Lai Kong Phooi v Yap Soon Hoe (BA-23NCvC-2-01/2021)

Mr. Lai Kong Phooi (the Plaintiff) and Mr. Yap Soon Hoe (the Defendant) born in 1956, they are at the same age.

The Plaintiff filed the defamation suits against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff pleaded that the Defendant has published 3 letters that contained libellous defamation of the Plaintiff by the Defendant and 2 WhatsApp messages. The Plaintiff contends that the publications shall lower the reputation of the Plaintiff in the eyes of right-thinking members of his engineering fraternity and were libellous in nature. 15/07/2023 13:26:50 BA-23NCvC-2-01/2021 Kand. 122

Who is the Plaintiff? In the statement of claim, the Plaintiff has stated about himself and his background as follows, among others: • is the Principal Director of Perunding Muhibbah, a civil structural and project rehabilitation consultancy firm. The firm was established since 1987 with offices at Ipoh and Kuala Lumpur. • from 2009 to 2006 (7 terms), is appointed and served as the Senior Ipoh City Halls (MBI) Councillor. • from 2016 to 2020, is appointed and served as Board Member of the Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) • from 2018 to 2020, is the President of Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM). • from 2018 to 2020, is appointed as the Chairman of IEM Training Centre Sdn Bhd. • from 2018 to 2020, is appointed and served as Board Member of Malaysian Standards and Accreditation Councel under the ambit of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). • from 2008 to 2022, is served as a member of the Disciplinary Panel of the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board Malaysia. • from 2017 to 2022, is served as the Chairman of Industry Advisory Panel Member, Faculty of Civil Engineering at Monash University Malaysia. • is a professional engineer with practicing licence and is engaged in the engineering consultancy business and has served in various capacities as Board Members both in government agencies, local authorities and Institution of Higher Learning.

Who is the Defendant? In the statement of claim, the Plaintiff has stated about the Defendant as a Member of IEM and is the former IEM Honorary Secretary from April 2017 to April 2018.

The publications in the 3 Letters and 2 WhatsApp Messages, namely − Date: Address to: Words: First Letter: 21-6-2018 The Honorary Secretary of IEM and circulated to all 19 Executive Committee Members. Malice words – • austerity spending. • bring along an entourage. • the President should be selfless and practice what he preaches. Date: Address to: Words: Second Letter: 12-9-2018 The Honorary Secretary of IEM and circulated to the same Executive Committee Members and IEM Council Members. • accusing the Plaintiff of intentionally withholding the contents of the First Letter without circulating to the IEM Executive Committee Members and Council Members. • the President was sweeping the issue under the carpet. First WhatsApp message: 9-1-2019 circulated to many persons and members of IEM at large. words that had cast imputations on the Plaintiff’s integrity, honesty and professionalism. Second WhatsApp message: 9-1-2019 circulated to a chat group of 12 imminent engineers including the Plaintiff. words that accusing the Plaintiff of micro managing and interfering in the IEM Training Centre’s affairs. Date: Address to: Words: Third Letter: 26-3-2019 The Honorary Secretary of IEM and circulated during the 60th IEM Annual General Meeting. requesting the IEM Hon. Secretary to include in the Meeting Agenda of 60th

The Plaintiff has pleaded in its statement of claim that the contents of the First Letter by the Defendant dated 21-6-2018 were published without any justification whatsoever and manifested the malice by the Defendant towards the Plaintiff. Paragraph 21 in the statement of claim is reproduced – “21. On 21.6.2018, a letter by the Defendant (hereinafter referred at as “the Said First Letter”), was addressed to the Honorary Secretary of IEM and circulated to all 19 IEM Executive Committee Members and was published and actuated by malice by the Defendant which, inter alia, stated the following words: “1. As emphasized by our President during his tenure as Finance Standing Committee Chairman (Deputy President) for the past two sessions, he consistently emphasized that financially IEM was not in a very comfortable position, thus austerity spending was the call of the day. I was a member of the Committee and support the proposal of cost sutting. Thus, I find it rather perplexing that as now being the President that such austerity measure was not in place.

“... It is my opinion that Branch visits are necessary but not urgent and more often the President travels alone albeit bring along an entourage...”

“I understand so far the visits were companied by you and the IEM Executive Director and in my opinion the presence of ED in every trip is not necessary as he has more urgent works to attend in IEM, resulted in waste of ED resources. The absence of ED for almost a week leave the Secretariat headless again something was discussed over many occasions by Excomm should not happen.”

“In the light of incurring less travelling expenses for IEM, I think that President who is in London to attend the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) meeting should have forgo this trip even though it was endorsed by Excomm, (I was overseas at that time and absent for this Excomm, but this was recorded in the MOM). This is to be in line with the precedent practice of non-participation by previous Presidents in this kind of training and working meetings. This meeting is already being represented by Ir Lee Boon Chong and the President had no function at this but only ceremonial and networking. By doing so President would had saved IEM an extra expenditure of about RM15,000.00. The President should be selfless and practice what he preaches as a measure to save these costs for IEM.”. [8] In the Second Letter by the Defendant dated 12-9-2018, was addressed to the Hon. Secretary of IEM accusing the Plaintiff of intentionally withholding the contents of the First Letter without circulating the same to IEM Executive Committee Members and IEM Council Members. Paragraph 26 in the statement of claim is reproduced – “1. No answer was given to me on how President was to achieve his vision by visiting all the branches as requested in second paragraph of my letter.

I understand my letter was not circulated among all the council members during the last council meeting and President only highlighted superficially on my letter regarding his travel.

I think it was not fair to me that President did not reveal the part of my letter regarding his travel to London. I believe by not revealing this opinion to the council members, President was sweeping the issue under the carpet.” [9] The 2 WhatsApp messages: The Plaintiff has pleaded that the WhatsApp messages were circulated to many persons and member of IEM at large. The words in those messages as employed by the Defendant cast imputations on the Plaintif’s integrity, honesty and professionalism. Paragraphs 32 and 33 in the statement of claim are reproduced – “32. On 09.1.2019, First WhatsApp Message was sent out by the Defendant accusing that the Plaintiff of interfering with and influencing the Executive Committee. In the said First WhatsApp Message the Defendant used, inter alia, the following words: “Afternoon as I understand through secret ballot, PPC under Ir Khoo Chong Keow voted to recommend the setting up of an investigation committee regarding my complaint against David Kai (Lai) for coming excom deliberation next week, he will, bend to influence excom members not to set up the IC, he must recuse himself for OCL to chair when come to this item. I seek your support to back the setting of IC tq”.

