Lee Siew Mei v Shereen Lim Binti Abdullah (WA-23CY-25-04/2021)

1.

2.

3.

4.

DATO’ NGIAM FOON ... PLAINTIFFS ... DEFENDANT (TO BE HEARD TOGETHER WITH CIVIL SUIT NO. WA-A53F-11- 07/2019 VIDE AN ORDER DATED 13 JULY 2020 IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF MALAYSIA (CIVIL DIVISION) CIVIL SUIT NO. WA-A53F-10-07/2019 … PLAINTIFF … DEFENDANT TO BE HEARD TOGETHER WITH CIVIL SUIT NO. WA-A53F-11- 07/2019 & WA-23CY-71-12/2019 VIDE AN ORDER DATED 20 SEPTEMBER 2019 IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF MALAYSIA (CIVIL DIVISION) CIVIL SUIT NO. WA-A53F-10-07/2019 … PLAINTIFF

1.

2.

3.

4.

DATO’ NGIAM FOON … DEFENDANTS)

Lee Siew Mei or better known as Carol Lee (‘Carol’), a former news presenter and live morning talk show host for RTM and TV3 for almost 10 years, made history by becoming the first Malaysian and Asian to win the Mrs. Universe 2013 beauty pageant held in the Caribbean on 11.8.2013. For this feat, Carol was listed in the Malaysia Book of Records. She also spearheaded a Nationwide Campaign Against Domestic Violence and worked closely with the All Women’s Action Society.

Four years later, Carol Lee took the initiative to form the Mont’ Kiara Community Society (‘MKCS’) which was later registered with the Registrar of Societies (‘ROS’).

Carol and Tan Wai Ping (‘Wai Ping’) were part of the Pro Tem Committee of MKCS where Carol was the Chairperson and Wai Ping was the Secretary. Subsequently, Carol was the Chairperson and Wai Ping was the Deputy Chairperson of MKCS.

Aida Phang Binti Abdullah (‘Aida’), Shereen Lim Binti Abdullah (‘Shereen’), Chew Chin Swee (‘Chew’) and Dato’ Ngiam Foon (‘Dato’ Ngiam’) volunteered to be the property representatives of their respective condominiums to join as members of MKCS. They were elected as Committee Members during the 1st Annual General Meeting (‘AGM’) on 9.6.2018 and Aida became the Treasurer.

Regrettably, what started as noble intentions to organise events, address communal issues and foster communal spirit and relationship within the Mont’ Kiara residents turned into an extremely bitter argument between these six individuals and this led to the filing of –

Civil Suit No.: WA-23CY-71-12/2019 (‘Suit 71’) by Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam against Carol;

Civil Suit No.: WA-23CY-24-04/2021 (‘Suit 24’; previously Sessions Court Civil Suit No.: WA-A53F-10-07/2019) by Carol against Chew; and

Civil Suit No.: WA-23CY-25-04/2021 (‘Suit 25’; previously Sessions Court Civil Suit No.: WA-A53F-11-07/2019) by Carol against Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam, for altogether nine statements which were alleged to be defamatory.

After a full trial and having considered the parties’ pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and written submissions, it was my finding in respect of –

Suit 71, that only two out of seven statements are defamatory, and that even if four of the statements are defamatory, Carol can rely on the defence of fair comment. Carol was ordered to pay general damages in the sum of RM50,000.00 to each of the Plaintiffs;

Suit 24, that the statement is not defamatory, and even if it is defamatory, Chew can rely on the defence of fair comment. Hence Carol’s claim was dismissed; and

Suit 25, that the statement is not defamatory, and even if it is defamatory, Shereen, Wai Ping, Aida, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam can rely on the defence of fair comment. Hence Carol’s claim was dismissed.

Dissatisfied, Carol has appealed against my decision in respect of all three suits.

These are my full grounds of judgment.

The following are the Agreed Facts between the parties in respect of each suit.

Aida is a Malaysian Citizen of full age and having a residential address at 16-09, Laman Suria, 13, Jalan Kiara 3, Mont’ Kiara 50480 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan.

Aida was the deemed Treasurer of MKCS.

Wai Ping is a Malaysian Citizen of full age and having a residential address at A-0-1, Almaspuri Condominium, 18 Jalan Kiara 2, Mont’ Kiara, 50480 Kuala Lumpur.

Wai Ping and Carol were also the founding members of MKCS at the point in time when MKCS was officially registered with the ROS on 16.2.2017.

