Back
2016 MarsdenLR 341
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
KHAIRUL AZWAN HARUN – Appellant
Versus
MOHD RAFIZI RAMLI – Respondent
[Suit No: 23NCVC-55-07-2015]
A press release is not defamatory if it merely suggests grounds for investigation without asserting guilt.
Headnote:This case centers on a defamation action arising from allegations related to a property purchase scandal involving MARA. The plaintiff claims the defendant's press release defamed him by implying his involvement in corrupt practices. The court examined the definitions of defamatory meaning and the defenses of justification and fair comment. Ultimately, it ruled in favor of the defendant based on the conclusion that the statements, while damaging, were not defamatory and fell within acceptable bounds of public discourse. The plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of defamation stemming from public interest. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the defamation action arises from a press release related to a public scandal. (Para 3) |
| 3. allegations of misconduct related to mara property dealings. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. the impact of the statements on the plaintiff's reputation and the context of public interest. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. findings on public interest and reasonable grounds for investigation. (Para 28 , 70) |
| 6. the court's analysis on justificatory grounds regarding the impugned statements. (Para 30 , 61) |
| 7. findings on the meaning of the press release and the validity of the defamation claim. (Para 58 , 66) |
[1] This is an action for defamation and it arises out of a much publicised property purchase scandal involving a subsidiary of Majlis Amanah Rakyat ("MARA"). This case brings into sharp focus, the right of an individual to protect his reputation under the laws of defamation and the right of an individual to disseminate information and contribute to public discussion by raising public awareness on a matter of national importance, which in the present context, refers to what has become known as the MARA property purchase scandal.
The Property Purchase Scandal
[2] It has been described as a national scandal because it involves a public institution, namely MARA, which is an agency under the Ministry of Rural and Regional Development. MARA was set up and funded with public funds to aid, train the Bumiputra segment of Malaysian society in the areas of business and industry. Apart from actively assisting Bumiputra entrepreneurs, MARA is also heavily involved in the education sector in Malaysia. It is an iconic and important institution for the larger segment of Malaysian society. In gist, the defendant had made press releases and published information which revealed that MARA had, through its subsidiary, purchased properties in Australia at hyper-inflated prices and that some part of the purchase monies were subsequently channelled back to various parties within or connected to MARA or the political establishment. It is not in dispute that prior to and up to 6 July 2015, the defendant had published several press releases pertaining to the MARA property purchase scandal. The action for defamation by the plaintiff is based on a particular press conference held on 6 July 2015 by the defendant. The said press conference was attended by journalists from various media organisations. At the press conference, the defendant had issued a press release entitled "Individu Terbabit Di Dalam Urusniaga MARA Perlu Tampil Memberi Penjelasan" ("the press release").
[3] The direct translation of the title to the press release is - "the individuals involved in the MARA transaction need to come forward and explain". The press release was carried in the online media. The defendant does not deny that he issued the press release and that it was published.
Synopsis Of Claim And Defence
[4] The plaintiff contends that the press release which was subsequently published in the online media (as particularised in para 7 of the statement of claim) has defamed him. He claims that the press release suggests that he is directly involved with and therefore implicated in the MARA property purchase scandal. However, the defendant denies that the words complained of are defamatory of the plaintiff. He has provided an alternative meaning to the impugned words which the plaintiff complains of and has sought to justify it on the basis of a lesser meaning or what is now understood as a Chase level 3 meaning (see: Chase v. Newsgroup Newspaper Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1772 CA), which will be discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this judgment. The defendant claims that the alternative meaning is one which is reasonable in all the circumstances. He also sought to justify the Chase level 3 meaning.
[5] The defendant also relies on the defence of fair comment and this is in turn predicated on his assertion that he made statements of fact w