On 09-1-2019, another WhatsApp Message was sent out by the Defendant and published to a chat group of 12 imminent engineers including the Plaintiff, accusing the Plaintiff of micro managing and interfering in the IEM Training Centre’s affairs that induced stress and resulted a minor stroke to the Director of IEM Training Centre Sdn. Bhd. The words in the Said Second WhatsApp Message were, inter alia, as follows: “Perhaps Yim was stressed out by the micro managing and interfering of President in IEMTC hehe”. [10] In the Third Letter by the Defendant dated 26-3-2019, was addressed to the Hon. Secretary of IEM requesting that it be mandatorily to be included in Agenda 5 under Notice of IEM 60th AGM meeting. The Third Letter contained unsubstantiated accusations towards Plaintiff of misrepresentation and misconduct. Paragraph 36 in the statement of claim is reproduced – “President deliberately glossed over without showing the entirety of my letter to all the council members. It was equivalent misrepresentation to the council...” “Please enlighten members at this AGM what had been achieved through the press meeting and these courtesy visits. I opine that such visits are very unprecedented in the history of the presidency of IEM. I found very un- conventional that in the President’s Facebook posting on his courtesy call to Tun Mahathir Mohammad, he started his remark that he was leading IEM delegation and ended as an ordinary Malaysian Citizen. It seems contradictory with each others, moreover his comment which I quote here “... my heart and tears welled up in my eyes” portray he really brought doen the esteem of IEM President to its lowest level. This Facebook statement seems dramatic and rhetorical and in the opinion of many IEM members who read the page an attempt to apple polish the Prime Minister.” [11] According to the Plaintiff, all the contents of the 3 Letters and 2 WhatsApp messages written an published by the Defendant had the following meaning:

the contents of the First Letter which implied that the Plaintiff was abusing his position as President of IEM and allegedly misappropriated IEM’s funds in conducting branch visits and overseas travels. In essence, by the of the said first letter as aforesaid, the Defendant connoted that Plaintiff was a dishonest person, a person of no integrity, had abused his position as President and was unfit for the said post.

the First WhatsApp message cast imputations on the Plaintiff’s integrity, honesty and Professionalism and also implied that the Plaintiff was a slave driver and was the primary cause of the Director of IEM Training Centre’s health problem.

the Third Letter contained words that implied dishonesty, lack of integrity and unprofessional behavior of the Plaintiff in “apple polishing” the then Prime Minister YAB Tun Mahathir, ‘influence peddling’, had abused his position as President and was unfit for the said post. The Defendant’s sole intention is to tarnish the reputation of the Plaintiff in the eyes of his fellow engineers and brethren. The Plaintiff’s contentions [12] The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant Letters and WhatsApp were truly false, baseless, inaccurate, and malicious. [13] Based on the following results/decisions of the IEM Executive Committee and justification by the Plaintiff as the President of IEM, the Plaintiff pleaded that the following clearly showed that the Defendant’s complaints were not justified:

on 9-7-2018, during the 555th IEM Executive Committee Meeting, it was unanimously decided by the IEM Executive Committee that the complaint in the First Letter by Defendant dated 21-6-2018 was a non-issue and the Defendant’s frivolous and vexatious complaint was dismissed.

on 13-8-2018, during the 556th IEM Executive Committee Meeting, the IEM Executive Committee again decided that the complaint in the First Letter by the Defendant was a non-issue and was dismissed.

on 20-8-2018, a reply was sent to the Defendant by the Hon. Secretary of IEM that the Defendant’s complaint in the First Letter was dismissed.

on 19-11-2018, during the 559th IEM Executive Committee Meeting, it was unanimously agreed by the Executive Committee that the complaint in the Second Letter by the Defendant was a non-issue and decided to dismiss the Defendant’s complaint.

on 3-12-2018, during the 560th IEM Executive Committee Meeting, the same decision was made that the Defendant’s complaint as per the Second Letter was a non-issue and was dismissed.

on 13-12-2018, a reply was sent to the Defendant by the Hon. Secretary of IEM informing that the Defendant’s complaint as per the Second Letter was dismissed and was unjustified.

on 14-1-2019, during the 415th IEM Council Meeting, all the Council Members present unanimously agreed the Defendant’s complaint as per the First and Second Letters were baseless, unjustified and were ensuingly dismissed.

on 20-4-2019, the IEM 60th AGM Meeting, a decision was made by members present to refer the Defendant’s complaint in the Third Letter, back to the IEM Executive Committee to decide whether the complaint as per the Third Letter by the Defendant was against the Plaintiff as an individual member or against the Office of president of IEM.

on 3-9-2019, during the 570th IEM Executive Committee Meeting, a majority decision was made that the Defendant’s complaint as per the Third Letter was without merit, baseless and was dismissed.

on 21-10-2019, during the 419th IEM Council Meeting, all the 56 Council Members present accepted the proposed decision by IEM Executive Committee and was ratified the Defendant’s complaint as per the Third Letter was without merit, baseless and was dismissed.

on 25-7-2020, during the IEM 61st AGM Meeting, the 687 members present physically and virtually via online Zoom unanimously agreed and decided that the complaint by the Defendant against the Plaintiff was baseless and was dismissed.

as the President of IEM from 21-4-2018 until 25-7-2020, the Plaintiff must discharged his duty – • in enhancing the image of the Institution and promoting engineering knowledge and close interaction with all the existing branches of the Institution across the country. • in organizing seminars, conferences both local and internationally and conducted visits to relevant heads of industries and relevant government misistries and government ministers in promoting and enhancing the professional image of IEM Institution. • during the Plaintiff’s tenure as President, the Plaintiff had also conducted visits to all IEM branches to forge a closer working relationship with them and to encourage membership drive programmes at branch level.

the Plaintiff had attended the International Engineering Alliance Meeting in London in 2018 whereby IEM is the National Member. This was approved by the IEM Executive Committee and IEM Council together with the approved budget.

the Plaintiff paid a visit to the then Prime Minister of Malaysia, YAB Tun Dr. Mahathir in 2018 together with the President of Engineers Singapore and IEM Past Presidents, to invite YAB Tun Dr. Mahathir to accept the nomination of IEM Malaysia to receive the Highest Honour (Distinguished Patron of The ASEAN Federation of Engineering Organisation) in Singapore on 13-11-2018 during the Conference of ASEAN Federation of Engineering Organisation’s Award Night at Shangri-La Hotel, Singapore. [14] The Plaintiff had pleaded that the Defendant himself has abused his position as the Honorary Secretary of the IEM, by unilaterally issuing a letter of secondment and transferred a key IEM staff holding the position of executive-in-charge of the Office of the President to an outside business entity without prior approval of the IEM Executive Committee and IEM Council. [15] The Plaintiff had pleaded that in April 2018 with a majority vote, the IEM Executive Meeting disagreed with the Defendant’s secondment letter as it was in excess of his authority as the Honorary Secretary. The Defendant was duly reprimanded on this matter. [16] The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant’s continuing malice against the Plaintiff personally due to the Plaintiff who was then the Chairman of the IEM Training Centre’s Board Meeting had asked the Defendant to leave the meeting room after the Defendant made rude and unsavoury remarks against the Plaintiff. The Defendant was not officially invited to the meeting. [17] In paragraph 49 of the statement of claim, the Plaintiff pleaded – “49. A holistic appraisal of the said series of publications by the Defendant against the Plaintiff in a natural and ordinary meaning and/or by innuendo or impliedly meant and were understood to mean that the Plaintiff –

as President of IEM was incompetent and unfit for the office as President of IEM.

abused his position and powe as President of IEM.

intentionally misused/mismanaged the fund of IEM and is untrustworthy.

was dishonest and unprofessional.

was without or seriously lacking in integrity and honesty.

did not perform his duties as President of IEM in a professional manner.

at material times, the Plaintiff acted on his own volition and without the approval of the IEM Executive Committee & IEM Council, for his own collateral motives and personal agenda.

lacked financial probity as President of IEM and mismanaged IEM funds for his own personal benefit.

