In defamation cases, statements must be proven defamatory; defenses of fair comment and reportage may apply when public interest and ongoing disputes are evident.

Introduction

[1] YB Lim Guan Eng, the Plaintiff (appellant), brought an action against the Defendants (respondents) in relation to the publication of statements which are said to be defamatory against him.

[2] The statements were made by Datuk Tan Teik Cheng (the 1st respondent) and thereafter published in the online version of a leading English daily, which Star Media Group Berhad (the 2nd respondent) owns, i.e., The Star Online.

[3] To succeed in his claim for defamation, the appellant has to prove three elements as follows:

(i) The words are defamatory;

(ii) It referred to him; and

(iii) It was published, that is, communicated to a third party.

(See: Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd 2021 MarsdenLR 432; ; (Mkini Dotcom); Ayob Saud v. TS Sambanthamurthi 1988 MarsdenLR 69; 1989 MarsdenLR 941 ; [1989] 1 CLJ (Rep) 321 ; Kian Lup Construction v. Hongkong Bank Malaysia Bhd 2002 MarsdenLR 1143; ; 2002 MarsdenLR 1876 ; ).

[4] Based on the facts presented before us, we are of the view that the respondents did not dispute that the statements refer to the appellant and that they were published to a third party. Thus, the second and third elements have been proven by the appellant. This leaves the court to decide on the first element, i.e., whether the offending statements were defamatory.

[5] The test of whether the statements were defamatory of the appellant is whether the words published, in their natural and ordinary meaning, impute to the appellant any dishonourable or discreditable conduct or a lack of integrity on his part. If the question invites an affirmative response, then the words complained of are defamatory (See: Chok Foo Choo v. The China Press Bhd 1998 MarsdenLR 452 ; 1999 MarsdenLR 1246 ; ; ).

Background Facts

[6] The appellant is the Chairman of the Democratic Action Party (DAP). DAP is a component of a political coalition known as Pakatan Harapan (PH). The 1st respondent is the Vice President of the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA). MCA is a component in a political coalition known as Barisan Nasional (BN) and was a known political adversary of DAP. The 2nd respondent 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 The Appellant Against The Respondents

[7] The dispute herein emanates from the change of name of Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Cina (SJKC) Kuek Ho Yao (the School).

The Public Controversy Over The Name Of The School

[8] In March 2018, prior to the 14th General Election which took place in May 2018, there was a ground-breaking ceremony for the construction of the School on its site. The School was to be constructed by a developer called UM Land. At that time, the name of the School was SJKC Kuek Ho Yao, without any addition to that name. The School was named after a respected Chinese community leader in Johor, the late Tan Sri Kuek Ho Yao.

[9] Under the PH Government (which came to power at the 14th General Election), Teo Nie Ching (PW1) was the Deputy Minister of Education in charge of the construction of the School. However, as of July 2018, when PW1 was appointed as Deputy Minister, there was no progress on the construction of the School. The office of the Deputy Minister of Education was unable to contact UM Land between September 2018 and 25 February 2019 to proceed with the construction of the School. Therefore, the Ministry of Education under PW1 consider