JUDGMENT

Ravinthran Paramaguru JC:

Introduction

(1) The plaintiffs claim in this case is for slander and/or libel against the 1st defendant and for libel against the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant is a political adversary of the plaintiff whereas the 2nd defendant is a newspaper publisher. The 1st defendant is alleged to have uttered defamatory words against the plaintiff at a public political gathering. The 2nd defendant is alleged to have published the defamatory words uttered by the 1st defendant in their newspaper. The 1st defendant had filed a counterclaim but as it had been struck out, it was not dealt with in this trial.

Background Of The Antagonists

(2) The plaintiff is an advocate and solicitor of 44 years standing. He is also a prominent politician. Initially, he was a member of the Sarawak United Peoples Party (SUPP). He won a seat to the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly on a SUPP ticket in 1974. However, the plaintiff left SUPP in 1978 and became a founder member of the Democratic Action Party (DAP). He served as the Chairman of the Sarawak DAP Branch from 1980 to 1989.

(3) The 1st defendant is also a lawyer and a prominent politician. He has been practising law since the year 2000. The 1st defendant started his political career with the DAP in 1985. However, by 1999, he fell out with its leaders which included the plaintiff and joined the Party Keadilan Rakyat (PKR). He quickly attained a leadership position in the Sarawak PKR. Between July 2007 and December of 2008, he was the Chairman of PKR Sarawak Liaison Committee. As early as 2004, the DAP and the PKR in Sarawak cooperated during elections to avoid three cornered contests which involved the Barisan Nasional (BN). As is common knowledge, BN is the ruling political party at the State and Federal level of the Government. However, the DAP and the PKR failed to form an election pact during the 2008 Federal Elections. The facts leading to this suit are set against this backdrop.

Complaint Of The Plaintiff

(4) During the 2004 Federal Elections, the plaintiff served as the Executive Director of DAP for the Bandar Kuching and Stampin constituencies. In that capacity he wrote a letter to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff thanked the 1st defendant for not planning to contest in the Kuching constituency. He hoped that in the general elections, the 1st defendant and the PKR leaders would support the DAP candidates for Kuching and Stampin constituencies. The plaintiff ended the letter by saying that the DAP would make similar gesture in favour of PKR in the Padungan State constituency in the 2006 State Elections. In the 2006 State Elections, the 1st defendant defeated the BN candidate in the Padungan constituency in a straight fight with the BN. Up to this point, the DAP and the PKR had no problem striking a quid pro quo bargain. However, in the run up to the 2008 Federal Elections which was held on 8 March 2008, they failed to reach a firm understanding to avoid a split in the opposition votes by making way for each other in pre-agreed constituencies. The result was a free for all fight between the BN, DAP and the PKR. Unsurprisingly, recriminations followed. In a speech on 22 February 2008 to mobilize or drum up DAP candidates and supporters, the plaintiff predicted that the DAP would defeat the BN and the PKR. The part of the speech that the counsel for 1st defendant highlighted in his submission is as follows:

... that DAP would not only want to capture the Stampin and Bandar Kuching parliamentary constituencies by beating SUPP and PKR candidates in the present election, but also want to contest in 5 state constituencies in Kuching the next state election"

This means that DAP, besides not to cooperate with PKR in the present election, it will also contest in 5 state constituencies in Kuching in the next state election, including the Padungan and Batu Kawa constituencies contested by PKR in the last election.

He threatened and said that in this election,