as President of IEM acted unethically and in contravention of his fiduciary duties.”. [18] In consequence of the Defendant’s Letters and WhatsApp which were circulated and spread among members of the Institution, its association and business circle of the engineering fraternity at large, brought the Plaintiff into contempt and ridicule and has also cast a slur on the professional conduct of the Plaintiff. [19] Further, the publications by the Defendant had injured the Plaintiff’s reputation in his office, calling, trade and business in engineering consultancy and as a result the Plaintiff had been subjected to embarrassment and losses. [20] The losses as claimed by the Plaintiff: The Plaintiff has suffered koss, damage, considerable distress, anguish and embarrassment. Prayers for relief [21] The Plaintiff claim against the Defendant for –

general damages.

aggravated damages.

exemplary damages.

interest on the 3 damages at the rate of 5% per annum or such other rate deemed fit and proper by this Court on all damages calculated from the date of filing this suit to full and final settlement.

an injunction restraining the Defendant from making any further publications personally or vide his servants and/or agents, or aiding, abetting counselling or procuring others to make further publications against the Plaintiff, in any manner whatsoever, in respect of his role during his tenure as President of IEM or in the Plaintiff’s personal capacity in respect of matters arising during the tenure of the Plaintiff as President of IEM.

a mandatory injunction against the Defendant to issue an unequivocal and unreserved notice of apology in favour of the Plaintiff, in 1/2 (half) page size, or any other dimension the Court deems fit, in the main section of the national edition newspaper “The Star”, retracting the said series of libellous statements made with an undertaking not to repeat the same in any manner.

costs of the suit and other ancillary costs arises from the action.

such further and/or other relief deem fit and appropriate to be decided by this Court. The amended defence [22] The gist of the defence is – • qualified privilege • fair comment • section 8 of the Defamation Act 1957 [Act 286] – “Justification. 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 words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges.”. [23] The amended defence is in Bahasa Melayu pleaded about the publications in his 3 Letters and 2 WhatsApp messages, as follows: First Letter dated 21-6-2018: “28. Defendan menegaskan bahawa penerbitan Surat Pertama tersebut dibuat dalam keadaan kepentingan bersyarat/perlindungan bersyarat (qualified privilege).

Defendan menegaskan bahawa beliau mengeluarkan Surat Pertama tersebut sebagai ahli IEM untuk memaklumkan ExComm bahawa di mesyuarat ExComm yang akan datang perkara-perkara yang disebut dalam Surat Pertama tersebut mengenai pengurusan kewangan berhati-hati, hemat dan cermat di IEM and pentadbiran cekap di IEM perlu dibangkitkan untuk perbincangan. Selanjutnya, Defendan menegaskan bahawa dalam keadaan demikian, Defendan dan IEM mempunyai kepentingan yang sama dan serupa (common corresponding interest) mengenai perkara berkaitan dengan perkataan-perkataan di dalam Surat Pertama.

Defendan menegaskan bahawa pada masa-masa material beliau mempunyai perhatian yang serius terhadap kepentingan IEM mengenai pengurusan kewangan berhati-hati dan bercemat (prudential financial management) dan pentadbiran cekap (efficient administration) dan Defendan tiada niat jahat terhadap Plaintif pada masa-masa material dan Surat Pertama tersebut telah dikeluarkan kepada ExComm untuk manfaat IEM dan kebaikan awam (IEM’s benefit and public good).

Defendan menegaskan bahawa beliau menyokong dan menganjurkan agar pihak pengurusan kewangan berhati-hati, hemat dan cermat (advocate prudential financial management) di IEM apabila beliau mengeluarkan Surat Pertama tersebut kepada Setiausaha Kehormat IEM pada masa itu. Defendan juga menegaskan bahawa Surat Pertama tersebut dikeluarkan dengan niat baik (well intentioned) kerana Defendan memakai perkataan-perkataan tidak mengancam (innocuous) dan positif seperti berikut: i. “austerity spending” [berjimat cermat dalam perbelanjaan] ii. “cost cutting” [memotong kos perbelanjaan] iii. “austerity measure” [tindakan-tindakan jimat cermat] iv. “resulted in waste of ED resources” [mengakibatkan pembaziran/kerugian sumber-sumber Pengarah Eksekutif] v. “incurring less travelling expenses for IEM … should have forgo the trip though it was endorsed by ExComm …would saved IEM an extra expenditure of about RM15,000.00 …as a measure to save these costs for IEM”. [mengurangkan perbelanjaan perjalanan untuk IEM … seharusnya tidak meneruskan perjalanan tersebut walaupun telah disetujui oleh Ex-Comm …boleh menolong IEM mengurangkan perbelanjaan sebanyak RM15,000.00] ”. Second Letter dated 12-9-2018: “33. Sebagai menjawab perenggan 26 dalam Pernyataan Tuntutan, Defendan mengakui bahawa beliau adalah orang yang mengeluarkan Surat Ke-2 tersebut kepada Setiausaha Kehormat IEM pada masa itu kerana Defendan tidak diberi apa-apa jawapan dari IEM selama lebih 2 bulan mengenai perkara-perkara yang dibangkitkan dalam Surat Pertama tersebut. Defendan menegaskan bahawa pada masa itu beliau ingin tahu pendirian dan keputusan ExComm dan/atau IEM Council mengenai perkara-perkara yang dibangkitkan dalam Surat Pertama tersebut. Selanjutnya, Defendan menegaskan bahawa perkataan-perkataan dalam Surat Ke-2 tersebut adalah benar di isi hal dan fakta (true in substance and fact) dan Plaintif tidak difitnah (not defamatory of the Plaintiff). xxx.

Selanjutnya dan secara alternatif, Defendan menegaskan bahawa perkataan-perkataan dan kenyataan-kenyataan dalam Surat Ke-2 tersebut tidak menjejaskan reputasi Plaintif secara material (did not materially injure the Plaintiff’s reputation) dan Defendan menggunakan perlindungan undang-undang di bawah seksyen 8 Akta Fitnah 1957. 37 Selanjutnya sebagai menjawab perenggan 27 dalam Pernyataan Tuntutan, Defendan menegaskan bahawa perkataan-perkataan dan kenyataan-kenyataan dalam Surat Ke-2 tersebut dikeluarkan oleh Defendan dengan niat dan tujuan baik, iaitu untuk kepentingan IEM mengenai pengurusan kewangan berhati-hati, hemat dan cemat dan pentadbiran cekap di IEM.”. xxx. Third Letter dated 26-3-2019: “67. Sebagai menjawab perenggan 36 hingga 39 dalam Pernyataan Tuntutan, Defendan menegaskan bahawa sebagai seorang ahli IEM, Defendan mempunyai hak untuk mohon apa-apa usul untuk dibincang dan dibahas di Mesyuarat Agung IEM Ke 60. Selanjutnya, Defendan menegaskan bahawa tiada usul dipohon untuk membincang oleh ahli IEM terhadap kandungan-kandungan dalam Surat Pertama tersebut dan Surat Ke-2 tersebut sebelum Mesyuarat Agung IEM Ke 60 tersebut. Defendan selanjutnya menegaskan bahawa Surat Ke-3 tersebut dikeluarkan supaya kandungan-kandungan dalam Surat Pertama tersebut dan Surat Ke-2 tersebut yang dirujuk di perenggan 21 dan 26 dalam Pernyataan Tuntutan, masing-masing, adalah perkara-perkara penting berkaitan dengan pengurusan kewangan berhati-hati dan cermat dan pentadbiran cekap di IEM dan supaya kesemua ahli IEM mempunyai pengetahuan dan diberi peluang untuk memberi pandangan-pandangan mereka terhadap perkara yang disebut di situ dan seterusnya membuat resolusi-resolusi yang diperlukan. Defendan juga menegaskan bahawa hak ahli-ahli IEM untuk didengar (right to be heard) mengenai perkara-perkara tersebut tidak boleh dihalang atau diberhentikan oleh sesiapa di IEM. Selanjutnya, mengenai komen Defendan dalam Surat Ke-3 berkenaan perjumpaan Plaintif dengan Perdana Menteri Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir pada 29.10.2018, Defendan menegaskan bahawa komen Defendan mengandungi cabutan (extract) dari dan/atau berlandaskan kepada pengumuman (posting) Plaintif sendiri dalam Facebook Plaintif … xxx.

