Hannah Yeoh Tseow Suan v Kamarul Zaman Bin Haji Yusoff (WA-23CY-10-02/2022)

In 2014, the Plaintiff, who needs no introduction, decided to publish an autobiography of herself entitled Becoming Hannah: A Personal Journey Book contents of the Book would be the subject of, not just one, but two defamation suits.

In the present case, the Plaintiff commenced a claim for defamation against the Defendant in relation to two articles which were written and published in Facebook page FB on 10 and 17 May 2017 and alleged to contain defamatory statements.

After a full trial, I found that the Plaintiff has proven her claim on a balance of probabilities and thus, she was awarded a global S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg sum of RM400,000.00 as general damages and aggravated damages (RM200,000.00 per publication) with interest thereon an injunction to be issued restraining the Defendant, his servants or agents from publishing the impugned words or anything similar to these words was also allowed.

The Defendant is unsurprisingly aggrieved by my decision and is pursuing his right of appeal.

These are my full grounds of judgment.

At the pre-trial case management, the parties reached consensus on the Agreed Facts as follows.

The Plaintiff is Yeoh Tseow Suan, commonly known as Hannah Yeoh, a Malaysian citizen of legal age with an address for service at Lot No LG- 09A, Level LG, United Point, 10 Jalan Lang Emas, 51200 Kuala Lumpur.

The Plaintiff is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya. She is a politician and currently the Member of Parliament for Segambut, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. She was also a Member of the Selangor State Legislative S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg Assembly for Subang Jaya from 2008 to 2018. The Plaintiff is the former Speaker of the Selangor State Legislative Assembly and a former Deputy Minister for the Ministry for Women, Family, and Community Development.

The Defendant is a Malaysian citizen of legal age, with an address for service at No. 11B, Siaran Naib Canselor, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010, Sintok, Kedah Darul Aman.

On 10th May 2017, the Defendant authored and published, and/or caused to be published, on his public Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/kamarul.yusoff.7/post s/1529934363717283), a post titled HANNAH YEOH CONTOH HIPOKRASI TERBESAR DAP ( the first publication ).

In the first publication, the Defendant authored and published, and/or caused to be published, statements about the Plaintiff, including the following: POKRASI TERBESAR DAP Tertera di mana-mana sahaja dalam pernyataan dan ucapan DAP peri pentingnya prinsip S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg sekularisme dalam perjuangan politik DAP. Kononnya, bagi DAP, Malaysia adalah sebuah negara sekular yang perlu kekal sebagai sebuah negara sekular. Kononnya urusan politik perlu dipisahkan daripada urusan agama. Kononnya pihak yang mahu mencampurkan urusan politik dengan urusan agama, sama ada PAS atau UMNO, perlu ditentang habis-habisan. Bagaimanapun, sedarkah kita bahawa tatkala DAP melaung-laungkan supaya urusan politik dipisahkan daripada urusan agama, pemimpin DAP sendiri sebenarnya sangat giat mencampurkan urusan politik dengan urusan agama? Dan sebuah buku tulisan Speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri Selangor merangkap Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri Subang Jaya, Hannah Yeoh, bertajuk Becoming Hannah ( Menjadi Hannah ) adalah salah satu bukti nyata mengenainya. Di dalam buku ini, Hannah Yeoh secara terbuka mengakui bagaimana penglibatan beliau di dalam bidang politik dibantu oleh pihak Kristian, baik dari segi dana mahupun kempen, bagaimana beliau menggunakan kedudukan politik beliau untuk berdakwah mengenai agama Kristian dan sebagainya. Lebih dari itu, beliau juga menyeru ahli-ahli S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg Felo Kristian Seberang Laut khususnya dan penganut agama Kristian umumnya untuk mengikut jejak langkah beliau menceburkan diri dalam bidang politik untuk membina semula Malaysia mengikut acuan agama Kristian. Jelas berdasarkan kepada segala pengakuan terbuka Hannah Yeoh ini maka peri pentingnya prinsip sekularisme dalam perjuangan politik DAP adalah satu hipokrasi semata-mata. Sebaliknya, gambaran yang diberikan melalui buku ini adalah bahawa, bagi DAP, pemisahan urusan politik daripada urusan agama ini hanya perlu dibuat jika urusan agama ini adalah urusan agama Islam, tetapi jika urusan agama ini adalah urusan agama lain seperti Kristian maka tidak mengapa. Disertakan di sini beberapa petikan tulisan Hannah Yeoh di dalam buku beliau yang bukan sahaja diendorse oleh Senior Pastor, DUMC, Petaling Jaya, Dr Daniel Ho, Senior Pastor, Skyline SIB, Kota Kinabalu, Dr Philip Lyn, dan Ahli Parlimen Petaling Jaya Utara, Tony Pua, tetapi yang turut diendorse juga oleh Ahli Parlimen Pandan, Rafizi Ramli, dan Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri Hulu Kelang, Saari Sungib. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg MUKA SURAT 23 This is why, today, when I am asked to describe who I am and what I do, I say, Hannah Yeoh, lives for God. Terjemahan: Inilah sebab mengapa, hari ini, bila saya diminta untuk menerangkan siapa saya dan apa saya buat, saya berkata, Hannah Yeoh, hidup untuk Tuhan. MUKA SURAT 89 I do not measure my self-worth as a politician by votes or by how popular I am with constituents. I measure my self-worth by the fact that I am a child of God. Terjemahan: Saya tidak mengukur harga diri saya sebagai seorang ahli politik dengan undi atau dengan populariti saya di kalangan pengundi. Saya mengukur harga diri saya dengan fakta bahawa saya adalah seorang anak Tuhan. MUKA SURAT 108 S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg I also felt that politics took me away from my true longing, which was to be a preacher. But had I not obeyed God's call, I would not have had the opportunity to preach at churches, to world leaders and to young people, like I am able to do now. God knew the desire of my heart to preach and serve Him. And He made it happen through my political office. Terjemahan: Saya juga merasakan bahawa politik membawa saya jauh dari impian sebenar saya, iaitu untuk menjadi seorang pendakwah. Tetapi jika saya tidak mematuhi panggilan Tuhan, saya tidak akan mempunyai peluang untuk berdakwah di gereja-gereja, kepada pemimpin-pemimpin dunia dan kepada orang-orang muda, seperti apa yang saya mampu buat sekarang. Tuhan tahu hasrat hati saya untuk berdakwah dan berkhidmat kepada-Nya. Dan Dia membuat ia berlaku melalui jawatan politik saya. MUKA SURAT 110 S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg It is here that I want to specially address the OCFers (Overseas Christian Fellowship), wherever you are now, to never forget the mission of being trained and equipped and returning home to serve... We want to encourage fellow OCFers to come home. There is much work to be done to rebuild this beautiful nation. Just like Nehemiah overseeing the reconstruction of Jerusalem s walls, everyone has to be at it, working. God wants to reclaim politics and public service in Malaysia for righteousness sake. He is looking for God-fearing men and women who are willing to roll up their sleeves and labour in this very demanding field. No experience in politics? Remember, I had none. No finances? I had none. Not a good time yet? I just got married when I ran my first campaign. He uses very ordinary vessels to do extraordinary things. He does this so His Name is glorified. Terjemahan: Di sini saya ingin bercakap secara khusus kepada ahli-ahli Felo Kristian Seberang Laut, di mana saja kamu berada sekarang, untuk tidak lupa misi dilatih dan dilengkap dan pulang untuk berkhidmat...Kami ingin menggalakkan kawan-kawan Felo Kristian Seberang Laut untuk S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg pulang. Terdapat banyak kerja perlu dibuat untuk membina semula negara yang indah ini. Seperti Nehemiah mengawasi pembinaan semula tembok-tembok Jerusalem, setiap orang perlu terlibat, bekerja. Tuhan mahu menuntut semula politik dan perkhidmatan awam di Malaysia demi untuk membetulkannya. Dia sedang mencari lelaki dan anita bertaqwa yang sanggup menggulung lengan baju mereka dan bekerja dalam bidang yang sangat mencabar ini. Tiada pengalaman dalam politik? Ingat, saya tidak ada pengalaman. Tiada wang? Ingat, saya tidak ada wang. Masa sesuai belum tiba? Saya baru berkahwin bila saya pertama kali berkempen. Dia menggunakan saluran-saluran sangat biasa untuk membuat perkara-perkara luar biasa. Dia membuatnya supaya Nama-Nya diagungkan.

In relation to the first publication, the Plaintiff lodged a police report on 15th May 2017, Report No: Subang Jaya/004959/17. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

On 17th May 2017, the Defendant authored and published, and/or caused to be published, his public Facebook another post on (https://www.facebook.com/kamarul.yusoff.7/post s/1538109116233141) page titled LAPORAN POLIS SAYA TERHADAP HANNAH YEOH ( the second publication ).

