The burden of proof in defamation lies entirely with the plaintiff to establish that the statements were defamatory and published.

[1] The appellant, Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd (also known as RAGM), filed an action against the respondent for libel and malicious falsehood. On 17 May 2016, the High Court dismissed the claim and on 21 October 2016, the Court of Appeal dismissed its appeal. Hence, the present appeal before us.

[2] Leave to appeal to this Court was granted to the appellant, on 16 October 2017, on the following questions of law:

(i) whether the subjective notion of the values of society as time progresses in interpreting the fundamental right to freedom of speech to reflect the present day values of society as enunciated by the Court of Appeal in Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd v. Hue Shieh Lee vide Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No: 1-02(NCVC)-996-05-2016 by reference to the decision in Nor Anak Nyawai & Ors v. Borneo Pulp Plantation Sdn Bhd & Ors, [2001] 6 MLJ 241 and Tan Tek Seng v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor; [1995] 2 MLJ 476; [1995] 3 CLJ 279; [1995] 2 AMR 1913 is the new test for determining if the words complained of are prima facie defamatory, in Malaysia? (Question 1);

(ii) whether the criteria for determining the right of an activist or individual to freedom of speech as set out by the Court of Appeal in Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd v. Hue Shieh Lee vide Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No: 1-02(NCVC)-996-05-2016 by reference to the decision in Dato Menteri Othman Baginda & Anor v. Dato Ombi Syed Alwi Syed Idrus, [1981] 1 MLJ 29 or alternatively as previously enunciated in Lee Kuan Yew v. Chin Vui Khen & Anor applies in Malaysia? (Question 2);

(iii) as a matter of law in defamation cases, whether the effect of pleading the phrase save where expressly admitted herein, the defendant denies each and every allegation of the plaintiff as they are set out henceforth and traversed seriatim in the absence of an express denial to publication of the defamatory words complained of in a defence is sufficient? (Question 3); and

(iv) if question 3 is answered in the affirmative, whether an express plea of justification and fair comment would nullify the effect of the defendants general traverse in a defence to a plaintiffs specific claim that the defendant has published defamatory words? (Question 4).

Facts Of The Case

[3] At all material times, the appellant was the only gold processing company that mined and produced gold dore bars at its plant located in Bukit Koman in the District of Raub, Pahang since February 2009. The plant was located approximately one (1) kilometer away from Kampung Bukit Koman.

[4] The respondent was a mother of three and a resident of Bukit Koman. She held herself out as the Vice-President of the Pahang Bau Cyanide in Gold Mining Action Committee ("BCAC"), alternatively referred to as the Anti-Cyanide Group ("ACG"), which was an activist group.

[5] The appellant instituted an action against the respondent for libel and malicious falsehood in respect of two statements or articles alleged to have been made by the respondent regarding the appellant. The claim was premised of the causes of action arising out of the publication of two articles on http://www. malaysiakini.com ("the 1st Article"), and http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com ("the 2nd Article").

[6] The 1st Article contains a link which led to a video presentation on the Malaysiakini website depicting a press conference and presentation by several individuals (including the respondent) who held themselves out as members of the BCAC.

[7] As set out at para (6) of the statements of claim, the 1st Article reads as follows:

(a) "A random survey covering households in the area was conducted in May 2012 and the survey done by interviewing the residents from house to house and the interview was based on a standardise questionnaire with a total of 383 residents respondent as t