Defendan menegaskan berkaitan dengan perkataan-perkataan dan kenyataankenyataan dalam Surat Ke-3 tersebut, Plaintif tidak difitnah (not defamatory of the Plaintiff). Selanjutnya dan secara alternatif, Defendan menegaskan bahawa perkataan-perkataan dan kenyataan-kenyataan dalam Surat Ke-3 tersebut tidak menjejaskan reputasi Plaintif secara material (did not materially injure the Plaintiff’s reputation) dan Defendan menggunakan perlindungan undang-undang di bawah seksyen 8 Akta Fitnah 1957.”. First WhatsApp dated 9-1-2019: “49. Sebagai jawapan kepada perenggan 32 dalam Pernyataan Tuntutan, Defendan menyatakan bahawa IEM Professional Practice Standing Committee (“PPC”) telah pada 19.6.2018 melantik Ir Khoo Choong Keow (“KCK”) untuk mengkaji perkataan-perkataan dan kenyataan-kenyataan dalam Surat Pertama tersebut dan Surat Ke-2 tersebut mengenai pengurusan kewangan berhati-hati dan bercemat di IEM dan kecekapan pentadbiran di IEM dan melapur kepada ExComm untuk pertimbangan (to deliberate and consider) perkara-perkara tersebut dan juga sama ada suatu Jawantankuasa Siasat perlu ditubuhkan untuk menyiasat perkara-perkara berkaitan dengan lawatan-lawatan Plaintif ke cawangan-cawangan dan lawatan Plaintif ke London yang mana juga adalah perkara-perkara dalam Surat Pertama tersebut dan Surat Ke-2 tersebut. Defendan selanjutnya juga menyatakan bahawa Plaintif sebagai Presiden IEM akan juga jadi pengerusi mesyuarat ExComm dan untuk tujuan baik, iaitu memastikan ketidakpatuhan prinsip keadilan semulajadi (breach of the rules of natural justice) dielakkan, Defendan menghantarkan whatsapp tersebut pada 9.1.2019 (“Whatsapp No.1”). Defendan menegaskan bahawa seterusnya, KCK telah mengeluarkan lapurannya seperti berikut: xxx.

Defendan mengakui bahawa beliau yang mengeluarkan Whatsapp No. 1 tersebut dan Defendan menegaskan bahawa perkataan-perkataan dalam Whatsapp No. 1 tersebut adalah benar di sisi hal dan fakta (true in substance and fact) dan Plaintif tidak difitnah (not defamatory of the Plaintiff). xxx.

Selanjutnya dan secara alternatif, Defendan menegaskan bahawa perkataan-perkataan dan kenyataan-kenyataan dalam Whatsapp No. 1 tersebut tidak menjejaskan reputasi Plaintif secara material (did not materially injure the Plaintiff’s reputation) dan Defendan menggunakan perlindungan undang-undang di bawah seksyen 8 Akta Fitnah 1957.

Selanjutnya dan secara altenatif, Defendan menegaskan bahawa sebagai seorang ahli IEM, Defendan memberi pandangannya (expression of opinion) berkaitan dengan perkara pengurusan kewangan secara berhati-hati dan bercemat (prudential financial management) di IEM yang berunsur kepentingan awam (public interest). Defendan juga menegaskan bahawa pandangan-pandangannya dalam Surat Pertama tersebut adalah pandangan saksama (fair comment) yang tidak didasari dengan niat jahat (not actuated by malice).

Selanjutnya dan secara alternatif, Defendan menegaskan bahawa perkataan-perkataan dalam Whatsapp No. 1 tersebut adalah pandangan saksama mengenai perkara kepentingan awam, iaitu sebagai seorang ahli IEM, Defendan memberi pandangan-pandangannya berkaitan dengan kepentingan awam dan kelakuan dan perangai Plaintif sebagai Presiden dan ahli IEM berlandaskan kepada fakta-fakta seperti berikut: xxx.

Defendan menegaskan bahawa penerbitan Whatsapp No. 1 tersebut dibuat dalam keadaan kepentingan bersyarat/perlindungan bersyarat (qualified privilege).

Defendan menegaskan bahawa beliau keluarkan Whatsapp No. 1 tersebut sebagai ahli IEM mengenai pengurusan kewangan berhati-hati dan bercemat di IEM and pentadbiran cekap di IEM perlu dibangkitkan untuk perbincangan. Selanjutnya, Defendan menegaskan bahawa dalam keadaan demikian, Defendan dan IEM mempunyai kepentingan yang sama dan serupa (common corresponding interest) mengenai perkara berkaitan dengan perkataan-perkataan di dalam Whatsapp No. 1 tersebut. Defendan juga menegaskan bahawa beliau mempunyai kepentingan dan tanggungjawab (di sisi undang-undang, sosial atau moral) kepada IEM untuk memberi pandangan-pandangannya mengenai pengurusan kewangan berhati-hati dan bercermat terhadap masa, wang dan sumber di IEM dan di mana IEM mempunyai kepentingan dan tanggungjawab yang sama (common corresponding interest) untuk menerima pandangan-pandangan Defendan.

Defendan menegaskan bahawa pada masa-masa material beliau mempunyai perhatian yang serius terhadap kepentingan IEM mengenai pengurusan kewangan berhati-hati dan bercemat (prudential financial management) dan pentadbiran cekap (efficient administration) dan Defendan tiada niat jahat terhadap Plaintif pada masa-masa material dan Whatsapp No. 1 tersebut di dikeluarkan untuk manfaat IEM dan kebaikan awam (IEM’s benefit and public good).

Defendan juga menegaskan bahawa Whatsapp No. 1 tersebut dikeluarkan dengan niat baik (well intentioned) kerana Defendan memakai perkataan-perkataan tidak mengancam (innocuous) dan positif.”. Second WhatsApp dated 9-1-2019: “60. … Defendan menyatakan bahawa whatsapp yang kedua yang dikeluarkan pada 9.1.2019 (“Whatsapp No. 2”) dan menegaskan bahawa Defendan tidak pernah berkata Plaintif adalah orang yang telah mengakibatkan pengarah IEMTC, iaitu Ir. Yim Hon Wa (“Yim”) mengalami “a minor stroke” dan Defendan juga menegaskan bahawa beliau tidak pernah berkata bahawa Plaintif adalah orang yang khasnya mengakibatkan masalah kesihatan kepada Yim.