In the second publication, the Defendant authored and published, and/or caused to be published, the content of a police report lodged by him, containing the following statements about the Plaintiff: LAPORAN POLIS SAYA TERHADAP HANNAH YEOH Pada 17 Mei 2017, jam 600 pagi, saya berada di rumah, membaca buku tulisan Hannah Yeoh bertajuk Becoming Hanna . Buku ini dicetak oleh Vinlin Press Sdn Bhd yang beralamat di 2, Jalan Meranti Permai 1, Meranti Permai Industrial Park, Batu 15, Jalan Puchong, 47100 Puchong, Selangor. Ia diterbitkan oleh Strategic Information and Research Development Centre yang beralamat di No 2, Jalan Bukit 11/2, 46200 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg Saya membeli buku ini kerana ia berada di rak terbuka sebuah gedung buku dan kerana saya tahu penulisnya ialah seorang ahli politik yang menjawat jawatan Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri Subang Jaya dan jawatan Speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri Selangor. Pada hemat saya, disebabkan penulisnya seorang ahli politik, tentulah kandungan buku ini akan banyak menyentuh pembabitan penulisnya dalam bidang politik, iaitu bidang kajian saya. Bagaimanapun, saya terkejut bila mendapati buku ini mengandungi terlalu banyak kisah dan petikan dari Bible, Kitab yang menjadi pegangan penganut agama Kristian. Saya berpendapat bahawa buku ini merupakan satu cubaan untuk memujuk, mempengaruhi, atau menghasut seorang lain yang bukan beragama Kristian, termasuk yang beragama Islam, supaya menjadi penganut atau anggota agama Kristian atau supaya cenderong kepada agama Kristian. Apa yang ditonjolkan di dalam buku ini adalah penganut agama Kristian adalah insan yang beruntung dan Tuhan agama Kristian adalah Tuhan yang kasih, baik dan adil. Diceritakan betapa Hannah Yeoh sering menerima prophecy (pengetahuan mengenai masa depan) S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg tepat dari Tuhan beliau, termasuk bahawa suatu hari nanti beliau akan bekerja bersama negarawan dan pemerintah ( I would someday work among statesmen and rulers , muka surat 109). Diceritakan juga betapa Tuhan Hannah Yeoh sering mendatangkan keajaiban dengan memberi bantuan di dalam bentuk yang tidak disangka-sangka tatkala beliau sangat memerlukan. Ini antara lainnya terjadi di dalam kempen pilihan raya (muka surat 50-51), di dalam memenuhi hasrat hati beliau ( the desires of my heart ) dan di dalam memenuhi hasrat material beliau ( the material desires I had ), termasuklah dari segi kewangan (muka surat 108-109). Kesemua cerita ini boleh mendorong pembacanya, termasuk saya, merasa kagum dengan kehebatan Tuhan Hannah Yeoh. Sedangkan pada masa lain beliau selitkan pula catatan mengenai ajaran Kristian yang bertentangan dengan ajaran Islam, termasuklah bahawa manusia adalah anak Tuhan ( His beloved Child dan Child of God , muka surat 22 dan 89) dan Isa/Jesus adalah anak Tuhan dan Tuhan ( the Son of God dan God , muka surat 102). S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg Hannah Yeoh memang bermaksud supaya buku beliau turut dibaca oleh orang bukan Kristian. Ini kamu bukan seorang Kristian dan sedang membaca buku ini ( If you are not a Christian and are reading this book , muka surat 14). Ini selari dengan pendedahan mengenai misi beliau sebagai duta Tuhan dan untuk mencari pengikut ( as ambassador of God and to make disciples of others , muka surat 7). Hakikat bahawa Hannah Yeoh memang memaksudkan buku beliau turut dibaca oleh orang bukan Kristian juga terbukti kerana buku ini boleh dibeli oleh sesiapa sahaja, termasuklah yang beragama Islam. Ini diakui sendiri oleh Hannah Yeoh di dalam kenyataan media beliau pada 15 Mei 2017 bahawa buku ini boleh dibeli secara atas talian di www.gerakbudaya.com atau mana-mana gedung buku utama seperti Kinokuniya, MPH, Popular dan Times . Oleh itu, Hannah Yeoh mungkin telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 4(1)(a) Enakmen Kawalan dan Sekatan (Pengembangan Agama Bukan Islam) Selangor 1988 (Enakmen No 1/1988) yang menyebut Seseorang adalah melakukan kesalahan jika ia memujuk, mempengaruhi, S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg atau menghasut seorang lain yang beragama Islam supaya menjadi penganut atau anggota suatu agama bukan Islam atau supaya cenderong kepada agama itu . Selain itu, Hannah Yeoh juga mungkin telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 298(A)(1) Kanun Keseksaan kerana

menyebabkan, atau cuba menyebabkan, atau mungkin menyebabkan suasana tidak harmoni, perpecahan, atau perasaan permusuhan, benci membenci atau niat jahat, atau

memudaratkan, atau cuba memudaratkan, atau mungkin memudaratkan pemeliharaan keadaan harmoni atau perpaduan, di atas alasan agama. Ini kerana terdapat bukti bahawa tulisan dalam buku Hannah Yeoh ini mendatangkan keresahan di kalangan umat Islam di negara ini. Apatah lagi bila Hannah Yeoh sendiri mendedahkan betapa beliau menggunakan jawatan politik beliau ( my political office ) untuk berdiayah di gereja-gereja, kepada pemimpin-pemimpin dunia dan kepada orang-orang muda ( to preach at churches, to world leaders and to young people , muka surat 108). S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg Begitu juga seruan Hannah Yeoh agar penganut Kristian membina semula Malaysia kerana Tuhan mahu menuntut semula politik dan perkhidmatan awam di Malaysia ( God wants to reclaim politics and public service in Malaysia , muka surat 110), ditambah tindakan beliau mengaitkan diri dengan cita-cita untuk membawa kepercayaan dan perkhidmatan Kristian kepada dunia awam ( aims to bring Christian faith and service to the public sphere ). Di dalam satu wawancara yang dimuatnaik oleh laman web Islamic Renaissance Front pada 7 September 2012, seorang pengkaji Evangelical Christianity di Malaysia, Dr Chris Chong, bersetuju bahawa DAP mempunyai pengikut besar di kalangan Kristian evangelical, dan Hannah Yeoh disebutkan sebagai satu contoh baik mengenainya, di mana kawasan pilihan raya beliau didakwa mempunyai bilangan gereja per kapita paling banyak di Malaysia. Saya sendiri pemah mendengar luahan kawan-kawan beragama Islam yang sangat tidak berpuas hati dengan tindakan Hannah Yeoh ini kerana ia dikatakan bertentangan dengan Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang menyebut bahawa agama Islam adalah agama Persekutuan selain S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg bertentangan dengan Perkara XLVIII(1) Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan yang menyebut bahawa agama Islam adalah agama Negeri. Oleh itu, saya minta pihak polis membuat siasatan ke atas beliau di bawah Enakmen dan Kanun ini dan/atau di bawah mana-mana peruntukan undang-undang lain yang berkaitan. Sekianlah laporan saya.

The Plaintiff issued a Notice of Demand dated 19 August 2021 to the Defendant through her solicitors, demanding, among other things, an unequivocal apology and damages for both the first and second defamatory publications.

The Defendant responded to the Notice of Demand in a letter dated 23 August 2021, a that he authored both defamatory publications. However, he denied the other claims and raised several defences.

The first publication on 10.5.2017 and the second publication on 17.5.2017 shall hereinafter be First Publication and Second Publication , and Publications . S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

The words in bold, which the Plaintiff claimed to be the sting of the defamation in the First Publication and Second Publication First Impugned Words Second Impugned Words

In respect of the First Impugned Words, the Plaintiff pleaded that

the Defendant caused the said First Impugned Words to be published to the word at large and also caused the notorious, malicious and incorrect First Impugned Words to be republished by several media publication and were shared at least 250 times by the public;

the former Inspector General of Malaysia IGP Tan Sri Musa Bin Haji Hassan had on 30.1.2020 delivered a speech as a guest speaker in a public forum titled Wacana Isu Semasa Perjanjian Damai Hat Yai 1989: PKM Menyerah Diri held at Universiti Teknologi MARA, wherein he allegedly made defamatory statements, which was at the material time, the subject matter of a suit in the Kuala Lumpur High Court (see Yeoh Tseow Suan v Musa bin Haji Hassan [2025] 10 MLJ 660). The Defendant caused the republication of the malicious First Impugned Words by the former IGP at a public forum; S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

the First Impugned Words are

derogatory and defamatory of the Plaintiff because, by their natural and ordinary meanings or by innuendo, the meanings attributable to the First Impugned Words are as follows:

(A) the Plaintiff has a motive to proselytise Christianity through her politics;

(B) the Plaintiff intends to convert Malaysia into a Christian country in direct violation of the

(C) the Plaintiff intends to destroy or threaten the religion and/or the practise of Islam in Malaysia;

(D) the Plaintiff harbours dishonourable motives as a politician, with a hidden religious agenda;

(E) the Plaintiff is an untrustworthy politician who would use her position and influence for unlawful/ illegal purposes and would betray the foundational principles of Malaysia for her personal interest;

(F) the Plaintiff is a hypocrite, lacks integrity and is not fit to be a representative of a multiracial/ multi religious country; and S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

(G) the Plaintiff is willing to accept mixing race and religion with politics so long as it is beneficial to Christianity but will condemn those who mix Islam with politics;

(ii) was an intentional manipulation of the contents of the Book, by the Defendant wherein the Defendant deliberately, dishonestly and maliciously misled the public with the intention of painting the Plaintiff to be unfit as a politician;

(iii) are offensive, untrue and a malicious attempt to seriously defame the Plaintiff publicly and to expose her to hatred, contempt and ridicule with the calculated aim of destroying her reputation as an elected representative of a multiracial and multireligious population; and

(iv) were purposefully authored and published by the Defendant and were highly inflammable in the context of a multi racial and multi religious population, thereby deliberately attempting to incite religious issues or tensions and fuelling public sentiments against the Plaintiff; and

upon having read the Fist Publication, the Plaintiff lodged a police report on 15.5.2017. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

position that

the Defendant caused the contents of his police report to be published to the world at large and also caused the notorious, malicious and incorrect Second Impugned Words to be republished by several media publications and shared at least 180 times by the public;

the Second Impugned Words are derogatory and defamatory of the Plaintiff because, by their natural and ordinary meanings or by innuendo, the meanings attributable to the Second Impugned Words are the same as per the First Impugned Words, with the addition that the Plaintiff had committed criminal offences;

the publication of the Second Impugned Words, apart from what was stated in subparagraphs 9(c)(ii) - (iv)above, was an intentional publication by the Defendant of the contents of his police report to deliberately, dishonestly and maliciously mislead the public with the intention of painting the Plaintiff as someone who had committed criminal offences and unfit as a politician; and

the conduct of publishing the contents of his police report to the public at large went beyond calling upon the relevant authorities to investigate, but instead was a malicious act of condemning the Plaintiff in the eyes of the public. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

The republication by the media publications included Malaysia Today and 1Media; and on 16.5.2017, PRU14.tv, Buletin 247, AIDCNEWS and MYMASSA; on 17.5.2017, Free Malaysia Today, Suara Pakatan Harapan, Utaranews and Kedahnews.com; and on 18.5.2017, Wartawan Menara, Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia, Ibnu Hasyim and TKO Tranungkite.

Therefore, the Plaintiff prayed for, among others, the following reliefs:

general, aggravated and exemplary damages;

an injunction restraining the Defendant, whether by himself, his servants or his agents from further publishing or causing to be published the impugned statements or any similar words defamatory of the Plaintiff; and

an unconditional public retraction and apology. THE

The Defendant asserted that the Publications are not defamatory, were not made with malice and do not satisfy the elements required for a cause of action in defamation against the Defendant.

It was further contended by the Defendant that his postings do not bear the meanings as pleaded by the Plaintiff in paragraphs S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg 9(a) to (g) and 10(a) to (g) of the SoC , and that the Second Publication does not bear the meanings pleaded in paragraphs 18(a) to (h) and 19(a) to (h) of the SoC.

