Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 165

HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
LIM GUAN ENG – Appellant
Versus
DATUK TAN TEIK CHENG & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: PA-23NCvC-5-05/2022]

Petitioner Advocates:Simon Murali,Kok Yuen Lin ,Respondent Advocate: Ng Kian Nam,Tham Joe Ping,Tan Paik Hong,Koay Li Xian

The court ruled that statements made during an election campaign regarding funding allocations were not defamatory, qualifying for the defences of fair comment and reportage based on public interest.

Headnote:(A) Defamation - Elements of defamation - The plaintiff claimed defamation against the defendants for statements made concerning the allocation of funds to a school. The court dismissed the claim, finding that the statements were not defamatory. (Paras 1, 8, 37, 101)

(B) Fair Comment - The court held that the impugned statement constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest, supported by true facts and not made with malice. (Paras 9, 43, 102)

(C) Reportage - The court found that the publication was neutral and disinterested, qualifying for the defence of reportage, which does not require verification of the truth of the statements. (Paras 66, 72)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a politician, sued the defendants for defamation over an article published about the allocation of RM4 million to a school during an election campaign. The article questioned the conditions surrounding the funding. (Paras 1-6, 10-12)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned statements did not lower the plaintiff’s reputation and were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. The defendants were entitled to rely on the defences of fair comment and reportage. (Paras 37, 101, 102)

Issues: The main issues involved whether the impugned statements were defamatory and whether the defendants could rely on the defences of fair comment and reportage. (Paras 8, 37)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the statements were not defamatory as they did not expose the plaintiff to hatred or contempt, and the context of the statements indicated a call for clarification rather than an outright accusation. (Paras 37, 101)

Result: Claim dismissed; costs awarded to the defendants. (Paras 128)

Table of Content
1. introduction of parties and nature of suit. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background facts regarding the school name change. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. findings related to the 2nd defendant. (Para 8 , 9)
4. undisputed facts regarding the publication. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. further facts established during the trial. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. public controversy during the campaigning period. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
7. publication of the article and its implications. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
8. defendant's knowledge and actions. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
9. court's analysis of the defamation claim. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
10. defences available to the defendants. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
11. judgment on the defences. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
12. public interest and its relevance. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
13. conclusion on the defamation action. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
14. final conclusion and order. (Para 128)

JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff ("P") is the Chairman of the Democratic Action Party (DAP). The 1st Defendant ("D1") is the Vice President of the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA). The 2nd Defendant ("D2") is in the business of media publication, better known as The Star, with an online version known as The Star Online. The instant suit is a defamation action brought by P against the Defendants. After a full trial, I dismissed P's claim. Here are the grounds of my judgment.

The Trial

[2] The trial took place over the course of 3 consecutive days on 20 February 2023, 21 February 2023 and 22 February 2023. The witnesses who testified at the trial were:

Background Facts

[3] The dispute herein emanates from the change of name of Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Cina (SJKC) Kuek Ho Yao ("School"). The public controversy and uncertainty on whether the name of the School was going to be changed had started in March 2019, due to the need to replace the developer of the School after the 2018 General Election. The media reported on several occasions that the issue on the naming of the School was to be left to the new developer.

[4] At a meeting on 10 November 2019, the name of the School was agreed to be changed to 'SJKC Kuek Ho Yao @ Eco Spring'. After that, on 29 November 2019, PW-1 (who was then the Deputy Minister for Education) issued a letter requesting P (in his capacity as the Finance Minister), to approve a 'sumbangan' of RM4 million to the School. PW-1 was involved in the change of name of the School.

[5] There is no media report in evidence on the agreement to change the name of the School reached during the meeting on 10 November 2019. It could be inferred that the public was not aware. This continued until the campaigning period for the Johor State Election at the end of February 2022 until 11 March 2022. The issue of the change of name of the School surfaced again during the Johor State Election where a challenge for a debate on that issue was made on 25 February 2022 by the President of MCA against PW-1. PW-1 was a senior DAP leader from Johor and DAP's Campaign Director for the Johor State Election. She was also the former Deputy Minister for Education who had been involved in the events surrounding the School.

[6] D1 then issued a Facebook post questioning whether the allocation of RM4 million to the School by P had been made with a request by PW-1 that the School changes its name. Two Chinese newspapers reported on the Facebook post. The controversy attracted a lot of attention amongst members of the Chinese community and the voters in Johor. There was no explanation by P on the issue before 7 March 2022.

[7] On 7 March 2022, D1 sent an Article (labelled 'press statement') to D2 to be published in The Star. D2 published the Article in the Letters section of The Star Online, behind a paywall. In this action, P has sued for defamation over the final two paragraphs of the Article ("Impugned Statement").

Findings In Relat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 165

HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANGLIM GUAN ENG – AppellantVersusDATUK TAN TEIK CHENG & ANOR – Respondent[Civil Suit No: PA-23NCvC-5-05/2022]

The court ruled that statements made during an election campaign regarding funding allocations were not defamatory, qualifying for the defences of fair comment and reportage based on public interest.

Cases Referred (4)

HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
LIM GUAN ENG – Appellant
Versus
DATUK TAN TEIK CHENG & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: PA-23NCvC-5-05/2022]