In 2022, the Federal Court made a landmark ruling which finally addressed this legal question that had been left unanswered regarding defamation laws in Malaysia:
Can a political party sue or be sued for defamation?
For illustration purposes
Well, read on to learn more about the civil case that set a binding precedent on defamation laws in the country.
Firstly, what is defamation?
Speaking to WORLD OF BUZZ, Irzan Iswatt, a partner at Kuala Lumpur-based law firm ADIL Legal, elaborated on the ruling, which is for the case of Lim Lip Eng v Ong Ka Chuan (as a public officer of a society registered as Malaysian Chinese Association) [2022] 5 CLJ 847.
However, before going any further, it’s best to briefly explain the laws on civil defamation. According to Iswatt, in Malaysia, the law of civil defamation is established in the Defamation Act 1957, whereby criminal defamation is governed under Section 499 of the Penal Code.
For illustration purposes
For civil defamation, it is supplemented by Malaysian case law and English common law. Generally, a statement is considered defamatory if:
- An individual’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society would be lowered by the statement
- The statement exposes an individual to hatred, ridicule or contempt
- An individual’s business, trade, profession or calling is belittled by the statement
Besides that, defamation can either be libel or slander, depending on how the statement appears. Slander is defamatory spoken statements or gestures, sometimes known as ‘defamation in temporary form’. Meanwhile, libel is defamation in written form, such as in an article or social media posts. Libel is also sometimes known as ‘defamation in permanent form’.
The landmark case of Lim Lip Eng v Ong Ka Chuan
With that out of the way, let’s dive right into the landmark case. In July 2017, Ong Ka Chuan, on behalf of MCA, filed a defamation suit in his capacity as a public officer against Lim Lip Eng over remarks that the DAP man had made during a press conference in Parliament a year earlier.
Ong ka chuan
Specifically, Lim had said that MCA had used Government funds allocated for Chinese vernacular schools. Hence, MCA claimed that Lim had implied that the party was corrupt and sought compensation for the tarnished reputation as a result of his statement.
When the case was heard at the High Court, Lim applied to strike out the defamation suit on the grounds that MCA, being a political party, had no locus standi or legal standing to file such a suit.
Lim lip eng, the current member of parliament (mp) for kepong
The High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed Lim’s application
Iswatt elaborated that at the High Court, Lim’s application to strike out the suit was dismissed, to which he appealed. Afterwards, at the Court of Appeal, Lim’s application was again dismissed, with the Appellate Court affirming the High Court’s decision.
It was only at the Federal Court where the decision was overturned, with all seven preceding judges unanimous in their finding that the suit must be struck out because the respondent, Ong, filed the defamation suit not for himself but for his political party.
For illustration purposes
The Federal Court ruled that political parties can’t sue individuals for defamation
The Federal Court ruled that political parties can’t sue individuals for defamation as they “do not have a reputation for which they may maintain an action for damages for defamation”.
Iswatt added that this decision was significant as, prior to this case, the question of whether political parties can sue or be sued for defamation was never directly addressed in Malaysia.
He further clarified that ‘reputation’ is an essential element in the law of defamation, and the seven Federal Court judges were unanimous in their finding that a political party is not a legal entity which can assert or claim any reputation.
The bench also came to the conclusion based on the decisions in Goldsmith v Bhoyrul [1998] Q.B. 459 and Rajagopal v Jayalalitha [2006] 2 MLJ 689.
This was also in line with the Societies Act 1966, which classifies a political party as being a “society” and, in turn, makes it not a legal entity on its own. Section 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966 is as follows:
The Federal Court said that a political party should not be “thin-skinned”
Hence, according to the Federal Court, a political party was dependent on its members to take action. Therefore, it is not a legal entity by itself that can sue or be sued for defamation.
Iswatt also pointed out another interesting tidbit from the judgment of the case, which is how the Federal Court found that if a political party were allowed to sue for defamation, it would go against the true value of democracy.
For illustration purposes
This is because a political party relies on the public to get votes to be in power, and it is therefore not right, nor in the public interest, to put the public in fear of being sued and prevent them from expressing their views.
Furthermore, the Federal Court also said that a political party should not be “thin-skinned” and must always be open to public criticism.
More so, given how they should have all the resources to counter any unflattering comments made against them.
Iswatt noted that the landmark ruling doesn’t mean that individuals are free to spread misinformation and slander against political parties, as it just means that political parties can’t file a defamation suit against them.
There are other laws and legislations out there to prevent such irresponsible behaviour, more so, if such statements could be seditious and instigate unrest.
For illustration purposes
So, what do you guys think of the landmark ruling? Share your thoughts with us in the comments!