Selanjutnya, Defendan menegaskan bahawa mesej dalam Whatsapp Ke-2 tersebut yang dirujuk dalam perenggan 33 dalam Pernyataan Tuntutan adalah mengenai cara pengurusan Plaintif di IEM, iaitu Plaintif suka “micro-manage” dan campur-tangan, seperti dalam kes pemindahan tempat-kerja Nurul ke pejabat IEMTCB dan diplidkan di perenggan 18 hingga 20 dalam Pernyataan Tuntutan dan dijawab di perenggan berkenaan di atas. Selanjutnya Defendan juga menegaskan bahawa perkataan-perkataan dalam Whatsapp Ke-2 tersebut bukannya perkataan yang mengancam dan dibuat dengan dengan perkataan “perhaps” yang bermakna “mungkin” atau “barangkali” adalah benar di isi hal dan fakta (true in substance and fact) dan Plaintif tidak difitnah (not defamatory of the Plaintiff). xxx.

Defendan menegaskan bahawa perkataan-perkataan dalam Whatsapp Ke-2 tersebut seperti yang disebut di perenggan 34 dalam Pernyataan Tuntutan, Plaintif tidak difitnah dan Plaintif diletakkan beban membuktikannya dengan nyata dan kukuh. Defendan menegaskan bahawa perkataan-perkataan dalam Whatsapp Ke-2 tersebut seperti yang disebut di perenggan 34 dalam Pernyataan Tuntutan, dalam maksudnya yang lazim dan biasa dan/atau secara innuendo tidak boleh difahami sebagai memfitnah Plaintif. Defendan juga menafikan maksud seperti yang didakwa oleh Plaintif di perenggan 34 dalam Pernyataan Tuntutan.

Selanjutnya dan secara alternatif, Defendan menegaskan bahawa perkataanperkataan dan kenyataan-kenyataan dalam Whatsapp Ke-2 tersebut tidak menjejaskan reputasi Plaintif secara material (did not materially injure the Plaintiff’s reputation) dan Defendan menggunakan perlindungan undangundang di bawah seksyen 8 Akta Fitnah 1957. 65. Selanjutnya dan secara alternatif, Defendan berlandaskan kepada pembelaan pandangan saksama (fair comment) dan kepentingan bersyarat/perlindungan bersyarat (qualified privilege) di atas butir-butir fakta yang disebut di bawah yang tidak didasari dengan niat jahat (not actuated by malice).

Selanjutnya dan secara alternarif, Defendan berlandaskan kepada pembelaan pandangan saksama (fair comment) dan kepentingan bersyarat/perlindungan bersyarat (qualified privilege) di atas butir-butir fakta yang disebut di bawah yang tidak didasari dengan niat jahat (not actuated by malice).”. Issues to be tried: [24] Only the Plaintiff has filed Issues to be tried as enclosed in Enclosures C1 and C2. [25] The Plaintiff raised the following issues to be determined:

sama ada Plaintif dilantik sebagai Pengerusi dalam IEM Training Centre Sdn Bhd (IEMTCB) dari tahun 2018 hingga 2020, sebuah syarikat swasta di bawah Akta Syarikat 1967?

sama ada Plaintif telah memantapkan dirinya sebagai seorang Perunding yang terkenal dan berwibawa dalam perniagaan Juruperunding dengan rekod prestasi yang cemerlang selama 33 tahun sejak tahun 1987?

sama ada Plaintif sebagai Preseiden IEM juga merupakan seorang yang dikenali ramai dan telah dilantik dan berkhidmat dalam berbagai Agensi Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Kerajaan tempatan, Institusi Pelajaran Tinggi, Pertubuhan Profesional tempatan dan luar negara dan bidang swasta?

sama ada Defendan telah menyalahgunakan kuasa sebagai bekas Setiausaha Kehormat Institusi IEM mengeluarkan satu surat “secondment” pada 24-3-2018 dan memindahkan seorang staf eksekutif di pejabat Presiden ke sebuah entiti luar TANPA mendapat kelulusan daripada Jawatankuasa Eksekutif IEM dan Council IEM?

sama ada perbuatan Defendan tersebut sebagai polisi baru adalah di luar bidang kuasa Defendan sebagai Setiausaha Kehormat TANPA kelulusan daripada Jawatankuasa Eksekutif IEM dan Council IEM?

sama ada penuduhan Defendan bahawa Plaintif dengan niat jahat menyingkirkan hak Defendan sebagai ahli IEM untuk menghadiri aktiviti IEM khasnya dalam Persidangan ‘Retreat’ di MIECC, Mines Resort City pada 26-1-2019 yang dianjurkan oleh IEMTC Sdn Bhd adalah berasas atau tidak?

sama ada Defendan telah mencerobohi ruang peribadi (privacy) Plaintif dengan mengintip ‘Facebook’ peribadi Plaintif yang telah dimuatnaikkan pada 1-11-2018 mengenai kunjungan kehormat ke YAB Tun Dr. Mahathir dan menggunapakai dan mempaparkan perkara tersebut dalam Surat Notis Ketiga Defendan sebagai agenda tambahan dalam Mesyuarat Agung AGM IEM Ke-60 pada 20 April 2019?

sama ada isi kandungan surat-surat difahamkan merujuk kepada Plaintif sendiri?

sama ada isi kandungan Surat Notis Ketiga (26-3-2019) yang diedarkan dan dibahaskan dalam Mesyuarat Agung AGM IEM ke-60 pada 20 April 2019 merupakan pengedaran umum (publication) kepada semua ahli IEM dan juga persatuan-persatuan professional tempatan dan luar negara, agensi-agensi kerajaan dan Institusi Pelajaran dalam Keluaran Buku Laporan Tahunan IEM Ke-61 bertajuk ‘2020 IEM’?

sama ada perkataan-perkataan yang disebutkan dalam surat-surat tersebut dihujahkan sebagai suatu ‘innuendo’ dan berunsur fitnah terhadap Plaintif sebagai Presiden IEM?

sama ada penerbitan dan edaran surat-surat tersebut oleh Defendan telah merendahkan reputasi Plaintif di kalangan pejabatnya dan di kalangan ahli-ahli kejuruteraannya?

sama ada kecederaan kepada reputasi Plaintif menyebabkan Plaintif mengalami malu, penderitaan dan kerugian?

sama ada mesej WhatsApp pertama dan kedua difahamkan merujuk kepada Plaintif sendiri?

sama ada kandungan atau perkataan dalam WhatsApp pertama dan kedua berunsur fitnah kepada Plaintif?

sama ada perkataan-perkataan dalam WhatsApp menjejaskan reputasi Plaintif sebagai Presiden IEM?

sama ada kecederaan kepada reputasi Plaintif menyebabkan Plaintif mengalami malu, penderitaan dan kerugian?

sama ada semasa Mesyuarat-Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Eksekutif IEM dan Council IEM diadakan, ia telah diputuskan bahawa surat-surat Defendan adalah tidak berasas dan telah dibatalkan?

sama ada Plaintif berhak terhadap tuntutan yang dibuat dalam pernyataan tuntutannya?

sama ada WhatsApp pertama diedarkan kepada banyak orang dan WhatsApp kedua telah diedarkan kepada satu kumpulan chat Group yang berjumlah dua belas ahli jurutera kanan terdiri daripada gelaran Tan Sri, Dato’, dan Plaintif?

sama ada mesej WhatsApp pertama dan kedua diterima oleh Plaintif pada 9-1-2019?