The Defendant that, even if the Publications are defamatory, he shall rely on the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege as

the Publications constitute a mere opinion and fair criticism directed at the Plaintiff in her capacity as a politician, to caution the Plaintiff about the risk of violating laws in Malaysia through her writings; and

the Defendant, in his capacity as a Senior Lecturer at UUM , and a recognised political analyst who is frequently invited as a panellist or moderator at forums discussing political issues in Malaysia, and a person with responsibilities relating to religion, social and moral grounds, has the right to criticise and correct the Plaintiff in her efforts which are contrary to the Federal Constitution, wherein Islam is the official religion and followers of other religions are only granted the freedom to practise their respective faiths. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg THE TRIAL & AGREED ISSUES TO BE TRIED

The trial was held for nine days. Seven witnesses testified for the Plaintiffs whilst the Defendants called five witnesses. The witnesses are as follows:

YB Hannah Yeoh Tseow Suan, Minister of Youth and

YB Nik Nazmi Bin Nik Ahmad, Minister of Natural

Ms. Deborah Loh Wern Ai, Contract Editor (PW3);

Mr. Chong Ton Sin, Managing Director, Syarikat Buku (PW4);

Mr. Nor Miswary Bin Ramli, Private Secretary to the Plaintiff (PW5);

YB Syerleena Binti Abdul Rashid, Member of Parliament, Bukit Bendera, Penang (PW6);

Mr. Khalid Bin Abdul Samad, Former Minister of Federal

Dr. Kamarul Zaman Bin Haji Yusoff, Senior Lecturer, UUM (DW1); S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

Tan Sri Ibrahim Shah Bin Abu Shah, Government

Tn. Hj. Aminuddin Bin Yahya, Auditor (DW3); and

Mr. Harizal Bin Hassan, Social Media Manager (DW4).

At the stage of the trial when the Defendant called Ms. Helen Ang Gaik Poh, the second witness, Ms. Sangeet Kaur had raised an remaining witnesses. I then heard the submissions of the parties before delivering my ruling on 4.2.2025 as follows: In deciding on the objection raised by the Plaintiff, the critical parts of the pleadings are in

paragraph 16, SoC, specifically the bolded text in the second and third paragraphs of the First Publication; and

paragraph 28 of the Defence which reads: Di perenggan 3 yang digelapkan di muka surat 12 Pernyataan Tuntutan, Defendan tidak membuat sebarang tuduhan ke atas Plaintif dan/atau memfitnah Plaintif apabila menyatakan luahan kawan-kawan Defendan kepada Defendn perasaan tidak puas hati mereka terhadap penulisan Plaintif dalam S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg Becoming Hannah. Kawan-kawan yang meluahkan perasaan kepada Defendan akan dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan. graph 28 of the Defence is not a pleading on the defences of justification and fair comment. Hence, requirements of O. 78, r. 3(2), of the Rules of Court 2012 RC 2012 RC 2012 in relation to the obligation to plead particulars in respect of the defences of justification and fair comment do not apply. The Defendant contended that paragraph 28 of the Defence is his pleading that the bolded text in the second and third paragraphs of the First Publication is not defamatory as it luahan kawan-kawan beragama Islam and that these friends will be called to give evidence. Reading paragraph 28 of the Defence and the fact that the defences in relation to the Second Publication are pleaded in paragraphs 36 to 38 of the Defence, the Court accepts graph 28 is a pleading on whether the bolded text in the second and third paragraphs of the First Publication is defamatory. The Plaintiff submitted that the alternative meaning to the words has not been pleaded and this was admitted by DW1. Going back to the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, it is well-established that the determination as to S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg whether the words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning involves a question of law that turns upon the construction of the words published. As submitted by Ms. Sangeet, it is an objective test. As regards the objection witnesses which have yet to be called by the Defendant, I decided to allow Ms. Helen Ang and the three remaining witnesses to testify on the issue of whether the bolded text in the second and third paragraphs of the First Publication is defamatory. However, within a few minutes of Ms. Helen Ang withdraw Ms. Helen Ang as a witness for the Defendant and for her evidence to be expunged as, being a non-Muslim, it was not possible for her to give evidence on luahan kawan-kawan beragama Islam . and thus, Ms. Helen Tan Sri Ibrahim Shah Bin Abu Shah was called witness.

ITBT for the trial are as follows:

Whether the Defendant has published and/or caused to be published the First Impugned Words and the Second Impugned Words to the entire S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg world, which have been republished by several media outlets and shared at least 250 times (for the First Impugned Words) and 180 times (for the Second Publication).

Whether the contents of the First Impugned Words and the Second Impugned Words can bear the natural and/or innuendo meanings as pleaded by the Defendant.

If so, whether the natural and/or innuendo meanings as pleaded by the Defendant amount to a strained construction of the words.

Whether the First Impugned Words and the Second Impugned Words are defamatory.

Whether the Defence of Justification pleaded by the Defendant in relation to the First Impugned Words a. is a valid defence in view of the particulars of Justification pleaded; and b. has been proven in view of the particulars of Justification pleaded. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

Whether the Defence of Qualified Privilege pleaded by the Defendant in relation to the First Impugned Words a. is a valid defence in view of the particulars of Qualified Privilege pleaded; and b. has been proven in view of the particulars of Qualified Privilege pleaded.

Whether the Defendant has a moral and/or, legal and/or, social duty to author and publish the First Impugned Words.

Whether the Defence of Fair Comment pleaded by the Defendant in relation to the First Impugned Words a. is a valid defence in view of the particulars of Fair Comment pleaded; and b. has been proven in view of the particulars of Fair Comment pleaded.

Whether the publication of his police report to the public by the Defendant is protected by any of the defences pleaded by the Defendant. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

Whether the Defendants pleading in relation to the second impugned words that he was expressing recognised within the law.

Whether the Defendants is entitled to express and derogatory and defamatory of the Plaintiff.

Whether the Defence of Justification pleaded by the Defendant in relation to the Second Impugned Words a. is a valid defence in view of the particulars of Justification pleaded; and b. has been proven in view of the particulars of Justification pleaded.

Whether the Defence of Qualified Privilege pleaded by the Defendant in relation to the Second Impugned Words a. is a valid defence in view of the particulars of Qualified Privilege pleaded; and b. has been proven in view of the particulars of Qualified Privilege pleaded. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

Whether the Defendant has a moral and/or, legal and/or, social duty to author and publish the Second Impugned Words.

Whether the Defence of Fair Comment pleaded by the Defendant in relation to the Second Impugned Words a. is a valid defence in view of the particulars of Fair Comment pleaded; and b. has been proven in view of the particulars of Fair Comment pleaded.

In the event the defences of Qualified Privilege and/or Fair Comment have been successfully established, whether the Defendant acted with malice in publishing and/or causing the republication of the First Impugned Words and the Second Impugned Words, which defamed the Plaintiff.

Whether by having proven malice, the Defences of Qualified Privilege and Fair Comment have been defeated, in the event the defences of S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg Qualified Privilege and/or Fair Comment were successfully established.

In the event the Plaintiff has successfully proven her claim and defeated defences, if any, whether she is entitled to the relief sought.

The legal principles on the tort of defamation are entrenched by the long line of authorities and these may be summarised as follows:

the plaintiff must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the statement

bears defamatory imputations;

(ii) tation; and

(iii) must have been published to a third person by the defendant [see voluntary liquidation) v Hue Chieh Lee [2019] 3 CLJ 729 at 743 (FC) and Nurul Izzah Binti Anwar v Tan Sri Khalid Bin S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg Abu Bakar & Anor [2018] 7 CLJ 622 (HC); see too, Ayob Saud v. TS Sambanthamurthi [1989] 1 MLJ 315 (HC)];

the determination on whether the words complained of are defamatory involves a question of law where the court has to decide on

what meaning the words complained of would convey to an ordinary person; and

(ii) whether under the circumstances in which the words were published, a reasonable man would likely to understand the words in a defamatory way. In this regard, the court must consider the particular circumstances and the context in which the words complained of were used and published or the entirety of the content of the whole article and not simply on isolated passages [see Raub Australian Gold Mining (supra); see too, Keluarga Communication v. Normala Samsuddin [2006] 2 AMR 604 (CA), New Straits Times Press (M) Sdn Bhd [2010] 5 CLJ 301 (HC) and Lim Guan Eng v Ruslan Kassim & Another Appeal [2021] 3 MLRA 207 (FC)];

the test to be applied in determining whether the statement is capable of bearing a defamatory meaning is an objective test, namely S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

whether the words published in their natural and ordinary meaning impute to the plaintiff any dishonourable or discreditable conduct or motives or a lack of integrity on his part; and if the answer is in the affirmative, then the words complained of are defamatory [see Chok Foo Choo v. The China Press Bhd [1999] 1 CLJ 461 (CA)]. What the ordinary man would infer without special knowledge is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. More often the sting is not so much in the words themselves as in what the ordinary man will infer from them [see Lewis v. Daily Telegraph [1963] 2 All ER 151 (HL)]; and

(ii) whether the statement has a tendency to excite against the plaintiff the adverse opinion of others, although no one believes the statement to be true, or would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The typical type of defamation is an attack upon the moral character of the plaintiff attributing crime, dishonesty, untruthfulness, ingratitude or cruelty [see Tun Datuk Patinggi Haji Abdul Rahman [1996] 1 MLJ 393 (HC)];

the defences available to a defendant are

justification i.e. that the words convey a meaning that is true; S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

(ii) that the words were fair comment on a matter of public interest; and

(iii) that the words are published on an occasion of qualified privilege. Only if the elements of defamation have been satisfied by the plaintiff would the burden shift to the defendant to prove, on credible evidence, that the words were not defamatory and the pleaded defences [see Lim Guan Eng v Utusan Melayu (M) Sdn Bhd [2012] 3 MLRH 124 (HC)].

In determining the ITBT in this case, I was guided by all the abovementioned legal principles.

At the outset, I should state that my analysis, findings and conclusions on the issues were made with the benefit of having read the Book in its entirety.

Despite the directions to the learned counsels that their written submissions must be on the issues in the ITBT, as the ITBT was approved as being in accordance with the pleadings of the S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg parties, the learned counsel for the Defendant argued as his last point in the Written Submission (encl. 124) that the Plaintiff lacks locus as she has brought this action as a Member of Parliament

Now, it was obvious that the Defendant did not raise the issue of locus standi from the very first opportunity i.e. in the pleadings, and nor did he apply to strike out the suit on this ground. This issue was clearly an afterthought.

Nevertheless, I shall deal with the issue to put the matter to rest.

