Defendant's statements were found defamatory, published maliciously, and lacked justification, leading to damages awarded to Plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT

Mohd Arief Emran Arifin J:

A) Background Facts - Claim Based On Slander And Malicious Falsehood

[1] This is the second part of the saga between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

[2] In the earlier suit, I have found that the 2nd Plaintiff, Star Planet Sdn Bhd, did breach its contract with the NSP Entertainment Sdn Bhd, and is directed to pay NSP Entertainment Sdn Bhd damages.

[3] Out of the dispute between the parties, Wee Meng Chee, the artist that should have undertaken the concert under the wings of Star Planet Sdn Bhd, is now alleged to have defamed the Plaintiffs.

[4] The Plaintiffs allege that Wee Meng Chee had defamed them in the two videos published by Wee Meng Chee on 14 December 2019 and on 31 December 2019.

[5] The Plaintiffs claim that the words pleaded in the Statement of Claim by the Defendant were uttered to embarrass and cause harm to their reputation, and that the words did cause harm to their reputation. The Plaintiffs also allege that the slanderous videos did refer to them.

[6] The Plaintiffs allege that the words uttered by the Defendant, in their natural or ordinary meaning or by way of an innuendo, did defame them. The particulars of the allegations appear at paras 29 to 35 of the Statement of Claim.

[7] The Plaintiffs also claim that the words were uttered maliciously by the Defendant to cause harm to their business.

[8] The Defendant did not deny uttering the words and the statements as alleged by the Plaintiffs in the two videos.

[9] He, however, states that he is entitled to rely on the following defences:-

9.1 That the words uttered were made by him in Taiwan and this Court has no jurisdiction.

9.2 That the words uttered were true - justification and s 8 of the Defamation Act 1957 .

9.3 That the words were uttered to his fans that had a valid interest in the outcome of the concert that was cancelled on 31 December 2019 - qualified privilege.

9.4 That the words were uttered to his fans, the public and those who had a legitimate interest to know the affairs of PUSPAL and any wrongdoing within PUSPAL - qualified privilege.

9.5 That the words were his opinion and contained valid criticisms of the Plaintiffs' conduct - common law fair comment and s 9 of the Defamation Act 1957 .

9.6 That the words were made in jest or part of his act or, at the very least, were questions put to the public.

[10] The Defendant also denies that the said words were uttered by him maliciously.

[11] I will first deal with the preliminary issues raised by the Defendant.

B) Preliminary Issues

(I) Alleged No Cause Of Action As Statements Were Made In Taiwan

[12] I will first deal with the preliminary issues raised by the Defendant.

[13] The Defendant's reliance on Chan Kwon Fong v. Chan Wah, [1977] 1 MLJ 232 is unfortunately misplaced. The said case concerns an incident that occurred in Indonesia and the suit was instituted in Malaysia. Whereas the proceedings here concerns alleged slanderous statements made by the Defendant that were disseminated online and viewed by almost 2 million individuals.

[14] Therefore, as these statements were also undeniably viewed and disseminated to Malaysian viewers, it is without question that, despite the fact that he was making the statements in Taiwan, the Plaintiffs have a valid cause of action here in Malaysia.

[15] More so when the Plaintiffs admit that the issued statements made by him concern the Plaintiffs, who are Malaysian residents, the concert undertaken in Malaysia, and PUSPAL, a Malaysian authority. There is no causal connection between the statements and Taiwan, save that he was residing there at the material time.

[16] Therefore, I find the arguments put on this issue is without merit.

(II) Alleged Defective Pleadings

[17] On the issue of pleadings, I find that the Plaintiffs have identified the paragraphs and words that they say are defamatory of the Plaintiffs.

[18] I find that the Defendant has not suffered any prejudice in defending his claim and is aware of which parts of the statements he