sama ada kehadiran Defendan untuk mesyuarat Lembaga Syarikat IEMTC Sdn Bhd pada 6-12-2018 melalui surat jemputan rasmi? The decision on 9-5-2023 [26] I dismiss the suit against the Defendant and the decision as pronounced by this Court on 9-5-2023 is as follows: “Berdasarkan kepada keterangan yang dikemukakan adalah didapati bahawa penerbitan dan kenyataan yang ditulis oleh Defendan dalam Surat dan WhatsApp adalah mengenai dan berkaitan dengan hal perkara antara Plaintif dan Defendan dalam urusan di IEM sama ada mengenai pertukaran staff dan aduan-aduan Defendan. Keterangan yang dikemukakan di hadapan Mahkamah ini berkenaan dengan hal perkara tersebut telah ditangani mengikut tatacara IEM sama ada dalam Mesyuarat JK Eksekutif IEM dan Council IEM. Keterangan yang dikemukakan di hadapan Mahkamah ini, “perkataan yang dipersoalkan” dan diterbitkan/disiarkan oleh Defendan yang dibaca secara keseluruhannya dalam bahasa mudah dan biasa, Mahkamah ini memutuskan atas imbangan kebarangkalian –

tidak membawa apa-apa maksud untuk merendahkan reputasi Plaintif di kalangan rakan pejabat Plaintif dan ahli jurutera termasuklah ahli jurutera kanan terdiri daripada Tan Sri dan Dato’.

tidak memfitnah Plaintif;

mere words of abuse hurled directly at the Plaintiff. Saksi-saksi Plaintif yang dipanggil (termasuk Plaintif sendiri) dan keterangan tersebut gagal menunjukkan bahawa “perkataan yang dipersoalkan” memfitnah Plaintif. Penelitian Mahkamah ini selepas meneliti semua dokumen dan keterangan lisan dan dokumentar yang dibentangkan oleh pihak-pihak di hadapan Mahkamah ini, dan hujahan bertulis serta hujahan balasan pihak-pihak, Mahkamah ini mendapati atas imbangan kebarangkalian Plaintif gagal untuk membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan. Oleh yang demikian, saya menolak tuntutan Plaintif dan dengan kos sebanyak RM15,000.00 (tertakluk kepada fi alokatur).”. [27] The Plaintiff is unsatisfied and aggrieved by the decision had then filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The trial & the witnesses [28] On 2-3-2023, 3-3-2023, 9-3-2023 & 10-3-2023 this Court has heard the full trial. [29] The Plaintiff’s witnesses, summarily as follows: Plaintiff’s case PW-1: Janet Lim Chief Operation Officer of Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM)/full time. • in charged of the secretariat and all the secretariat staff during year 2018 to 2020. • has knowledged and confirmed about Puan Nurul transfer from IEM to IEM Training centre Sdn Bhd on secondment. • in her testimony said that she remembers the 3 letters written by the Defendant to Ir. Mohd Khir, the Hon. Secretary of IEM and the 3 letters are with the Secretariat. • the contents of the 3 letters are regarding the President’s travels to branches and to London. • a Screening Panel was set up to study the complaints in the 3 letters and a report by the Screening Panel was issued. Plaintiff’s case PW-2: Mohd Khir bin Muhammad Vice President of Institution of Engineers Malaysia • during year 2018 to 2020, served as the Honorary Secretary. • receiving the Defendant’s letters of complaint and enclosed them as agenda in the IEM Executive Committee Meeting and IEM Council Meeting. • decisions made in the Meetings was sent to the Defendant via letter. PW-3: Lai Kong Phooi (Plaintiff) Past President of Institution of Engineers Malaysia Principal Consultant of Perunding Muhibbah, Civil, Structural and Project Rehabilitation Consultancy Firm. • during year 2018 to 2020, served as the President of IEM. • statutory roles as the President of IEM: management, finance, general supervision over the affairs of IEM, chairing/presiding the AGM meetings, represent IEM in all local and overseas meetings, conferences and engagements. • working relationship with the Defendant at the material time is as the President (Plaintiff) and the Hon. Secretary (Defendant). • disagree with the Defendant’s letter to transfer Puan Nurul from the Office of IEM President to IEM Training Centre Sdn Bhd. The Defendant made the decision without the approval from Executive Committee and IEM Council. Plaintiff’s case • the Defendant’s three Letters were complaints about the IEM Preseident. • the Defendant’s Letter were circulated and discussed in the Executive Committee Meeting and IEM Council Meeting. • the Defendant’s WhatsApp messages contained the accusation against the Plaintiff. • the Defendant had made meticulous and tenacious method of attack on the Plaintiff with malicious and intention to tarnish the Plaintiff’s name, integrity and reputation as a professional, to discredit the Plaintiff and to lower the Plaintiff’s image in the eyes of the public. PW-4: Ong Ching Loon Immediate Past President of Institution of Engineers Malaysia • during year 2018 to 2020, served as the Deputy President of IEM. • confirmed that the Defendant’s letter to transfer Puan Nurul from the Office of IEM President to IEM Training Centre Sdn Bhd was made without the approval from IEM Executive Committee and IEM Council. • confirmed that in the IEM Executive Committee Meeting the Defendant’s Plaintiff’s case Letters were discussed and concluded on majority votes. • received the Defendant’s WhatsApp messages too. [30] The Defendant’s witnesses, summarily as follows: Defendant’s case DW-1: Yap Soon Hoe/the Defendant. Member of Institution of Engineers Malaysia Secretary of Institution of Engineers Malaysia • confirmed that the 3 Letters were written and sent by the Defendant. • the Letters were addressed to and for the attention of the then Honorary Secretary of • confirmed that the IEM’s Professional Practice Committee had decided to set up the Investigation Panel. • confirmed that the 2 WhatsApp messages were sent by the Defendant to members of IEM and they are also hold positions in IEM organization structure. • confirmed that the letter of transfer dated 24-3-2018 for Puan Nurul to work in IEM Training Centre was signed by the Defendant as the Honorary Secretary of Defendant’s case • pertaining to Puan Nurul’s transfer, the Defendant had stated that he had consulted PW-1 (General manager of IEM), Tan Yew Chin (the then President of IEM). At that time, the Plaintiff was the Deputy President of IEM. • no reprimand order/instruction was made to the Defendant for Puan Nurul’s transfer. DW-2 Subpoena witness: Tan Yean Chin Past President of Institution of Engineers Malaysia • confirmed that the Defendant had approached him regarding Puan Nurul’s transfer. DW-2 told the Defendant to refer the matter to PW-1 (Janet Lim). DW-3 Subpoena witness: Ir. Ooi Teik Aun (Dr.) Past Executive Director of Training Centre Sdn Bhd. • explain about IEM Defendant’s case DW-4 Subpoena witness: Yam Teong Sian Exco & Committee Member of IEM. Past Hon. Secretary of IEM. • explained about World Tunnelling Conference 2020 (WTC 2020). • in his testimony said that he was “a past Honorary Secretary” of IEM and that it is normal for the Honorary Secretary of IEM to deal with staff movement and to sign letters to that effect; and general administration of IEM is actually under the Honorary Secretary. • in his testimony that there is no necessity for the Honorary Secretary to wait and get the prior approval of IEM Executive Committee regarding staff movement. DW-5 Subpoena witness: Yim Hon Wa Executive Director of IEM Training Centre. • the Executive Director of IEMTC Sdn Bhd, who was in charge of the administration in IEMTC Sdn Bhd. • as one of the persons who invite the Defendant to attend the meeting on WTC