The Defendant relied on the decision by the Court of Appeal in Syed Nazri Syed Harun & Anor v Lim Guan Eng and other appeals [2019] 4 MLJ 259 in submitting that the Plaintiff is not entitled to bring the action in defamation against the Defendant in her capacity as a MP. The Court of Appeal had referred to the earlier decision in Adnan bin Hj Yaakob [2016] 5 MLJ 56.

However, the law as it stands now has been made clear by the Federal Court in Lim Guan Eng v Ruslan Bin Kassim and another appeal (supra) where it was held, among others, that a public official must enjoy the same rights as other citizens and be allowed to sue for damages for defamation in any individual capacity whether in relation to personal or official matters and that the decision in Adnan Yaakob No distinction is to be drawn between a public official being defamed S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg in his or her personal or official capacity, where the impugned publication clearly singles out and identifies the said individual.

In the instant case, the Plaintiff brought the action in her personal capacity. The Plaintiff has clearly been named and targeted in the Publications.

Therefore, on the issue of locus was premised on a wrong understanding of the law and was outrightly rejected by this Court.

The burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff to prove that the First Impugned Words in the First Publication and the Second Impugned Words in the Second Publication are defamatory; and that the First Impugned Words and the Second Impugned Words refer to the Plaintiff; and were published.

Similar to the case of Nurul Izzah (supra), the Defendant here did not dispute that he had published the First Impugned Words and the Second Impugned Words in his FB (see paragraphs 3 and 22 of the Defence).

However, the Defendant referred to excerpts from the evidence by PW1, PW2 and PW5 during cross-examination in contending that the First Impugned Words do not refer to the Plaintiff, but rather to the DAP. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

Plaintiff that it must be rejected outright for the following reasons:

In paragraph 6 of the Defence, the Defendant pleaded that: Perenggan 2 petikan di muka surat 2 Pernyataan Tuntutan merujuk kepada Parti Tindakan Demokratik (selepas daripada ini akan di rujuk sebagai DAP ) sebagai hipokrit kerana dalam masa DAP melaungkan dan mempertahankan prinsip sekularisme yang menuntut urusan agama diasingkan daripada urusan politik, terdapat pemimpin DAP sendiri, seperti Plaintif, yang sebenarnya sangat giat mencampurkan urusan politik dengan urusan agama. to mean that the first bolded text in the First Publication refers to the DAP as being hypocrite. Yet in the same paragraph, the Defendant himself pleaded terdapat pemimpin DAP sendiri, seperti Plaintif, yang sebenarnya giat mencampurkan urusan politik dengan urusan agama. . By virtue of this pleading, the Defendant concedes the reference to the Plaintiff within the first bolded text in the First Publication.

Nowhere else in the Defence has the Defendant pleaded that the First Publication or the First Impugned Words do not refer to the Plaintiff. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

The heading HANNAH YEOH CONTOH HIPOKRASI TERBESAR DAP makes explicit reference to the Plaintiff and the First Publication relates directly to the Book.

In the earlier part of encl. 124, the Defendant zealously argued, on the authority of Lim Guan Eng v Ruslan Kassim & Another Appeal (supra), that the three bolded texts in the First Publication must be considered in the context of the counsel cross-examined PW2 and PW5, he referred them to only the first bolded text in the First Publication in suggesting that it does not refer to the Plaintiff. The learned counsel did not put it to these witnesses that the First Publication does not refer to the Plaintiff.

In paragraph 46 of encl. 124, the Defendant himself submitted that:

Sekiranya dirujuk kepada keterangan Defendan (DW-1) ketika Pemeriksaan Balas dan Pemeriksaan Semula, Defendan dengan jelas menyatakan bahawa konteks keseluruhan Artikel Pertama beliau tersebut hanya ingin menyampaikan kepada umum bahawa Plaintif telah mencampurkan politik dengan agama berdasarkan kepada pengakuan dan penulisan Plaintif sendiri dalam buku Becoming Hannah, yang mana S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg pengakuan dan tindakan Plaintif tersebut jelas sekali tidak sepertimana ungkapan pemimpin DAP bahawa DAP memperjuangkan negara sekular yang memisahkan politik dengan agama. (emphasis added).

The Defendant did not raise a similar argument in respect of the Second Publication. Hence, the Defendant is deemed to accept that the Second Impugned Words in the Second Publication refer to the Plaintiff. In any event, the Second Laporan Polis Saya Terhadap Hannah Yeoh than this.

In sum, the Defendant faced an uphill battle in trying to convince the Court that the First Impugned Words do not refer to the Plaintiff when they clearly do. There is no doubt whatsoever that each of the bolded texts in the First Publication contains express reference to the Plaintiff by her name.

Moving on to the requirement that the First Impugned Words in the First Publication are defamatory, the Defendant argued that

the Plaintiff has relied on selected words as they appear in three paragraphs out of nine paragraphs. By not considering the entire First Publication in order to understand th the same has resulted in the Plaintiff to misinterpret or S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg salah tafsir convey, namely that

there are several matters in the Book which are contrary to the teachings of Islam;

(ii) the Book is placed on the rack under the subject of Politics Religion public. Hence, the Defendant is concerned that there are elements in the book which portrays Christianity in an attractive and beautiful way such that it can potentially induce the readers to feel fascinated and become inclined to like the Christian religion;

(iii) involvement of religion in her political career ing secularism;

(iv) the Plaintiff clearly urged the members of the Overseas Christian Fellowship OCF to return to Malaysia to rebuild the country in the same way as Nehemiah overseeing the reconstruction of

the Defendant feels a sense of responsibility to inform the public, especially the Muslims in this country, to be careful as to the contents of the Book and not to be influenced or encouraged with the implied message which the Plaintiff wants to convey in the Book; and S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

the entire publication of the First Publication was based on through the translation of the excerpts of the book in the national language, which was not disputed by the Plaintiff.

O. 78, r. 3 of the RC 2012 Obligations to give particulars reads as follows: Obligations to give particulars (O. 78, r. 3)

(1) Where in an action for libel or slander the plaintiff alleges that the words or matters complained of were used in a defamatory sense other than their ordinary meaning, he must give particulars of the facts and matters on which he relies in respect of such sense.

Where in an action for libel or slander the Defendant alleges that, in so far as the words complained of consist of statements of fact, they are true in substance and in fact, and in so far as they consist of expressions of opinion, they are fair comment on a matter of public interest, or pleads to the like effect, he must give particulars stating which of the words complained of he alleges are statements of fact and of the facts and matters he relies on in support of the allegation that the words are true.

Where in an action for libel or slander the plaintiff alleges that the defendant maliciously published the S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg words or matters complained of, he need not in his statement of claim give particulars of the facts on which he relies in support of the allegation of malice, but if the defendant pleads that any of those words or matters are fair comment on a matter of public interest or were published upon a privileged occasion and the plaintiff intends to allege that the defendant was actuated by express malice, he must serve a reply giving particulars of the facts and matters from which the malice is to be inferred.

I and I find that, in the SoC, the Plaintiff had pleaded the First Publication in its entirety to provide the complete context and the parts in bolded text are the sting of the defamation.

The plain and natural meanings, and innuendo meanings of the First Impugned Words were also pleaded in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the SoC, among others, that the Plaintiff has a motive to proselytise Christianity through her politics, intends to convert Malaysia into a Christian country in direct violation of the Federal Constitution and intends to destroy or threaten the religion or the practise of Islam in Malaysia.

In the Defence, the Defendant denied the meanings that can be conveyed by the First Impugned Words as pleaded by the Plaintiff S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg sangkaan melampau alternative meanings to the First Impugned Words were pleaded.

In fact, during cross-examination, the Defendant agreed that the First Impugned Words and the Second Impugned Words do carry the meanings as pleaded by the Plaintiff.

In the circumstances, I was submission that it is now not open to the Defendant to submit that the meanings ascribed by the Plai salah tafsiran

wanted to convey is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the ordinary man understood from the First Impugned Words; it is an objective test [see Cooper v Warburton (1931) 44 BCR 328 and Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331 as cited in Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun v Haji Hasan Bin Hamzah [1995] 1 MLJ 3 and Jeyaratnam Joshua Benjamin v. Lee Kuan Yew [1992] 2 LSR 301 as referred to in Nurul Izzah (supra)].

An ordinary man would understand the First Impugned Words to mean, among others, that the Plaintiff was spreading Christianity, which is against the law, and the Plaintiff was therefore a criminal.

The First Impugned Words are defamatory as they impute the lack of trustworthiness in that the Plaintiff is a politician who harbours a hidden religious agenda and uses her political position to spread Christianity to Muslims, and who mixes religion with S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg politics as long as it benefits Christianity but will condemn those who mix Islam with politics.

As regards the requirement that the Second Impugned Words in the Second Publication is defamatory, the Defendant similarly contended that the Second Publication has not been read as a whole and that the Plaintiff relied only on six paragraphs out of 15.

I find that the Plaintiff has also pleaded the Second Publication in its entirety, with the sting of the defamation shown in the bolded text.

The Defendant had similarly conceded in cross-examination that the Second Impugned Words carried the meanings as pleaded by the Plaintiff in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the SoC. No alternative meaning was pleaded by the Defendant. This boosts the s as gathered from both the First Impugned Words and the Second Impugned Words were the natural and ordinary meaning which left even the Defendant unable to plead any alternative meanings.

In encl. 124, the Defendant to six phares, namely to make disciples of others ambassadors of God S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg Child of God apolitical if you are not Christian and reading this Book God want to reclaim politics for righteousness sake and the Defendan the Second Impugned Words were not read in the context as understood and interpreted by the Defendant as a person who read the Book.

that the contents of the Book are contrary to the teachings of Islam and he only read the first four or five chapters in the Book as it did not jive with his Islamic world view. Even PW4 merely flipped some pages and he did not read the whole Book.

In short, the Defendant again relied on his understanding and intent of the Book, which the law has laid down, is irrelevant in determining the meaning of the First Impugned Words and the Second Impugned Words. PW4 and PW6 never suggested that the Plaintiff was trying to convert Muslims through the Book and that she was a criminal.

Moreover, in relation to the Second Impugned Words, no explanation was forthcoming in the entire written submission by the Defendant as to why there was a need to publish his police S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg report, if his intention was truly for it to be investigated by the police.

The Defendant takes the position that his understanding of the Book led him to lodge a police report and publish the same bagi mendedahkan kepada umum berkenaan kandungan Becoming Hannah yang jelas bercanggah dengan ajaran agama Islam The teachings of the Christian faith are, of course, as with the other faiths in the world, different from that of the Muslim faith.