Shereen is a Malaysian citizen of full age and having her residential address at B-30-05, Seni Mont Kiara, 2A Changkat Kiara Duta, Mont’ Kiara 50480 Kuala Lumpur.

Shereen is the Chairperson of the Management Corporation (‘MC’) of one condominium located in Mont Kiara known as “Seni Mont Kiara”.

Chew is a Malaysian citizen of full age and having his residential address at B-21-03, 2A Changkat Kiara Duta, Mont’ Kiara 50480 Kuala Lumpur.

Chew was the Chairperson for the joint management body of Seni Mont’ Kiara.

Dato’ Ngiam is a Malaysian citizen of full age and having its residential address at A-15-02, Kiaramas Danai, 8 Jalan Desa Kiara, Mont’ Kiara 50480 Kuala Lumpur.

Dato’ Ngiam is the Chairperson of the management corporation of a condominium located in Mont’ Kiara known as “Kiaramas Danai”.

Carol is a Malaysian citizen of full age and having a residential address A-09-03, Tiffani Kiara, 1 Changkat Duta Kiara, Mont’ Kiara 50480 Kuala Lumpur.

Carol is/ was at all material times, the Chairperson of MKCS and the Deputy Chairperson for the Committee of Wilayah Persekutuan Resident Representative Zone 4 or known as the “Majlis Perwakilan Penduduk Wilayah Persekutuan” (‘MPPWP’).

At all times, Carol as the Chairperson for MKCS had created several WhatsApp (‘WA’) group chats as the medium for communication for purposes of convenience which amongst others, are as follows:

‘MKCS - All Matters’ which is a more general group chat whose participants include the Committee Members of MKCS and ordinary or general members of MKCS and with certain participants being members of the public who are not the members of MKCS. At all material times, the number of participants in this group chat were/ are approximately 122 altogether;

‘MKCS - Safety & Security’ which is a more confined closed group chat which comprise of the parties in these suits and certain senior ranking officers from the police force and fire department. At all material times, the number of participants in this group chat were/ are approximately 160 altogether; and

‘MKCS - Ind & Assoc’ is a group chat comprising of participants who were/ are the Committee Members of MKCS and either individual or association members of MKCS. At all material times, the number of participants of this group chat were/ are approximately 56 altogether. These WA group chats were/ are at all material times highly active with comments and opinions being shared and exchanged by the participants in the respective WA group chats.

On 20.2.2019, Carol had authored and/ or cause to be authored and posted in the WA group chat entitled MKCS Main Committee the message referred to as Statement 1 in the Revised Common

On or around 1.3.2019, Carol had sent the WA message privately to the MKCS members referred to as Statement 2 in the ITBT.

In March 2019 and/ or around 1.3.2019, there was a petition for an Extraordinary General Meeting (‘EGM’) distributed to members of MKCS referred to as Statement 3 in the ITBT.

On 21.3.2019, Carol had authored and/ or published a WA message in the WA group chat MKCS - Safety & Security referred to as Statement 4 in the ITBT.

On 12.4.2019, Carol had sent another message in the WA group chat MKCS - All Matters referred to as Statement 5 in the ITBT.

Carol had written and/ or published a portion in red of the letter dated 14.4.2019 in the WA group chat MKCS - All Matters and MKCS Ind & Assoc referred to as Statement 6 in the ITBT.

On 16.4.2019, Carol had sent a WA message to the WA group chat MKCS - All Matters referred to as Statement 7 in the ITBT.

In respect of Suit 24, Chew had authored and/ or published a WA message in the group chat MKCS - All Matters which had 123 participants.

In respect of Suit 25, Shereen, Wai Ping, Aida, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam had authored and/ or published a WA message in the group chat entitled MKCS - All Matters which had 123 participants.

Carol solicitor's, Messrs Yeoh & Joanne had written a demand notice dated 26.04.2019 to Chew and had replied through its solicitors, Messrs. Viknesh & Yap on 14.5.2019.

In order to appreciate the context in which the alleged defamatory statements were made; the additional material facts are as follows. - Resubmission of ROS Grant in October 2018 by Aida and Wai

Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam contended that the disputes in these suits emanated from the resubmission of the Grant Application by Aida and Wai Ping for and on behalf of MKCS sometime in October, 2018.

