The court held that context is crucial in defamation cases and the meaning of statements to the public at large determines the presence of defamation.

[1] It was 19 February 2008. Parliament had been dissolved six days earlier. Nomination of candidates for Malaysias 12th general election was to occur on 24 February. The political campaigning would shortly go into full swing.

[2] The defendant, En Khairy Jamaluddin, was at that time the deputy leader of UMNO Youth. Part of his responsibility included launching the campaign machinery for the various youth divisions in UMNO.

[3] It was at one of these launches that he uttered words that the plaintiff, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, contended were slanderous of the plaintiff. This was what was said:

"Saya rasa meluat bila saya tengok tiap-tiap kali sebelum pilihan raya, parti pembangkang bergabung. Sebelum tahun 99 pilihan raya bergabung, Barisan Alternatif, lepas tu cerai. Tahun 2004 sebelum pilihan raya bergabung, selepas itu cerai. Tahun 2008 saya dengar nak bergabung sekali lagi, confirm lepas ini akan cerai. Dalam Barisan Nasional, UMNO, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, PPP, kita kahwin selama-lamanya. Kita tidak pernah cerai. Kita kahwin pada tahun 1955 dengan MCA dengan MIC, sampai hari ini kita tak cerai. Tapi pembangkang ini saudara-saudara, mungkin Dato Norza tahu istilah ini, pembangkang ini dia kahwin mutaah. Kahwin mutaah ini saudara-saudara, mazhab Shiah, dia mengamalkan kahwin mutaah. Dia kahwin satu malam, dia main malam tu, esok hari dia cerai, untuk menghalalkan maksiat. Parti pembangkang ini dia kahwin mutaah. Dia kahwin, PAS main DAP ikut kiri, DAP main PAS ikut kanan, Anwar main dua-dua ikut belakang, lepas tu, bila kalah, dia cerai. Ini bukan untuk masa depan kita saudara-saudara."

[4] His speech was recorded by members of the media who were in attendance and was subsequently reported by the news portal Malaysiakini. A video clip of the speech was also subsequently uploaded onto its online news channel known as KiniTV.

Analysis

[5] It was not in dispute that there had been publication of the statement complained of, and that the statement referred to the plaintiff.

[6] The key issues were therefore whether the words were defamatory of the plaintiff, and if so, whether the defendant is able to avail himself of the pleaded defences.

Whether The Statements Were Defamatory?

Aspersions of Homosexuality

[7] I am of the view that the words uttered by the defendant were defamatory of the plaintiff, based on the plain and ordinary meaning of those words, as understood by the ordinary and reasonable member of the public. These words suggested that the plaintiff was a homosexual.

[8] The Court of Appeal in the case see Chok Foo Choo v. The China Press Bhd , 1999 MarsdenLR 1246 described the two steps that are to be undertaken in order to ascertain whether or not the words are defamatory of the plaintiff. The first step is to ascertain whether the words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. The second step is to ascertain whether the words complained of are in fact defamatory.

[9] I am of the view that the questions in both steps are answered in the affirmative.

[10] Taken literally, the words "Anwar main dua-dua ikut belakang" may not support the contention that the defendant had defamed the plaintiff, because as rightly pointed out by the counsel for En Khairy - political parties cannot be sodomised. However, the words must be understood from the context of the speech as a whole. The speech is an artful one, delivered with fluency and an impeccable sense of timing. The defendant, like the plaintiff, is a skilled orator. The speech emplo