If the Defendant truly believed that the Plaintiff has committed an offence of proselytization through the Book, lodging the police report is sufficient. The matter should be left to the police to investigate. To date, the Plaintiff has not been charged for any criminal offence in relation to the Book. There is merit in the was not genuinely interested in having the issue investigated but instead intended to incite the feelings of the readers against the Plaintiff.

Publishing words which convey the meaning that the Plaintiff is a criminal is most obviously derogatory.

Suggesting that the Plaintiff who holds public office is a threat to Islam and an untrustworthy politician and that she has abused her public positions to advance an ulterior religious agenda, i.e. to Christianise the country, would certainly expose, and has exposed, her to hatred, ridicule and contempt in a multiracial and multireligious nation where religious issues are very sensitive, but S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg unfortunately often used by irresponsible parties to gain a sense of relevancy and for their own ulterior motives.

Further suggesting that the Plaintiff harbours an intention to change the religion of this country is akin to challenging a fundamental provision in the Federal Constitution which places Islam as the official religion of Malaysia.

In sum, I was satisfied that the Plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the First Impugned Words in the First Publication and the Second Impugned Words in the Second Publication are defamatory of the Plaintiff in that they suggest, among others, that the Plaintiff is a threat to Islam and that she has abused her public position to Christianise the country. The Pleaded Defences - Justification

Section 8 of the Defamation Act 1957 [Act 286] stipulates that:

In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg words not proved to be true do not materially injure the remaining charges.

In Frances Joycelyn Nathan & Ors v. Siva Subramaniam M Shanmugam & Another Appeal [2024] CLJU 2900, the court illuminated on the defence of justification as follows:

a defendant will have sufficiently proven the defence of justification if he is able to prove the truth or the substantial truth of his own meanings of the impugned words;

a defendant who is unable to prove the truth of all the material statements in the alleged libel may nevertheless succeed in the defence of justification where the defendant can show that the words not proved to be true or truthful do not materially injure the plaintiff s reputation. It is the truth of the imputations of the overall statement and not the truth of every word that is material; and

in relying on the defence of justification, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the allegations made are true or substantially true.

It is imperative on the Defendant to plead and prove the facts on which he relies to show justification. It is not enough for the Defendant to prove that he believed the allegations were true; he must establish the truth of the allegations (see S. Pakianathan v. Jenni Ibrahim & Another Case [1988] 1 CLJ Rep. 233; see too, S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg Mohamed Apandi bin Ali v Lim Kit Siang [2024] 1 MLJ 306, Chong Swee Huat & Anor v Lim Shian Ghee (t/a L & G Consultants & Education Services [2009] 3 MLJ 665, Gwee Tong Hiang v Boo Cheng Hau [2016] 2 MLJ 388, Dr Chong Eng Leong v Tan Sri Harris bin Mohd Salleh [2017] MLJU 627 and Liu Thian Leong & Ors v. Jee Nyen Chong & Ors [2022] 1 MLRA 121).

Judging from the length of the D his defences (see paragraphs 102 - 127, encl. 124), it appears that he placed the most reliance on the defence of justification.

The Plaintiff has equally submitted at length in providing detailed rebuttals on the Def selected pages of the Book (see paragraphs 54 - 91, encl. 130).

In relation to the First Impugned Words, the Defendant has pleaded the particulars of justification in paragraph 19(a) to (d) of the Defence and in relation to the Second Impugned Words, in paragraph 36(a) to (g) of the Defence.

Basically, the Defendant relied on several paragraphs of the Book to justify the First Impugned Words and the Second Impugned Words. The Defendant claimed that he was justified in publishing the First Impugned Words and the Second Impugned Words as the paragraphs from the Book which he has pleaded support his contention that the First Impugned Words and the Second Impugned Words are substantially true in fact and substance. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

By virtue of O. 78, r. 3(2) of the RC 2012 as quoted earlier, where a defendant alleges that the words complained of consist of statements of facts, they are true in substance and in fact, he must give particulars stating which of the words complained of he alleges are statements of fact and of the facts and matters he relies on in support of the allegation that the words are true.

Although the Defendant has pleaded the defence of justification and refered to s 8 of the Defamation Act 1957, I agree with the the Defendant has failed to plead that the impugned words are true or substantially true. Further

the pleaded particulars in relation to the defence of justification of both impugned statements, which are essentially a handful of passages from the Book,

do not set out the which parts of the Publications or impugned statements were true; and

(ii) do not assist the Defendant in proving that the impugned statements were true or substantially true; and

the Defendant s opinion is based on his understanding of only a few selected passages from the Book, and cannot tantamount to proving the truth or substantial truth of the impugned words. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

As alluded to earlier, the Defendant denied that the First Impugned Words and the Second Impugned Words were capable of carrying the meanings as pleaded by the Plaintiff. According to the Defendant, the meanings pleaded by the Plaintiff were a strained construction the Defendant did not provide any possible alternative meanings.

The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff did not plead the alleged non-compliance with O. 78, r. 3(2) of the RC 2012 in the Reply to Defence and no prejudice was caused to the Plaintiff by the pleadings. In any event, the Defendant asserted that he has complied with the technical and substantive requirements of O. 78, r. 3(2) of the RC 2012 and even if the Court thinks otherwise, O. 1A and O. 2, r. 1 of the RC 2012 were invoked by the Defendant.

Now, it is well entrenched that a party must plead facts, not law. Hence, there is no legal requirement for the Plaintiff to state O. 78, r. 3(2) RC 2012 in the Reply to Defence.

As regards O. 1A and O. 2, r. 1 of the RC 2012, in my opinion, the Defendant cannot call upon these provisions to cure his non-compliance of O. 78, r. 3(2) RC 2012, which cannot be treated as a mere irregularity.

In order to justify the First Impugned Words, the Defendant relied on the pleaded particulars, which are

a repetition of the contents of the First Impugned Words; S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

the fact that the Plaintiff wrote about the miracle of Christianity and Christians, her prophecies and how the Church had helped her in politics and daily life; and

the following paragraphs from the Book:

at p 102, It dawned on me that politics is one end of the earth for many Christians in Malaysia. Not many want to hold up a light here. There are plenty of sermons and discussions about being a light in the marketplace, but rarely in politics. Yet, those in the political sphere need to see Jesus, too. I hope my life in politics has achieved this to the degree that God is glorified and gets the credit for whatever I have supposedly accomplished. It is all His doing; I am only a vessel

(ii) at p 108, I also felt that politics took me away from my true longing, which was to be a preacher. But had I not opportunity to preach at churches, to world leaders and to young people, like I am able to do now S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

(iii) at p 109, had a dream to go to Washington, D.C. and this was fulfilled when I went on an all-expenses paid trip there for a leadership training programme, during which I got to attend the inauguration of President Barack Obama in his first term. I was also sponsored to represent the Selangor Government at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in London, and even managed to go to Europe to observe the workings of the European Union as well. These were ways in which God answered the desires of my heart. Another amazing provision from Him was the funds needed for me to undergo a caesarian operation for my first child. Ram and I did not have enough personal savings to come up with the RM11,000 required for the procedure at the private hospital we wanted. We decided to leave this to God and planned to have the caesarian at a cheaper clinic. Before my file was transferred to the clinic, we went to SIB Skyline in Kota Kinabalu where I had been invited to preach. The pastor, Dr Philip Lyn, told the congregation that he felt led to collect an offering for my baby. When the envelope was handed to Ram and I, there was RM11,300 inside. My Jehovah Jireh had done it again S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

(iv) at p 110, It is here that I want to specifically address the OCFers (Overseas Christian Fellowship), wherever you are now, to never forget the mission of being trained and equipped and returning home to serve... We want to encourage fellow OCFers to come home. There is much work to be done to rebuild this beautiful nation. Just like Nehemiah overseeing the reconstruction of Jerusalem walls, everyone has to be at it, working. Gods wants to reclaim politics and public service in Malaysia for righteousness sake. He is looking for God fearing man and women who are willing to roll up their sleeves and labour in this very demanding field. No experience in politics? Remember, I had none. No finances, I had none. Not a good time yet: I just got married when I ran my first campaign. He uses very ordinary vessels to dol extraordinary things. He does this so His name is glorified .

However, the passages as quoted above

do not support

the meanings of the First Impugned Words; and S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

(ii) criminal offences which are in direct violation of the Federal Constitution. None of the particulars relate to her being investigated or her Book being banned;

do not allude to the Plaintiff using her political position to spread Christianity (which is an unlawful agenda), attempting to spread Christianity to Muslims, mixing her religion with politics, threatening the official religion of this country or harbouring a hidden religious agenda;

are taken in isolation of an entire paragraph, page or chapter and therefore taken entirely out of its context;

are from the very end of the Book, without accounting for the entire narrative that came prior to it;

attributes entirely to her faith. This is a deeply personal matter between her and her religious belief.

At the trial, m God wants to sake and his witnesses ability to understand the English words used, and the context in which they were used, in the Book. Suffice to say, with respect, that the results revealed questionable proficiency in the English language and this impacted on their understanding of the Book and the interpretion of the words used in the Book. Consequently, and most pertinently, the defence of justification S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg was based on a flawed understanding of the passages from the Book as selected by the Defendant himself. If at any point of time when reading the Book, the Defendant felt swayed to convert to Christianity, then it is his faith that needs strengthening.

Ultimately, the pleaded particulars of justification do not in any way prove that the meanings pleaded by the Plaintiff are true or substantially true.

Proceeding next to the Second Impugned Words, the Defendant pleaded the particulars of his defence of justification as follows:

he lodged his police report pursuant to the Plaintiff having lodged a police report against him;

in his police report

he had cited several parts of the Book and provided his comments based on his understanding;

(ii) he stated his opinion that the Book amounts to an attempt to influence or persuade non-Christians, including Muslims, to become Christians or be inclined towards it. In coming to this opinion, he relied on p 14, paragraph 1 of p 109 and the last paragraph at p 50 of the Book;

when he stated that the stories could influence others to be in awe of the greatness of Hannah Yeoh s God, S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg wherein she also subtly included Christian teachings which are inconsistent with Muslim teachings i.e. phrases such as His beloved child Child of God Son of God and God , the Defendant relied on the second last line at p 22,paragraph 2 at p 28 and the song at p 102 of the Book;

when the Defendant stated that there is evidence of unease within the Muslims of this country, even more so with her own admission that she uses her political office to preach at churches, to world leaders and to young people, the Defendant relied on the second paragraph at p 108 of the

when the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff may have committed an offence under s 4(1)(a) of the Enakmen Kawalan dan Sekatan (Pengembangan Agama Bukan Islam Selangor 1988 (Enakmen No. 1/1988) and s 298(A)(1) of the Penal Code, he used the word mungkin and he repeated his reliance on the passages from the Book cited in the preceding particulars.

