out Applications

[5] The striking out application was filed by the Government of Malaysia as the Defendant in OS 46 (encl 7) and by the Attorney General of Malaysia as the intervener in OS 51 (encl 29) on the grounds that they are scandalous; vexatious and frivolous and otherwise an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court.

[6] In gist, the striking out applications are premised on the following grounds:

a) That a Malaysian Court has no jurisdiction to decide on the validity of a foreign law as it conflicts with 'international comity';

b) That