JUDGMENT

Tee Ah Sing J:

[1] The plaintiff's claim is a claim for damages and a permanent injunction for defamation.

[2] The plaintiff was and is a public figure. She was and is a well known social activist in primarily the migrant workers' rights as well as women's rights. She is a director of Tenaganita Sdn. Bhd. ("Tenaganita") a well known non-profit organization of which the plaintiff was a founding member.

[3] The 1st defendant is the publisher and owner of the newspaper Utusan Malaysia. The 1st defendant published a publication ("The Impugned Article") which featured in the Utusan Malaysia of 20 September 1995 in focus written by the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant was the author of the Impugned Article. The 2nd defendant was at the material time and still is an employee of the Utusan Malaysia. The heading of the Impugned Article "Sikap Irene lengahkan siasatan" was made by Noor Hazani bt. Musa (DW3) who was the acting Ketua Meja Rencana of Utusan Malaysia at the material time.

[4] The plaintiff claims that the Impugned Article is defamatory of the plaintiff and gives rise to several imputations as pleaded in the amended statement of claim.

[5] Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the amended statement of claim reads as follows:

4. The Second Defendant wrote an article entitled "Sikap Irene Lengahkan Siasatan" and the First Defendant printed and published or caused to be printed and published of an article concerning the Plaintiff, the following words under the column known as "Fokus" in the issue of the said newspaper dated 20th September, 1995:

(a) APAKAH sebenarnya helah Irene Fernandes, Presiden sebuah pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NGO) Tenaganita, bila beliau menolak permintaan polis untuk memberi kenyataan mengenai dakwaan rasuah dan layanan buruk terhadap pendatang asing di Kem Tahanan Sementara Semenyih.

(b) Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Rahim Noor memang ada sebab untuk berasa amat marah dan memberi tempoh kepada Irene supaya berbuat demikian pada atau sebelum 26 September ini, kerana Irene yang mulanya memberi alasan tidak sihat kini dilaporkan berada di Chiang Mai, Thailand pula.

(c) Sudahlah ketika isu tersebut hangat dengan campur tangan parti pembangkang Irene berada di Beijing, China (kerana menyertai Persidangan Wanita Sedunia Keempat), tetapi beliau tetap enggan menemui polis sekembalinya dari persidangan itu.

(d) Beliau tidak sepatutnya betindak begitu. Setelah berjaya dalam usahanya mengetengahkan kajian yang dibuat di kem tahanan tersebut kepada perhatian media-media masa tempatan - sehingga dibawa ke Parlimen - Irene harus bertanggungjawab.

(e) Media Barat - yang sikapnya sudah lama 'dikenali' umum sejak isu Malaysia memutuskan hubungan dagangan dengan Britain dulu - berebut-rebut mahu membuat liputan mengenai dakwaan itu (dan memutarbelitkannya).

Beberapa pegawai Kementerian Dalam Negeri ketika membicarakan isu itu dengan Utusan berkata, segala-galanya kini terletak kepada Irene - dia yang memulakan maka itu jugalah dia yang harus menamatkannya.

(f) Justeru itu, di sinilah letaknya kepentingan Irene memainkan peranannya supaya menyelesaikan segera kemelut itu bagi mengurangkan kerosakan ke atas negara.

Dengan pengalamannya sebagai 'pendedah kemungkaran, pejuang hak asasi manusia dan sebagainya' selama ini, Irene sudah cukup faham dan menyedari betapa mustahaknya menjaga nama baik negara. Beliau tentunya tidak memerlukan perintah mahkamah untuk hadir memberi keterangan kepada polis mengenai dakwaannya itu ("The Impugned Words")."

5. In their natural and ordinary meaning, the said words meant and were understood to mean by reasonable and ordinary readers of the article that the plaintiff:

(a) was deliberately avoiding the police for the purposes of delaying the giving of a statement to the authorities;

(b) had lied about her health in order to avoid the police;

(c) was dishonest, and lacking in integrity; and

(d) was irresponsible and uncooperative;

(e) was a disloyal citizen and/or treasonous.

[6] The plaintiff only relies on the natural and