No doubt the Defendant, like any other citizen, resident or victim, is entitled to lodge a police report. However, in establishing his defence of justification in this suit, the Defendant did not plead any particulars in relation to the need for him to publish the contents of his police report to the world.

In any case, the Defendant essentially relied on his opinion based on his understanding of a a few lines from the Book. This in no S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg way establishes the truth or substantial truth of the Second Impugned Words.

It was also astounding that in paragraph 124, encl. 124, the learned counsel for the Defendant referred to the matter luahan kawan-kawan beragama Islam that this is in relation to the defence of justification when, as elaborated in paragraph 19 above, the counsel had earlier taken the opposite stance luahan defences at all and this led to the ruling by this Court to allow the witnesses to give evidence confined only to the meaning of those words.

In sum, after having partie submissions, and having closely examined the paragraphs in the Book which were pleaded in the particulars of the defence of justification, I was unable to make a finding in the the burden of proof is on him to justify the meanings as pleaded by the Plaintiff as he did not plead any alternative meanings and he conceded under oath to the meanings as pleaded by the Plaintiff. This means that the Defendant is required to justify that the Plaintiff

is a criminal as she intends to proselytise Muslims in this country through her politics;

harbours a hidden religious agenda and therefore is a politician who cannot be trusted; S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

is a threat to Islam in Malaysia;

is a hypocrite and lacks integrity and is not fit to be a representative of the people; and

is willing to accept mixing race and religion with politics so long as it benefits Christianity but will condemn those who mix Islam with politics. However, the Defendant did not adduce any evidence of any Muslim having been converted to Christianity upon reading the Book or that the Plaintiff has been convicted of the crime of proselytising Muslims in this country. The pleaded particulars reflect only 11 paragraphs or pages out of the Book of 111 pages. The selection of 11 paragraphs, isolating them from the rest of the Book, and of the context in which the Book was written, would obviously not provide the reader with a proper understanding of the entire Book. By making stinging statements and allegations about the Plaintiff without fully understanding the Book in its proper context, the Defendant had acted with malice. - Fair Comment

Section 9 of the Defamation Act 1957 reads as follows: Fair comment S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

In an action for libel or slander in respect of words consisting partly of allegations of fact and partly of expression of opinion, a defence of fair comment shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every allegation of fact is not proved if the expression of opinion is fair comment having regard to such of the facts alleged or referred to in the words complained of as are proved.

The Federal Court in v. Mohd Rafizi Ramli [2022] 5 CLJ 487 has affirmed the position that, in order to succeed in the defence of fair comment, the defendant must establish the following elements:

the words complained of are comment, although they may consist or include inferences of fact;

the comment is on a matter of public interest;

the comment is based on facts; and

the comment is one which a fair-minded person can honestly make on the facts proved.

In Chok Foo Choo (supra), it was held that Fair in the defence of fair comment does not mean not lopsided . It means honest and that: In order that defeasible immunity may attach to the publication of any matter purporting to be comment, S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg such comment must conform to each and every of the following conditions:

It must be honest, that is to say, it must contain nothing which is not a genuine expression of the opinion actually entertained by the party defaming;

(ii) It must be based on facts stated or assumed, and such facts, unless expressly or impliedly admitted by the party defamed, must be proved by the party defaming to be true;

(iii) It must be relevant to, and arise out of, the facts so truly stated or assumed as aforesaid, and must not contain or introduce any new or independent defamatory matter;

(iv) It must not contain any matter imputing discreditable motives to the party defamed, or any matter reflecting upon him otherwise than as the author of, or the person responsible for, or concerned in, or connected with the particular conduct, work, or thing which constitutes the subject of the comment. (see too, Nurul Izzah (supra)]. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

The Defendant placed emphasis on the case authorities which have expounded on the distinction between a statement of fact and a comment (see Chen Cheng & Anor v Central Christian Church & John Louis [1999] 1 SLR 94, Da Salleh (supra) and Datuk Harris Mohd Salleh v Datuk Yong Teck Lee & Anor [2012] 4 MLJ 372) in submitting that he was entitled to rely on the defence of fair comment because the Publications were made in the public interest as the Book was authored by a well-known politician, sold in open bookshelves and read by many including Muslims.

comment and/ or observation on the Book whereby he was worried as to the contents which discussed on prophecies and miracles experienced by the Plaintiff.

However, the Plaintiff has raised a valid issue on pleadings in that the Defendant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of O. 78, r. 3(2) of the RC 2012.

The Defendan pleadings on fair comment for the First Publication and Second Publication are in paragraphs 21(a) to (h) and 38(a) to (h) of the Defence, respectively. Clearly, nowhere do the particulars pleaded relate to which of the words complained of, he alleges are statements of fact.

Therefore, and the Publications is defective and a non-starter. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

Even if this Court takes the view that the Defendant s pleadings are not defective and can be considered, the defence still fails as

the First Impugned Words and the Second Impugned Words in the Publications are by no means fair. They are based on an erroneous understanding of the Book and in particular reliance on only a handful of paragraphs from the Book. Naturally, this would immediately result in any comment about the Book to be incomplete, unfair and selective;

in respect of the First Impugned Words, there are simply no facts at all which are the basis for the Defendant s allegations; and

in respect of the Second Impugned Words, again there are publication of his police report and allegations.

In any event, this defence is defeated by the fact that the Publications by the Defendant were actuated by malice, as shall be addressed in the succeeding part of this judgment. - Qualified Privilege

The final defence raised by the Defendant in paragraph 20 of the Defence is qualified privilege. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

To establish this defence, the Defendant must fulfil two requirements, namely

the occasion on which the communication was made arises make the communication; and

there is a corresponding duty or interest on the part of the recipient to receive it. Whether an occasion is a privileged occasion depends on the circumstances of each case and the burden of proof lies on the defendant. It is for the judge to rule whether there is an occasion of privilege. Once the judge has decided as matter of law that the occasion is privileged, the plaintiff may rebut this privilege by proving that there was express malice. The duty or interest which found an occasion of qualified privilege must exist in fact; it is an objective question. A mere bona fide or honest belief by the defendant that such a duty or interest exists is not enough as the privilege depends on the occasion of the publication and not the state of mind of the defendant (see Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd v. Tony Pua Kiam Wee [2015] 8 CLJ 477, Bin Tick v. Datuk Chong Tho Chin & Other Appeals [2017] 8 CLJ 369, Nurul Izzah (supra), Muhammad Sanusi bin Md Nor [2021] MLJU 2347, Warisan Pinang Sdn Bhd & Ors v Carolyn Khor Tsai Chen [2023] MLJU 1753, Mohamed Apandi (supra), Dr Zakir Abdul Karim Naik v Ramasamy a/l Palanisamy and another suit [2024] 9 MLJ 881, Ng Ze Xuan v Tan Sing How & Ors [2025] MLJU 287 and Gatley S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg on Libel and Slander ,13th Edition, paragraph 15-015 at pp 533 - 534).

The Defendant claimed that he has fulfilled the criteria for this defence to apply as he is a Senior Lecturer and political analyst who is often invited to be a moderator or panellist in forums which discuss on political issues in Malaysia. In addition, as an educator and a Muslim, he has a religious, social and moral duty to inform and warn the public, especially Muslims, regarding the contents of the Book as he is concerned that they would be influenced with the greatness of Jesus, Lord and Christianity. The Defendant has the right to reprimand and correct the Plaintiff in her efforts which are contrary to the Federal Constitution insofar as the propagation of Christianity among persons professing the religion of Islam.

In my assessment, the Publications were not published on an occasion of privilege for the following reasons:

the Defendant is not an elected representative who would be duty-bound to raise matters of public importance and neither is he a leader of a religious body or authority in charge of Islamic administration or the affairs of the Muslim community;

through cross-examination, it was established that the qualifications relate to political sciences whereby his publications focused on the development of politics in Nigeria. With respect, the Defendant is clearly not S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg an expert in the field of religion or comparative religion or law, to provide any expert views on the subject;

again, with respect, the Defendant is not a religious leader who is recognised as an authoritative figure in matters of Islamic compliance. No religious body has found it necessary to take any action against the Plaintiff or even issue a statement relating to the Book. The Plaintiff is not entitled to set the standard by which others must abide. Muslims are not under any obligation to adopt his personal interpretations. Consequently, he cannot assert that he is under any religious or moral duty to impose his views, which he has interpreted as a warning to others; and

the Defendant is not from any investigative body and was not legally trained, nor qualified by training or experience, to determine potential guilt in relation to specific sections of the Penal Code and provisions of the Federal Constitution. What amounts to proselytizing in law, for the purposes of amounting to an offence, was a matter beyond the qualifications as evident from his evidence in cross-sebut sahaja, sudah menyebar that the Plaintiff mentioning openly her faith amounted to proselytization.

Even if I am found to have erred in the above finding, this defence is defeated by the fact that the Publications by the Defendant were actuated by malice, which will be addressed below. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

Where a defendant pleads the defence of qualified privilege or fair comment, O.7 8, r. 3(3) of the RC 2012 requires a plaintiff who intends to allege that the defendant was actuated with malice to plead the particulars of the facts and matters on which malice is to be inferred in the Reply to the Defence. Failure to plead such (see Nurul Izzah (supra) and Ratus Mesra Sdn. Bhd. v. Shaik Osman Majid & Ors [1999] 3 MLJ 529).

In this case, the Plaintiff has pleaded the particulars of malice in relation to the First Impugned Words at paragraph 25 and subparagraphs 25.1 - 25.14.4 and the Second Impugned Words at paragraph 45 and subparagraphs 45.1 - 45.15 of the Reply to Defence.