On or about 20.10.2018, Aida as the Treasurer of MKCS was notified by ROS that the Grant Application submitted in March 2018 for the total amount of RM10,000.00 (RM2,000.00 for whistles, RM1,000.00 for dialogue with OCPD Brickfields and RM6,000.00 for sports) (‘2018 Grant Application’) was unable to be processed and approved and may be rejected. It was subsequently discovered by Aida and Wai Ping upon visiting the ROS office that “Sport Activity/ Event” is no longer an approved activity under the ROS’s guidelines for a grant application in 2018 although it was allowed previously by ROS in 2017.

In view of the above, Aida and Wai Ping were advised by ROS that the estimated or projected amount of RM6,000.00 allocated for sports will be set aside and not taken into account by the ROS in awarding the grant.

Upon the requests and pleas by Aida and Wai Ping, the ROS officer eventually allowed MKCS to resubmit the 2018 Grant Application provided that it has to be submitted within the next few days considering that the application for ROS’ grants was closed in July, 2018.

Having informed Carol of the current status of the 2018 Grant Application, and Aida having not had any experience applying and submitting a grant application to ROS, Carol thus requested Aida to seek assistance from Wai Ping since Wai Ping had assisted in submitting the previous grant applications for MKCS.

Aida and Wai Ping had, on 24.10.2018, resubmitted the application to ROS for the sum of RM9,000.00 (‘2018 Grant Resubmission’) without presenting the application form before Carol and the rest of the Committee due to time constraint. The details of the application (p 735, B4) are as follows: Summary For 2018 ROS Grant Vs Actual Expenses – submission date 24 October 2018 Details Grant Amount (RM) Actual Expense (RM) Date 1) Equipment 6 May 2018 Whistles 4,000.00 3,990.00 Date Activities 2) Cleanliness and Maintenance 1,000.00 999.40 27 Oct 2018 a) Gotong Royong 1,000.00 999.40 3) Crime Prevention 4,000.00 2,298.10 13 Feb 2018 a) Dialogue

700.00 698.10 06 May 2018 b) Whistles Campaign 2,300.00 1,450.00 29 Sept 2018 c) Bike Ride with Police 1,000.00 160.00

+ (2) + (3) 9,000.00 7,287.50 It is noted that the expenditure for the purchase of whistles and events held before 24.10.2018 had been incurred and this was the source of Carol’s grouses.

The 2018 Grant Resubmission was eventually approved by ROS for the sum of RM7,950.00.

On 29.10.2018, Carol messaged Aida via WA to discuss her unhappiness on what had been submitted by Aida in the 2018 Grant Resubmission, namely the actual expenses for the purchase of whistles and events held before 24.10.2018 were not stated in the application form. - Membership Issue

There was an audit carried out by the ROS on MKCS on 11.4.2018. Tan Gek Cheng (‘Julie’) was present at the audit together with Wai Ping and Carol.

During the audit, ROS discovered that the Committee did not collect the actual amount of the membership subscription fee stipulated in its Constitution i.e. subscription fee of RM500.00 with an entry fee of RM10.00.

Having considered that MKCS was new at the time, ROS gave the Committee the chance to amend its Constitution i.e. for the membership subscription fee to be reduced to RM10.00, RM50.00 and RM100.00 per year, depending on the type of membership.

The ROS advised the Pro Tem Committee to immediately organise an AGM to amend MKCS’ Constitution and to submit the Amended Constitution to the ROS for approval.

During the AGM held on 9.6.2018, the MKCS members passed the resolution that the Constitution of MKCS be amended. Aida, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam were elected as Committee Members during this AGM.

According to Clause 16 of MKCS’s original Constitution, the amended constitution shall be submitted to the ROS for its approval within 60 days after the AGM.

Shereen, as the elected Secretary of MKCS at the time, had the responsibility to submit the Amended Constitution to the ROS as only she had control over the password to MKCS account in the ROS’ website (‘eROSES’). It was also ROS’ instruction that nobody in the Committee, including the Chairperson, should have the password to MKCS account in eROSES apart from the Secretary.

Carol had entrusted the submission of the Amended Constitution to Shereen and Wai Ping in view that both of them had control of the password to the MKCS account in the ROS.

During a meeting with the ROS on 1.4.2019, Carol was told that the ROS did not receive the Amended Constitution. When Carol Lee questioned Wai Ping on this in the Committee Meeting on 4.4.2019, Wai Ping claimed to have sent the Amended Constitution by hand to the ROS and the same was stamped by the ROS but she subsequently could not find the stamped copy.

