Chong Hion Choong v Dato' Tony Looi Chee Hong (BA-23CY-8-07/2021)

CHONG HION HOONG … PLAINTIFFS [NRIC NO.: 811124-06-5543]

BRANDKER CAPITAL SDN BHD [COMPANY REGISTRATION NO.: 201801038759/1300790-D]

BIG WAVE GROUP SDN BHD [COMPANY REGISTRATION NO.: 202101023465/1423765-A] AND DATO’ TONY LOOI CHEE HONG [NRIC NO.: 730704-10-5025] … DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction 1. This is a case brought by the plaintiffs’ against the defendant for alleged defamatory statements made by the first defendant in Facebook posts and videos purportedly published by the defendant.

The plaintiffs’ case against the defendant was dismissed with costs. Hence, this appeal is filed. Salient Facts 3. Both the plaintiffs’ and the defendant are engaged in the commercial sector. The first plaintiff has established the second plaintiff, a S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw provider of corporate training and educational services. Additionally, the first plaintiff has established the third plaintiff, which manages an online platform known as the “Big Wave E-Mall.' Both the second and third plaintiffs are extensions of the first plaintiff's business operations and brand identity.

The first plaintiff, being a public figure, relies predominantly on his branding and good reputation to attract clients and retain their business for himself and his two companies.

The plaintiff's Facebook Page operates under the name Dazu Chong.

On 2.7.2020, the plaintiffs’ allege that they found out that the defendant had hosted and shared 2020 Facebook videos, in which the defendant is alleged to have made defamatory remarks against the plaintiffs’.

7.

On 28.6.2020, 30.6.2020, 2.7.2020, 17.7.2020, 25.8.2020,

11.2020 and 23.11.2020, the defendant is said to have published defamatory statements against the plaintiffs’ on his Facebook Page again.

The defendant is said to have uploaded another video to the website www.qiqu.pro and again to have defamed the plaintiffs’.

Again, on 11.6.2021 and 14.6.2021, the defendant is said to have hosted and shared Facebook Live videos, during which he is said to have defamed the plaintiffs’ once again. S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw

All the defamatory statements made by the defendant against the plaintiffs’ are alleged to have caused losses to the plaintiffs’ existing businesses, including the loss of customers and the termination of business ventures.

This resulted in the plaintiffs’ suing the defendant for defamation, in which the plaintiffs’ seek damages against the defendant.

Issues to be Tried Whether the alleged defamatory statements, as reflected in the certified transcript and differing from those pleaded in the amended statement of claim, render the pleadings defective.

Whether the plaintiffs’ failure to plead the meanings of the alleged defamatory statements renders the pleadings defective.

Whether the plaintiffs’ reliance on at least 35 alleged defamatory statements, despite only 29 being pleaded and the remaining 6 not pleaded verbatim, renders the pleadings defective.

Decision of this Court The plaintiffs’ contend that there is no deviation regarding the impugned statements, as they were pleaded in their original language, which is identical to the Facebook posts and Live Videos (Video A - Video J).

The plaintiffs’ further assert that any individual examining the translations of the contested statements as outlined in the amended statement of claim, in conjunction with the certified translations S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw contained in Bundle B1, would deduce that the meanings remain consistent and do not conflict with one another. Slight variations in wording, sentence construction, or pronoun selection in the translated audiovisual content do not constitute a significant inconsistency that would undermine the plaintiffs' defamation claim against the defendant.

It is also the plaintiffs’ submission that, when defamatory words are spoken in a foreign language, the Court should focus on the substance and defamatory implication rather than on a literal linguistic translation.

Plaintiffs’ emphasised that the impugned statements refer to the plaintiffs, as the defendant displayed photographs of the first plaintiff and his full name, Chong Hion Hoong, in the Live Videos, and also displayed the first plaintiff’s company details, as well as those of the second and third plaintiffs.

A comparison of the impugned statements as pleaded in the amended statement of claim and as reflected in the certified transcript is as follows: S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw

Upon reviewing the foregoing, it is apparent that the transcript submitted by the plaintiffs’ conflicts with or diverges from the statements alleged in the amended statement of claim. The plaintiffs’ have not explained why this discrepancy occurred.

This Court also observes that the translation of the impugned statements in the amended statement of claim is not a certified translation, a fact that remains undisputed.

Applying the principle laid down in the case of Mabel Sheela a/p Victor Muttiah v Clare Louise Brown [2025] 9 MLJ 902, the absence of a certified translation of the impugned defamatory statements in the pleadings renders them defective. An inference by the plaintiffs’ as to their meaning is insufficient.

This Court holds that defamation cases are subject to a specific set of requirements. These requirements must be strictly observed. Accordingly, failure to comply with them constitutes a fundamental defect, and the plaintiffs’ case may be dismissed on this ground alone. The relevant case is Lim Leong Hock v Hua Hang Shipping & Trading (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] MLJU 2362.

Regarding the second issue, the plaintiffs’ contend that they have pleaded in detail, as evidenced by paragraphs 22 and 24 to 27 of their amended statement of claim, the following:

the defamatory words used by the defendant verbatim; S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw

(ii) the dates and platforms of publications;

(iii) the identity of the plaintiff referred to; and

(iv) the context in which the words were uttered.

