Malaysian law does not recognize a defamation claim from a group or religion, nor does it support private actions against police for failure to act on public complaints.

JUDGMENT

Mohd Arief Emran Arifin JC:

A. Introduction

[1] The Defendants have filed the following notice of applications to strike out the Plaintiffs' claim against them in encl 13 and encl 18. Enclosure 13 is the application to strike out filed by the First Defendant under O 18 r 19 (a), (b), and (d) of the Rules of . Enclosure 18 is the application by the rest of the Defendants also under O 18 r 19 (a) or under (b) or (d) of the Rules of 2012.

[2] The Defendants opine that:-

(i) That the Statement of Claim filed against them do not disclose a reasonable cause of action against them.

(ii) The claim is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.

(iii) That the claim is an abuse of process of Court.

[3] The Plaintiffs' claim against the Defendants as contained in the Statement of Claim is summarized as follows:-

3.1 The claim is filed by the Plaintiffs as representatives of an association known as "Pertubuhan Hindudharma Malaysia" and the "Majlis Belia Hindu Malaysia".

3.2 The claim is premised on words and statements that were allegedly uttered by the First Defendant on YouTube and on Facebook. The alleged statements are reproduced by the Plaintiffs in paras 18 of the Statement of Claim.

3.3 The Plaintiffs allege that the said statements have harassed Malaysians Hindus and have oppressed the Hindu religion in Malaysia.

3.4 The Plaintiffs further allege that they have received numerous calls complaining of the statements made by the First Defendant.

3.5 They also believe that the First Defendant is a threat to the safety, wellbeing and to the harmony of Malaysian society.

3.6 The Plaintiffs have since lodged police reports with the Second Defendant, but the said Defendant failed to take any relevant action against the First Defendant.

3.7 As a result of which the Plaintiffs allege the following against the First Defendant:-

(a) That the First Defendant is guilty of negligence by maliciously and with bad faith to disparage or defame the Hindu religion.

(b) That the First Defendant is guilty of negligence in trying to spread false information of the Hindu religion.

(c) That the First Defendant had negligently disparaged Hindus and the Hindu religion.

(d) That the First Defendant had caused racial conflict within Malaysia.

3.8 The Plaintiffs' claim against the Second Defendant is for the alleged failure to act against the First Defendant under s 20 of the Police Act 1967 .

3.9 The Plaintiff's claim against the Third to Fourth Defendants are also premised on the failure to act against the Second Defendant and their vicarious alleged failure to stop the alleged harassment, insult, or disparagement against the Hindu religion and / or Malaysian Hindus.

3.10 The Plaintiffs have also prayed for the remedies contained in paras 31 of the Statement of Claim.

B. Decision Of This Court

[4] Having considered the notice of applications, affidavits, submissions, and the pleadings filed by the litigants, I find that this is a suitable case for this Court to exercise its powers to strike out the claim against the Defendants.

[5] I find that the Plaintiffs do not have a valid claim against the Defendants and that this claim is frivolous and constitutes an abuse of process of this Court.

[6] My reasons for allowing the Defendants applications are stated in the following paragraphs.

C. The Law On Striking Out A Pleading

[7] It is trite law that I should only exercise my power to strike out the Writ and the Statement of Claim if it is shown that the claim is so obviously unsustainable that it should be dismissed.

[8] The leading authority that lays down the applicable principles in relation to the powers to strike out a pleading or an originating summons is Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd , 1993 MarsdenLR 99 where Mohamed Dzaiddin bin Hj Abdullah SCJ stated:-

"The principles upon which the Court acts in exercising its power under any of the four limbs of O 18 r 19(1) Rules of the High are well settled. It is only in plain and obvious cases that recours