On 15.4.2019, Carol met with the ROS Officer, Mohd Asraf Bin Asmuni, about the membership issue. Asraf said that because the Amended Constitution was not submitted within 60 days after the AGM, the original Constitution remains valid. This means that MKCS had no valid members and the AGM held on 9.6.2018 was deemed to be invalid. Therefore, the responsibility went back to the MKCS Pro Tem Committee Members to ensure that there were at least 14 members who had paid the full membership fees in order to organise an AGM.

Carol took the position that since the AGM was invalid, Aida, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam, who were elected as Committee Members during the AGM, could not be considered as Committee Members, except for Wai Ping, who was with the Pro Tem Committee.

The main reliefs in Suit 71 as set out in the Statement of Claim (‘SoC’) are as follows: “87.1 an injunction to restrain the Defendant, either by herself and/or her agents, servants, employees and/or otherwise, immediately from further authoring, posting and/or publishing any message(s) or statement(s) or letter(s) and/or reposting and/or republishing any previous message(s) or statement(s) or letter(s) which, either wholly or partly, are defamatory in nature or adverse to Plaintiffs' reputations on any public domain or forum or social media and/or network platforms;

87.2 an order to compel the Defendant issue and/or deliver and/or caused to be issued and/or delivered to the Plaintiffs a full and complete withdrawal and apology, in terms to be approved by the Plaintiffs as prominent a position as the posts and/or comments complained of wherein the fonts and/or statements contained shall be of a considerable and/or reasonable size sufficient for reading of the public within seven (7) days from the date of the Judgment herein;

87.3 an order compelling the Defendant to give, provide and serve a written assurance and undertaking either to the Plaintiffs or their solicitors and whereby such written assurance and undertaking shall be addressed to the Plaintiffs individually that the Defendant shall not further author, post or publish and/or caused to be authored, posted or published the said defamatory statements complained herein or any similar message(s) and/or letter(s) against the Plaintiffs in future;

87.4 that general damages, exemplary and aggravated damages be assessed by this Honourable Court; …”.

The following are the reliefs sought in the SoC for Suit 24: “18.1 A permanent injunction against the Defendant to restrain the Defendant from issuing, publishing and/or cause the publication of the Message and/or any words equivalent to the Defamatory

18.2 General damages to be determined by this

18.3 Aggravated damages …;

18.4 Exemplary damages …;

18.5. An order for the assessment of damages to be given by this Honourable Court;

18.6 An order against the Defendant to issue a letter of apology to the Plaintiff in the Whatsapp group in which the Message was published and/or sent or whatever the Message was circulated by them; …”

The same reliefs were sought in Suit 25 (see subparagraphs 22.1 – 22.6 of the SoC).

The trial was held for a total of 17 days. The evidence which was taken for eight days from April to October 2021 were heard before Mohd Nazlan J (now JCA). Upon His Lordship’s elevation to the appellate court, the case was directed to be continued by the judge in NCvC2.

Upon my transfer to NCvC2 in September 2024, mediation sessions were held for these suits in an attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the disputes between the parties. Unfortunately, this attempt was not successful and trial continued in October 2024 to January 2025.

The witnesses who testified at the trial are as follows:

Aida, retiree and homemaker (PW1);

Wai Ping, company director (PW2);

Shereen, retiree (PW3);

Chew, retiree (PW4);

Dato’ Ngiam, independent consultant and former President of the Malaysian Association of Travel and Tour Agents and Board Member of the Malaysian Tourism Promotion Board (PW5);

Mr. Abraham Verghese a/l TV Abraham (‘Abraham’), retired Chartered Accountant and presently an independent non-executive director of DXN Holdings Bhd, Maxim Global Bhd and Edotco Group Sdn Bhd (PW6);

Carol, former news presenter and live host (DW1); and

Tan Gek Cheng (‘Julie’), homemaker (DW2).