Therefore, the plaintiffs’ argument is that the defendant is aware of the allegations made against him and that no prejudice has been caused to him. It is also the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendant admitted during the trial to being the creator of the alleged Facebook posts and live videos. The case of Credit Guarantee Corporation Malaysia Bhd v SSN Medical Products Sdn Bhd [2017] 6 CLJ 129 is cited.

With regard to the above, this Court concurs with the submission put forward by the defendant on the following points:

Upon reviewing the amended statement of claim, it is not stated anywhere that the defamatory meanings and/or imputations upon which the plaintiffs’ claim is based are mentioned.

(ii) The alleged defamatory imputations and/or meanings attributed by the plaintiffs’ in their submissions, namely that the first plaintiff is a fraudster, liar, scammer, gangster, narrow-minded Indian ghost, bad-tempered, cry-baby, not deserving to be Chinese, fox, black S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw chimpanzee, black-skinned Pakistani, and one who slanders the Government and others, were not pleaded in the amended statement of claim.

(iii) The amended statement of claim generally alleges that the impugned statements are defamatory. The first plaintiff was uncertain whether the meanings allegedly attributed to the impugned statements were pleaded in his case.

It is well-established law that the meanings the plaintiffs’ ascribe to the words and statements must be expressly pleaded. In a defamation case, a plaintiff must specify what the defamatory words, in their ordinary sense, would convey to a reasonable person. The relevant cases are DDSA Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Times Newspapers Ltd and another [1972] 3 ALL ER 417; Restoran Nasi Kandar Irfanah Sdn Bhd v The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd and another appeal [2021] MLJU 1946; and Dr Tawfique Hasan Chowdhury v Aspalela Bt Ramly [2021]

This Court finds that the plaintiffs' failure to specify any defamatory meanings attributable to the plaintiffs’ in their amended statement of claim regrettably impairs this Court's ability to ascertain whether the alleged defamatory statements are indeed defamatory towards the plaintiffs’. Consequently, I regard the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim as defective and fatal to their case. S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw

Addressing the third issue, the plaintiffs’ submission is that the impugned statements must reflect the precise words alleged to be defamatory. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ contend that the impugned statements, in their original Chinese, have been pleaded verbatim, with both a literal and a certified translation into the national language, Bahasa Melayu.

The plaintiffs’ contend that evidence has been adduced in Court regarding the impugned statements attributed to the first plaintiff, which are defamatory. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ submit that the defendant’s argument that the 29 impugned statements in the amended statement of claim were not pleaded verbatim is misconceived. The same applies to the other 6 impugned statements, which are also alleged not to have been pleaded verbatim.

After reviewing the amended statement of claim and the evidence before this Court, this Court agrees with the defendant’s proposition that the three videos uploaded by the defendant on the defendant’s Facebook post and on www.qiqu.pro on 11.6.2021 and 14.6.2021 do not contain any defamatory statements pleaded in the amended statement of claim. The pleadings in relation to the videos uploaded on 11.6.2021 and 14.6.2021 are as follows: “29. Seterusnya, pada 11.6.2021 dan 14.6.2021, Defendan sekali lagi menjadi hos dan pada 36 masa yang sama, berkongsi dua (2) “Video Langsung Facebook” (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Video-Video Langsung Facebook S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw 2021 tersebut”) yang mana Defendan telah, sekali lagi, membuat kenyataan-kenyataan fitnah yang serius terhadap Plaintif Pertama – Video-Video Langsung Facebook 2021 tersebut disiarkan di Halaman Facebook Defendan selama 3 jam 16 minit 28 saat dan 2 jam 49 minit 23 saat, masing masing. Plaintif Pertama akan mengemukakan Video Langsung Facebook 2020 tersebut semasa perbicaraan tindakan ini kelak.”

The 6 purported statements, not pleaded verbatim in the amendment to the statement of claim, render the pleadings defective and fatal to the plaintiffs' case. This Court disregards the 6 purported statements.

It is unfortunate that there are so many discrepancies and a disregard for the procedural requirements for what the plaintiffs’ must prove in a defamation case against the defendant.

This Court faces an insurmountable challenge in reaching a definitive conclusion about the alleged defamatory words, owing to significant discrepancies and a failure to adhere to the stringent requirements necessary for a defamation trial.

There is no explanation from the first plaintiff as to why his companies were included in the suit against the defendant, as it is an undisputed fact that the defendant never mentioned the companies. S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw

Conclusion It is hereby ruled that, based on all the issues discussed above, this is a fit and proper case for dismissal with costs. Dated: 8th July 2026 (INDRA NEHRU SAVANDIAH) Judge High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Selangor Date of Decision: 24th April 2026 Counsels: For the Plaintiffs: Khoo Kwan Yee, Reshere Chan Yoke Ching & Natalia Tan Pei Xin Messrs Calvin Khoo & Wong For the Defendant: Phang Soon Mun & Chew Chun Wei & Yvonne Chai Yi Wen Messrs Han & Partners S/N loCasw9DxEK0veBMBy6pXw