DW-6 Subpoena witness: Prof Puan Leong Wai Yie Member of IEM. • confirmed that the contents of the Defendant’s Letters were discussed in the Meetings. • the transfer of Puan Nurul Aida was discussed and recorded in the minutes of Defendant’s case Vice President of IEM this 431st meeting. She also said that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection. The Law [31] The decision in the Federal Court (FC) in the case of Dato’ Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail & Anor v. Mohd Rafizi bin Ramli [2022] 4 AMR 695; [2022] 3 MLJ 758; and [2011] 5 CLJ 487, Y.A.A Azahar Mohamad CJ (Malaya) [Y.A.A as he then was] held that the High Court correctly directed itself in law that in order to succeed in his defence of fair comment, the respondent will need to establish the 4 elements in Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam v. Goh Chok Tong [1989] 3 MLJ 1 −

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

(ii) the comment is on a matter of public interest;

(iii) the comment is based on facts; and

(iv) the comment is one which fair-minded person can honestly make on the facts proved. [32] In paragraph [56] FC quoted the test of “fair” comment in Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam (supra) – “The trial judge quoted very aptly from the direction given in the jury by Diplock J (as he then was) in Silkin v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd at p 759: The matter which you have to decide and I emphasise this again, because it is so important, is not whether you, any of you, agree with that comment. You may all of you disagree with it, feel that is comment that is not correct. But that is not the test. I will remind you of the test once more. Could a fair-minded man, holding a strong view, holding perhaps an obstinate view, holding perhaps a prejudicial view – could a fair-minded man have been capable of writing this?”. [33] The Federal Court in the case of Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn. Bhd. v. Hue Shieh Lee [2019] 3 CLJ 729 held – “The Law on Defamation [29] Defamation is committed when the defendant publishes to a third person words or matters containing untrue imputation against the reputation of the plaintiff… [30] In Ayob Saud v. TS Sambanthamurthi [1989] 1 CLJ 152; [1989] 1 CLJ (Rep) 321, His Lordship Mohamed Dzaiddin J (as he then was) has dearly laid down the necessary procedure in establishing claim for libel (with which we agree), when he said at p. 155: In our law on libel, which is governed by the Defamation Act 1957, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to show