In his submission, the Defendant asserted that the Publications buku Plaintif tersebut dan perkara yang berkait dengan Plaintif yang telah diperkatakan oleh Defendan dalam penerbitannya adalah sepenuhnya berdasarkan kepada pemahaman dan tafsiran Defendan terhadap penulisan Plaintif tersebut. Defendant relied on his evidence that: saya tidak pernah menjadi ahli kepada mana-mana, tidak menjadi ahli kepada mana-mana politik. Saya tidak ada apa nama, tidak ada apa-apa agenda politik. Sebaliknya saya, macam yang saya sebut tadi, sebelum S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg ini bahawa saya pada waktu tersebut adalah fellow utama kepada Institut Kajian Strategi Islam Malaysia. Jadi kami, IKSIM berbincang mengenai kandungan buku ini. Dan ada pakar undang-undang, ada pakar agama di dalam itu. Jadi itulah, saya buat itu bukalah tulisan yang saya persendirian. Tetapi adalah mewakili institusi. Cuma saya sahaja yang apa nama itu, dikeluarkan, diputuskan untuk dikeluarkan atas nama saya. Saya merasakan bahawa menjadi kewajipan saya dan IKSIM juga, ya, menjadi kewajipan IKSIM selaku institusi yang menjaga kedudukan agama Islam. Dan tugas saya sebagai orang Islam semua, untuk memastikan bahawa tidak, kedaulatan agama Islam di negara kita dan kedudukan di, agama Islam sebagai agama persekutuan serta perkara mengenai larangan penyebaran agama bukan Islam kepada orang Islam, itu tidak berlaku. Jadi itulah perkara utama yang mendorong saya dan IKSIM untuk menghighlightkan dan kemudiannya untuk saya membuat laporan polis. Laporan polis itu pun it's just a very fair report, police report. Tidak menuduh, tangkap, kata tangkap dia ini, haramkan buku dia ini. Hanya suruh siasat sama ada telah melakukan

However, as submitted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not provide any explanation on

whether he had verified his understanding and interpretation of the Book; S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

how he could have captured the essence and real context of the Book and provided his readers with a balanced view of the same by merely relying on a handful of passages;

Hannah Yeoh contoh hiprokrasi terbesar DAP Bagaimana beliau menggunakan kedudukan politik beliau untuk berdakwah mengenai agama Kristian dan sebagainya Menyeru ahli-ahli Felo Kristian Seberang Laut khususnya dan penganut agama Kristian umumnya untuk mengikut jejak langkah beliau menceburkan diri dalam bidang politik untuk membina semula Malaysia mengikut acuan agama

why he needed to publish his police report, if his intention was truly to have the matter investigated.

In the final analysis, I find that the Defendant was actuated by malice in relation to

the First Impugned Words, in view of the following:

the Defendant ignored the fact the Book was a personal story and her faith;

(ii) the Defendant only selected and inserted four paragraphs into the First Publication without informing readers that the Book consisted of 111 S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg pages and was published in 2014 and its sale had never been banned by the authorities;

(iii) the First Publication is in the national language, thereby deliberately targeting a Malay reader pool, while knowing that the Book was only published in the English language;

(iv) of the entire Book and his perception, as stated in sebut sahaja, sudah menyebar ;

the Defendant added to the First Impugned Words, allegations which never arose from the Book, and deliberately used inflammatory words such as hiprokrasi berdakwah menggunakan kedudukan politik Book to the teachings of Islam when the Book related to ignite racial and religious sentiments;

(vi) the Defendant s allegations that the Book was a prime example of the Plaintiff mixing religion with politics when the Book does not suggest anywhere that the Plaintiff imposed her personal religious beliefs in the function of her political roles; and

(vii) the Defendant failed to produce any evidence of any Muslim having been converted or wanting to convert just by having read the Book. PW2, PW5, PW6 and S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg PW7 testified that they were not influenced in any way by the Book to convert to Christianity; and

the Second Impugned Words, in view of the following:

if the Defendant was genuinely concerned about the contents of the Book, he would have lodged a police report immediately upon reading it, or at the latest, when he published the First Publication. The Defendant lodged a police report as a reaction to the Plaintiff police report against him in relation to the First Publication and thereafter, he published his police report to the world. The Defendant did not provide any reason for this except in his re-examination where he said it was because the Plaintiff had issued a press statement after lodging saya pun just sharing ; and

(ii) i Book investigated, lodging a police report was sufficient. There was no necessity to publish the police report to the public other than for malicious reasons.

The Defendant publicly stated in the Researchers Information Overview in the UUM website that his prime interest is on the development of Malaysian political parties, especially PAS. This fuelled t personal journey and personal beliefs, converting the contents of the Book, which S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg has been on the shelves of Malaysian bookstores for more than a decade, into a racially motivated attack against the Plaintiff.

In the Written Submission, the Defendant raised an issue that the Plaintiff failed to re-examine the Plaintiff on three admissions which were made during cross-examination, namely that

she did not have any documentary evidence to prove that the Defendant was given a warning by UUM;

the Book was intended to be an inspiration to the readers to follow in her footsteps in the field of politics; and

being racial or multiracial in the First Impugned Words and the Second Impugned Words.

124), I was unable to decipher the consequence or impact of the failure to re-case.

What is clear though was that the three admissions do not form a substantive part of the-examination and the did not cause a dent to her case in any way because S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

when cross-examined, the Defendant conceded that there larangan writings in the social media;

the Plaintiff always intended the Book to serve as an inspiration for others to join politics and to strive for clean governance for the benefit of all; and

the Plaintiff stated that her team was a multiracial one and explained that if she had an agenda to convert everyone, as insisted by the Defendant, then her team would be the first targets, which was not the case at all.

In the upshot, even if the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege were established, the Plaintiff has pleaded the particulars of malice in the Reply to Defence and has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the Defendant was actuated by malice for the reasons as outlined above. As prescribed by the law, malice defeats the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege.

The Plaintiff submitted at length, and her team of solicitors diligently carried out comprehensive research, on damages awarded in defamation cases in the Supplementary Submission In Relation To Damages (encl. 134). S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

The awards in 49 cases for the period between 21.8.1990 and 18.4.2025 was tabulated in Annexure B. Among the cases which involve politicians are Tan Sri Lim Kit Siang v YB Dr Siti Mastura bt Muhammad [2024] MLJU 3687, Chow Kon Yeow v Tan Sri [2025] 8 MLJ 357, Lim Guan Eng v Mahiaddin bin Md. Yassin [2024] MLJU 2904, (supra), Lim Guan Eng v Ruslan Bin Kassim and another appeal (supra), Nurul Izzah (supra) and Datuk Harris Mohd Salleh (supra).

In Tan Sri Lim Kit Siang v YB Dr Siti Mastura bt Muhammad (supra), the court held, among others, that: [84] In assessing the quantum of damages, I considered the following. [85] First, the award of damages must not be exorbitant or excessive. Damages should be compensatory and not punitive. The tort of defamation exists to protect, not the person or the pocket, but the reputation of the person defamed. In actions for defamation, damages are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for the injury to his reputation. They operate to vindicate the plaintiff to the public and to console him for the wrong done. (See the Federal Court decision in Lim Guan Eng v Ruslan (supra, at page 244 MLRA, page 199 CLJ, page 572 MLJ). S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg [86] Second, the trend of damages awarded shows that it is no longer in the realm of millions of ringgit. As remarked by the Court of Appeal in Syed Nadri Syed Harun & Anor v Lim Guan Eng & other appeals [2019] 4 million Ringgit award for defamation has long gone and valid, notwithstanding that the decision of the Court of Appeal was overruled by the Federal Court by a majority decision in Lim Guan Eng v Ruslan (supra). [87] In Syed Nadri v Lim Guan Eng (supra), RM150,000 was awarded as a global sum for general and aggravated damages: agreed with learned defe global award made by the learned trial judge was also excessive and not in line with the trend of cases. In Lim Guan Eng v Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd [2012] 2 MLJ 394; ; [2012] 2 CLJ 619 despite the plaintiff being a Chief Minister of Penang and a finding of malice in that case, the award made was [88] In Liew Yew Tiam & Ors v Cheah Cheng Hoc & Ors [2001] 2 CLJ 385, the Court of Appeal reduced the awards totalling RM 1 million to RM 100,000. The S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg following observation of the Court of Appeal is instructive (at page 395): have not overlooked the recent trend in this country of claims and awards in defamation cases running into several million ringgit. No doubt that trend was set by the decision of this Court in MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun (supra). It is a decision that has been much misunderstood. The underlying philosophy of that decision is that injury to reputation is as, if not more, important to a member of our society than the loss of a limb. But we think the time has come when we should check the trend set by that case. This is to ensure that an action for defamation is not used as an engine of oppression. Otherwise, the constitutional guarantee of freedom of [93] Having regard to the above, I award the following as global damages:- (a) RM 300,000 in favour of Lim Kit Siang; (b) RM 250,000 in favour of Lim Guan Eng; and

RM 200,000 in favour of Teresa Kok. I think a differentiation in the said amounts is appropriate for two reasons. First, it takes into account the longer standing and stature of Lim Kit Siang, an elder statesman who S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg had been conferred the Panglima Setia Mahkota (PSM) carrying the title of Tan Sri by the King. Second, the impugned words have more to do with Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng, as compared to Teresa Kok. [94] In line with the practice to give a single award of damages, I would not make a separate award for aggravated damages. This is to ensure that awards are circumstances giving rise to aggravated and general damages are usually inextricably intertwined. (See the Court of Appeal decision in Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd v Othman bin Hj Omar [2017] 2 MLJ 800 at 815 - 816). [95] I do not think exemplary damages is warranted as there is no evidence that D made the impugned statement with a view to profit or to enrich herself. (See the Court of Appeal decision in Tradewinds Properties Sdn Bhd v Zulhkiple A Bakar [2019] 2 CLJ 261). .

The principles of law on the award of damages in the context of defamation suits were also succinctly covered by the High Court in the recent case of Ng Ze Xuan v Tan Sing How & Ors [2025]

To the Defendant, the Plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

any negative comments by the netizens about the Plaintiff who have read any of the defamatory statements;

any element of widespread hatred against the Plaintiff resulting from the defamatory statements complained of;

any threats to safety testimony that she was guarded by police escort;

any elements which affected her credibility and political standing. The Plaintiff admitted in her evidence that she won the General Election with a higher number of majority votes as compared to the earlier election; she was promoted in the Cabinet from a Deputy Minister to a Minister; and her position in DAP has strengthened; and

any condition or situation which were caused by the defamatory statements such that the Plaintiff was affected and could not perform her role as representative.

The Defendant additionally submitted that the Plaintiff did not adduce any evidence to prove that the Defendant has gained any benefit or personal profit from the two defamatory statements complained of Defendant in cross-examination of this fact. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

Furthermore, the Defendant questioned the fact that the Plaintiff did not initiate any civil suit against the press or media which had

It is trite that libel is actionable per se. Therefore, harm to reputation is presumed, and there is no need for the Plaintiff to prove actual damage (see Abdul Rahman Talib v Seenivasagam & Anor [1965] 1 MLJ 142b and Tan Chee Yioun & other appeals [1995] 2 MLJ 493).