the words are defamatory: (2) the words refer to the plaintiff: and (3) the words were published. … [31] In other words, the plaintiff must prove three elements of the tort of defamation, which are: (i) the plaintiff must show that the statement bears defamatory imputations; (ii) the statement must refer to or reflect upon the plaintiff’s reputation; and (iii) the statement must have been published to a third person by the defendant.”. [34] The Court of Appeal through the judgment of Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) in the case of Chok Foo Choo @ Chok Kee Lian v. The China Press Bhd [1999] 1 CLJ 461; [1999] 1 MLJ 371 where it was held that – “In my judgment; the test which is to be applied lies in the question: do 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? If the question invites an affirmative response, then the words complained of are defamatory. …”. [35] The case of Syed Husin Ali v. Sharikat Penchetakan Utusan Melayu Bhd & Anor [1973] 1 LNS 146; [1973] 2 MLJ 56 where his Lordship Mohamed Azmi J (as he then was), quoting Gatley on Libel and Slander, 6th edn, p. 4 had stated as follows: “There is no wholly satisfactory definition of a defamatory imputation. Any imputation which may tend ‘to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, ‘to cut him off from society,’ or ‘to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule,’ is defamatory of him. An imputation may be defamatory whether or not it is believed by those to whom it is published.”. Further, at p. 14, para 31, Gatley says: A defamatory imputation is one to a man’s discredit, or which tends to lower him in the estimation of others, or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to injure his reputation in his office, trade or profession, or to injure his financial credit. The standard of opinion is that of right-thinking persons generally. To be defamatory an imputation need have no actual effect on a person’s reputation; the law looks only to its tendency. Thus, the test of defamatory nature of a statement is its tendency to excite against the plaintiff the adverse opinion of others, although no one believes the statement to be true. Another test is: would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?”. [36] Ong Hock Sim FJ. in Rajagopal v. Rajan [1972] 1 MLJ 45 Federal Court [Tab C] said at page 47 B-D – “In deciding whether the words complained of were per se defamatory, it would be necessary to construe the words in their natural and ordinary meaning in the sense in which reasonable men of ordinary intelligence would like to understand them. … that the words complained of have a secondary meaning by innuendo, consideration must be taken as to the manner of their publication and the persons to whom they were published.”. At page 47 G-H – “It is not what the appellant meant that is relevant in construing whether the words are defamatory but what the words convey to a reasonable person to whom they are published.”. [37] Y.A Mary Lim JCA (as Y.A then was) at page 522 in Raja Syahrir bin Abu Bakar & Anor v Manjeet Singh Dhillon and Other Appeals [2020] 3 MLJ 482 Court of Appeal further dealt with the defence of qualified privilege. The case of Dato Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail & Anor v Nurul Izzah bt Anwar & Anor [2018] 3 MLJ 726 was cited and referred – “[55] A defence of qualified privilege is founded on the need or duty on the part of the alleged defamer to impart information to the public at large and that there is a duty on the part of the public to receive that information…Although the law of defamation exists to protect reputations, it is recognised that in particular situations it is to the benefit of society generally for people to be able to communicate without fear of being sued for defamation. This is so despite the risk that a person’s reputation will be damaged and they will not be able to restore it by bringing a claim for defamation. Its rationale resides in the wider consideration that a general public good in such exercise overrides the need to protect individual reputation…”. Evaluation & Findings of this Court [38] This defamation suit by the Plaintiff against the Defendant was based on the 3 Letters and 2 WhatsApp messages. The question is whether the statements in the 3 Letters and the 2 WhatsApp messages (“the impugned statements”) are words that tend to lower the Plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society? [39] It is undisputed that the Letters by the Defendant are not poison pen letter or surat layang as in Malay language. [40] The Defendant was all the while seeking information and feedbacks from IEM and within the IEM process and system. The Defendant wants the IEM Executive Committee and even to the IEM Council to look into the matters raised in these 3 letters addressed to the Honorary Secretary of IEM. [41] The matters raised and/or complained by the Defendant had been deliberated and discussed as agenda in the Meetings (be that the IEM Executive Committee Meeting and the IEM Council Meeting). [42] The nexus/affiliation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant also crystal clear that both of them hold highest position in IEM that are as the President and Secretary, at the material times. The Plaintiff’s list of position whether past and present showed that he is a person with highly respected by others especially in the engineers’ fraternity. [43] The Plaintiff contends that the Letters written, publish and send by the Defendant are slander in respect of words calculated to disparage the Plaintiff in his office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by him at the time of the publication, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove special damage whether or not the words are spoken of the Plaintiff in the way of his office, profession, calling, trade or business. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff cited the provision in section 5 of the Defamation Act 1957. [44] In the written submission by the Plaintiff, the facts that the 3 Letters that are addressed to the IEM and the Letters are discussed as in agenda in the – • 555th IEM Executive Committee Meeting (9-7-2018) and it was decided that the Defendant’s complaint letter on saving cost was a non-issue. • 556th IEM Executive Committee Meeting, the Defendant’s complaint letter was again been brought up and it was decided a non-issue and set it to rest. • the First Letter by the Defendant was projected on the screen in the Meeting as stated by PW-2. • on 20-8-2018, the Hon. Secretary of IEM sent a reply to the Defendant pertaining to the First Letter. • 559th IEM Executive Committee Meeting unanimously decided and concluded that the Defendant’s Second complaint Letter was a non-issue. • 560th IEM Executive Committee Meeting (3-12-2018), the Defendant’s Second complaint Letter was again been brought up and again it was dismissed as it was a non-issue. • on 13-12-2018, the Hon. Secretary of IEM sent a reply to the Defendant pertaining to the Second Letter informing the Defendant that his Second Letter will not pursue. • 415th IEM Council Meeting (14-1-2019), had unanimously agreed that the First and Second Letters by the Defendant are non-issue. • 570th IEM Executive Committee Meeting (3-9-2019), the Defendant’s Third complaint Letter was decided as without merit. • 419th IEM Council Meeting (14-1-2019) had decided that there was no misconduct and no necessity to set up the Investigation Committee for the matters as complained by the Defendant. • on 15-7-2020, the Plaintiff’s solicitor issued the Letter of Demand to the Defendant. • the 61st AGM of IEM on 25-7-2020 attended by 687 members physically present noted that the matters as complained by the Defendant were closed. [45] As pleaded by the Plaintiff, the 2 WhatsApp messages are sent by the Defendant to diverse persons accusing the Plaintiff of interfering with, and influencing the Executive Committee not to vote on the setting up of an Investigation Committee under the purview of Professional Practice Committee against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff posed a question and said that the setting up of the Investigation Committee is the Defendant further plans to discredit the Plaintiff, damage the Plaintiff’s position as the President and the Plaintiff will lose face. By this WhatsApp message, the Defendant had malicious intention against the Plaintiff. [46] This Court, after thoroughly, pay her attention with regard to every detail, understanding of the subject and with great care analysing the Plaintiff claims, finds that the complaints and the accusations made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff are not defamatory. [47] The proof as tendered by the Plaintiff and the Defendant had showed that the IEM Executive Committee had in their Meetings been presented with the Defendant’s Letters to be discussed. From the beginning, the Plaintiff himself stated the Defendant’s Letters are “complaint letters”. [48] As a professional body, IEM has its Professional Practice Committee whereby the complaints to be investigate by the Investigation Committee. Here, all the complaints or in a strong word used by the Plaintiff, the “accusations” are put in the agenda in the IEM Meetings. The IEM Executive Committee and the IEM Council had “kicked-out” the Defendant’s complaints against the Plaintiff as non-issue and without merit. [49] The fact that the Defendant had addressed the Letters to the IEM is good enough to rule out that the Defendant dissatisfaction pertaining to the matters on the Plaintiff holding the Presidentship post in IEM organization, such as abuse of position and power; misused of IEM funds and/or budget; performance of the Plaintiff as the President of IEM; lack of financial prudence as President of IEM; acted unethically and in contravention of the Plaintiff’s fiduciary duty; dishonest, lack of integrity and unprofessional were all baseless. [50] In deciding the complaints and/or the accusations made by the Defendant, the IEM Executive Committee and the IEM Council in the Meetings had projected the complaints on the screen for the view of the members. Then, the decisions were made and they were made known to the Defendant. The decisions of the IEM also known by the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff still proceed with its Letter of Demand and then the writ of summons and statement of claim to the Defendant. [51] This Court disagree with the learned counsel for the Plaintiff’s submission that – “60. As a result, the malicious publication by the Defendant and circulated among members of the Institution, its associations and business circle of engineering fraternity at large and it brought the Plaintiff to contempt and ridicule and has also cast a slur on the character, image and conduct of the Plaintiff”. The reason for my decision is that none of the witnesses called and gave testimony before me did say that the Plaintiff has such bad characters while holding the position as the President of IEM. [52] All procedure that need to be done to answer the Defendant’s complaints vide the 3 Letters has saved the Plaintiff’s face, character, image and conduct of the Plaintiff. [53] Guided by the decisions in our Apex Courts and having considered the exact words and the impugned statements vide the Letters and the WhatsApp messages as a whole, I am of the considered view that the words, in their natural and ordinary meaning, are not defamatory of the Plaintiff. [54] The fact that the impugned statements refer to the Plaintiff is crystal clear and incontrovertible. The publication is made to the IEM itself in order for the organization to take the necessary actions. [55] The Defendant had proved that – • IEM Council “has directed the Standing Committee on Professional Practice to look into the complaints” by the Defendant. The Screening Committee was formed. • The Screening Committee under Ir Khoo Chong Keow and Ir Zafrul Mahmood gave their report to the Standing Committee on Professional Practice and the report was circulated to IEM Executive Committee and was read out at the Meeting. • It was concluded and agreed at the 61st AGM of IEM on 25- 7-2020 that “the complaint was more on governance rather than on misconduct of an individual”. • matters complained by the Defendant vide his 3 Letters which are purely the internal affair of IEM. The Defendant did not send the 3 Letters to strangers, the press or members of the public. • the Plaintiff has failed to show any proof that the Plaintiff’s reputation had been materially injured. The learned counsel for the Defendant cited the case of Raja Syahrir bin Abu Bakar & Anor v Manjeet Singh Dhillon and other appeals [2020] 3 MLJ 482 (Court of Appeal). [56] Therefore, the Court holds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish the elements of the tort of defamation, on the balance of probabilities, against the Defendant. [57] At the hearing, the Plaintiff did not adduce any evidence at all showing that because of the statements in the 3 Letters and the 2 WhatsApp messages, the Plaintiff had suffered loss and damage in the form of cancellations of contracts, drop in income etc. [58] The nature of the Defendant’s complaints is within and the internal affairs of the IEM. Based on the report by the Screening Committee had accepted that the matters complained by the Defendants are all matters pertaining to governance in IEM and there is no misconduct (either by the Plaintiff or the Defendant). The views of the Screening Panel are accepted by the IEM Executive Committee, the IEM Council and by the IEM Members at the Annual General Meeting. [59] In examining the evidence before me, I could not find any malice on the part of the Defendant. [60] The Court of Appeal in Dato’ Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail & Anor (supra) did not disturb the High Court’s finding that on failure to prove malice. In this regard, the Federal Court held that “it is trite law that proof of malice defeats the defence of fair comment because a comment that is made maliciously is not fair comment.”. Here, in this case, the Defendant did make the comments/complaints/critics against the Plaintiff holding the position of the President of The comments/complaints/critics against the Plaintiff are fair and no malice. Conclusion [61] In all the above circumstances, the subject matter of the Defendant pertaining to the Plaintiff are merely complaints and/or criticism. The impugned statements are not defamatory of the Plaintiff. [62] The IEM has turned down the Defendant’s complaints and criticism against the President (that is the Plaintiff). In the words of Lord Atkin, the Defendant cannot be faulted for the “exhibitions of bad manners or discourtesy” (if any). [63] In view of the foregoing reasons, I therefore dismiss the Plaintiff claim with costs. Dated: 15 July 2023. RoziBainon ( ROZI BINTI BAINON ) Judicial Commissioner High Court NCvC12 Shah Alam Counsels: For the Plaintiff: Choy Kam Lee together with Awtar Kaur Tetuan K.L.Choy & Co., Ipoh, Perak For the Defendant: H. C. Tan together with Waheeda Md Yusoff Tetuan H C Tan & Zahani, Kuala Lumpur