The award of damages is meant to be compensatory and they are awarded based on the merits of each case. There is no set formula or scale in determining the quantum, however there are accepted guidelines as illuminated through decades of judgments passed by the courts. - General Damages

In Chow Kon Yeow [2025] 8 MLJ 357, global damages were awarded in the sum of RM350,000.00 and no separate award was made for aggravated damages. The prayer for exemplary damages was not granted as there was no evidence that the defendant made the impugned statement with a view to profit or enrich himself. Further, the prayer to order the defendant to publish an apology was not granted because the defendant did not indicate a willingness to apologise and therefore, an apology will be insincere and counter productive. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

In Noor Azman bin Azemi v Zahida bt Mohamed Rafik [2019] 3 MLJ 141, the defendant had repeated the contents of the police report she lodged against the plaintiff to the reporters and one newspaper had published an article about the contents of the police report. The plaintiff was awarded damages in the sum of

The Court of Appeal in Chin Choon v Chua Jui Meng [2005] 2 CLJ 569 had referred to Defamation Law, Procedure & Practice by Price & Duodu (3rd ed, para 20-04 at p 208) for the factors that a court must take into account in assessing compensatory damages and these factors as set out below:

Gravity of the allegations In the Publications, the Plaintiff was accused of committing some of the gravest offences imaginable in a multi-religious society, namely, attempting to convert Muslims and inciting religious discord. These allegations were calculated to paint the Plaintiff as a criminal, a religious threat and a traitor to national unity. The Publications were the result of the the Book or to read it entirely and its proper context. In the light of the above, the defamatory statements strike at the very core of ability to serve the public. By portraying her as someone with a hidden religious agenda, the Publications sought to cast her as a threat to S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg Islam, the official religion of the Federation, and unfit to hold public office. As submitted by the Plaintiff, such an attack goes far beyond political criticism; it is an assault on her integrity, reputation and legitimacy as a national leader.

Size and influence of the circulation It was an irrefutable fact that the defamatory statements were published on widely accessible online platforms, incl FB, both of which enjoyed substantial readership. Given the viral nature of social media, the defamatory content would have been disseminated to a broad and diverse audience, multiplying the harm caused.

Effect of the publication and far-reaching. The Plaintiff became the subject of public suspicion and vitriol. The defamatory content undermined her reputation among constituents and the general public. during that time. I was very worried because when you play up the issue of religion in this country, it is very inflammatory, and especially so linking Hannah Yeoh and the DAP. And so yes, physical harm I believe because of the fast police report, thankfully there was no physical attack during that time. But the online remarks and online attacks went on, and even up to 2018, when I was campaigning as a S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg Member of Parliament in Segambut after I moved to Kuala Lumpur. outside of the flat of SPPK when I was having ceramah, people produced leaflets to talk about this anti-Islam agenda that supposedly is related to me. So, those aligned attacks and the reputation that was created out of these postings like these, linger on even up to 2018 in my election in

Although the Plaintiff had instituted the suit in her personal capacity, nonetheless her standing among the citizenry is a relevant factor to take into consideration in deciding the appropriate award of damages. Following the General Election in November 2022, the Plaintiff has served as the Minister of Youth and Sports. At the date of filing of the suit, the Plaintiff was known as the youngest and first female Speaker of any legislative assembly in Malaysia when she served as the Speaker of the Selangor State Legislative Assembly from 2013 to

From 2018 to 2020, she was the Deputy Minister of Women, Family and Community Development.

The As a lecturer at a public university, the Defendant society is no less important. He is held to a higher standard by the general public and is not expected to make baseless S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg or irresponsible statements. As expressed by PW7 in his kita mengharapkan pensyarah Melayu dan cendekiawan Melayu menjadikan masyarakat Melayu lebih bijak dan supaya menghormati hak semua pihak dan semua agama dan semua pengamal agama tanpa nak dikatakan bahawa tak boleh The Defendant did not make any attempt to approach the Plaintiff as the author of the Book to clarify on his understanding, interpretation or perception of selected passages from the Book. Instead, the Defendant acted with malice, recklessness and an utter disregard for the truth. He persisted in propagating and defending the false narrative. any apology demonstrates a sustained intention to harm and aggravate the injury reputation.

The The Plaintiff has demonstrably acted with restraint, professionalism and recourse to lawful means. She responded to the defamatory statements by lodging a police report and initiating legal proceedings, thereby placing her trust in the rule of law. Her conduct throughout has been dignified and consistent with the position of a public official seeking vindication, not vengeance. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg - Aggravated Damages

Aggravated damages are given as additional compensation where there is injury to the feelings of the plaintiff that is caused by or exacerbated as a result of exceptional conduct of the defendant. The conduct must be high-handed or malicious act or an act done in an oppressive manner. Mere wrongful conduct is not sufficient. There must be something exceptional in the act that was done. Two elements which are relevant to the availability of an award for aggravated damages are, firstly, exceptional or contumelious conduct or motive on the part of the defendant in committing the wrong, and secondly, intangible loss suffered as a result by the plaintiff, that is injury to feelings or personality (see Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 and (Suing By Himself And As The Adminis Puan Suzanne Thomas, Deceased) v The Government Of Malaysia & Ors [2019] 8 MLJ 1672 where this Court had applied the legal principles as laid down in the famous English case; see too, Big Junkyard Sdn Bhd & Anor v Chan Kah Wai (berniaga dibawah nama Ytwo Coffee House) [2022] MLJU 2923 and Warisan Pinang Sdn Bhd & Ors v Carolyn Khor Tsai Chen [2023]

Ms. Sangeet Kaur argued that there were ample reasons for this Court to make an award for aggravated damages as

the Defendant made unfounded and inflammatory allegations and deliberately infused these allegations with calculated and provocative, racial and religious S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg accusations. He accused the Plaintiff of attempting to influence the faith of Muslims. Such conduct was calculated to inflame public sentiment, incite distrust and hostility, and deepen communal divides, religious landscape;

for openly professing her faith in the course of explaining her personal journey, a right guaranteed to all persons under Article 11 of the Federal Constitution. In his evidence, sebut sahaja, sudah menyebar to the Plaintiff, but corrosive to constitutional guarantees and

the Defendant claims to be an academic and educator; someone entrusted with shaping the minds of young Malaysians. The fact that he would make inflammatory and damaging statements without any proper basis and without a genuine understanding of the Book, is particularly troubling. Instead of fostering critical thinking and tolerance, the Defendant abused his platform to promote baseless fear and division.

There are a variety of circumstances where an award for aggravated damages can be justified and I agree with the one of them. However, I was inclined to adopt the approach as enunciated by the apex court in Lim Guan Eng v Ruslan bin S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg Kassim & Another Appeal (supra) in making a global award for general damages and aggravated damages.

After reviewing the awards made by the courts in previous judgments as cited by the parties, I was of the considered view that a sum of RM200,000.00 each for the First Publication and the Second Publication totalling to RM400,000.00 as general damages and aggravated damages is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. - Exemplary Damages

The Plaintiff submitted that the purpose of exemplary damages is outrageous conduct and an award of exemplary damages may be deterrent or punitive, and retributory, and the award may have an important function in vindicating the rights of the plaintiff.

There are two parts in granting exemplary damages, firstly, the plaintiff has to show that he falls within one of the three categories enunciated in Rookes v Barnard (supra), namely

oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by the servant of the government;

to make a profit for himself which may well exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff; or S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

where exemplary damages are expressly authorised by statute.

Once the above threshold is cleared, the plaintiff must show outrageous conduct by the defendant i.e. the defendant has acted with vindictiveness or malice, or where he has acted with a contumelious disregard for the right to the plaintiff [see Big Junkyard (supra) and Warisan Pinang (supra)].

The learned counsel moved this Court to consider that the Defendant did profit politically, ideologically and professionally, religiously charged political climate, in the following ways:

by framing Christian faith and personal autobiography as a threat to Islam, the Defendant attempted to strengthen his standing within segments of the Malay-Muslim majority who are sensitive to religious issues. His conduct also fuelled a narrative of slam under threat which has long been a tool used by certain political actors to garner support;

by making controversial statements, especially those that stoke religious sentiment, the Defendant may have appeared as someone defending Islam; and S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

the defamatory statements were a failed attempt to enhance public visibility and political relevance in a divided socio-political society.

However, I decided not to allow the claim for exemplary damages as the Plaintiff did not prove the elements which are necessary for an award of exemplary damages to be made, in particular, that himself in the non-monetary sense. - Injunction

T injunction to restrain the Defendant, his servants or agents from publishing the impugned words or anything similar to these words was allowed because the Defendant was fully aware of the immense influence of social media as evidenced by his decision to publish the Second Publication within one week of the First Publication. The Defendant was intent on exploiting the social media platform to garner support and amplify his personal biases against the Plaintiff. Up to the date of judgment, where the Defendant absented himself, the Defendant did not show any remorse.

they were working on getting the Plaintiff charged and eventually imprisoned. In other words, they do not plan on letting the matter rest. If unrestrained, they will use statements which have been proven to be defamatory to incite hate and stir racial and religious S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg -ethnic and multi-religious society. - Public Retraction and Apology

an unconditional public retraction and apology as proposed in Annexure A of encl. 134 to be read in major newspapers was not allowed because the Defendant has never indicated any willingness to apologise. Judging from the obviously unrepentant and any apology forced upon the Defendant post-judgment of the Court would be insincere [see Chow Kon Yeow (supra)].

allowed whereby with reference to the reliefs as pleaded in paragraph 31 of the SoC, the Court

awarded a global sum of RM400,000.00 as general damages and aggravated damages (RM200,000.00 each for the First Publication and the Second Publication) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 24.2.2022 (date of filing of the Writ and SoC) until the date of judgment and 5% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment; S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg

ordered an injunction to be issued restraining the Defendant, his servants or agents from publishing the impugned words or anything similar to these words; and

awarded costs to the Plaintiff in the sum of RM80,000.00, subject to allocatur. Dated: 24.9.2025 (ALIZA SULAIMAN) JUDGE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Solicitors for the Plaintiff: Sangeet Kaur Deo (Tan Chee Kian, Harshaan Bin Muhammad Zamani, Harkiranjit Kaur A/P Manjit Singh and Ganeraja Krishnan with her) Messrs. Karpal Singh & Co. Solicitors for the Defendant: Mohd Khairul Azam (Balqis Hannan Binti Zulkifli with him) Messrs. Azam Aziz & Co. S/N m38g4Q5I10qzJhnCqZSkg