The ITBT as agreed by the parties are as follows: SUIT 71 (Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam v Carol): Statement 1 Carol’s impugned defamatory WA message against Aida dated 20.2.2019: “As for procedures and protocol, I do regret not setting that form that very beginning when the MKCS started and allowing others to dictate what is supposed to be the procedures and protocol. And since you are now talking about ethics… I am greatly disappointed that all of you allowed one person in the committee to fabricate and falsify figures to be sent to ROS and action is not taken when this person also lied about it. And apart from that, this person also threw my letter aside to attention to YB Hannah for the grant and used the person’s own signature. (I have all the evidence) And since the time that it was highlighted to the rest of the committee members, no action has been taken to address this issue until today and the person is still allowed to be in the committee. Instead, I have been threatened that if I were to report to the ROS, all of you will leave. This is the main reason for me to take leave as I do not condone to unethical behaviour and lies. Pls note that though this is done for the MKCS and not for his or her own benefit, it’s still wrong. For example, if a person kills someone else for another person, does it mean that the person is innocent and won’t be punished? The above are clearly not a misunderstanding but to deceive me and the rest. If any of u still have a conscience, then do the right thing… and take action.”.

Whether the statement, particularly those in bold dated 20.2.2019 has been distributed and/ or caused to be distributed by Carol?

Whether it refers to Aida and if so, whether it is defamatory?

Whether Carol can rely on the defence of justification and/ or fair comment? Statement 2 Carol’s impugned defamatory WA message against Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam, either as a whole or individually, dated 1.3.2019: “_______ One of our ordinary members has been made aware of certain discrepancies in MKCS. These discrepancies have been reported to the Registrar of Societies (ROS), dated 25th February

In view of this and pending the investigation and outcome from the ROS, he would like to therefore request for EGM to be held on 23rd March 2-10 (Sat) at 10:30 am at Intuition, Jalan Duta Kiara (beside La Grande) to update all members on the various discrepancies and for all to decide on the next course of action. ________ attendance is greatly appreciated as there needs to be at least one fifth ordinary members in order to call for an EGM. Can you kindly update your MC to see if ______ is willing to sign on the letter to call for an EGM and also attend?”.

Whether the statement, particularly those in bold dated 1.3.2019 refers to Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam as a whole and/or individually?

Whether it is defamatory to Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam as a whole and/or individually?

Whether Carol can rely on the defence of justification, fair comment and/ or qualified privilege? Statement 3 The impugned defamatory Petition against Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam, either as a whole or individually, dated 1.3.2019: “PETITION FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING (EGM) of the Mont Kiara Community Society (MKCS) 1st March 2019 Dear Mont Kiara Community Society Members, As an Ordinary Member of The Mont Kiara Community Society (MKCS), I humbly seek your support in calling for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to be held on: Date: 23rd March 2019 (Saturday) Time: 10:30 A.M. Venue: Intuition, Jalan Duta Kiara (Beside La Grande) In accordance with MKCS constitution, in order to convene an EGM, either one of the following needs to be fulfilled “An Extraordinary General Meeting for the Society can be held: a. if it is deemed important by the committee; or b. Based on a written request by the Ordinary Members, which comprise not less than 1/5 of the total number of Ordinary Members, who are eligible to vote, providing the reason/s to call for the Extraordinary General Meeting”. The purpose of convening this EGM is for the following matters:

to share and explain to the MKCS members of discrepancies in The MKCS.

to decide on the next course of action.

to dissolve the current (2018/2019) MKCS committee – All positions.

to elect a new (2019/2020) MKCS committee – All positions.

to conduct an audit on MKCS prior to the commencement of the 2019 MKCS AGM. In order for the EGM to convene, this petition requires signatures and support from members of MKCS. Therefore for the reputation of MKCS and all the good work this Society has done for the community, I appeal for your support in calling for this EGM.”.

Whether the statement, particularly those in bold in the Petition dated 1.3.2019 are written and/ or authored and/ or published and/ or distributed and disseminated and/ or caused to be written and/ or authored and/ or published and/ or distributed and disseminated by Carol to the members of MKCS?

Whether it refers to Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam as a whole and/ or individually?

Whether it is defamatory to Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam as a whole and/ or individually?

Whether Carol can rely on the defence of justification and/ or fair comment? Statement 4 Carol’s impugned defamatory WA message against Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam, either as a whole or individually, dated 21.3.2019: “I am still the Chairperson but unfortunately a meeting was held during my absence, to dictate how the MCKS should be managed. My apologies to all that I no longer can help to push for things like how I used to do it for the past years”.

Whether the statement dated 21.3.2019 refers to Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam as a whole and/ or individually and if so, whether it is defamatory?

Whether Carol can rely on the defence of justification and/ or fair comment? Statement 5 Carol’s impugned defamatory WA message against Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam, either as a whole or individually, dated 12.4.2019: "Dear all Ordinary Members... It was requested by many of our ordinary members to organise our AGM/EGM asap, based on the messages in the WhatsApp chat group before this. And according to the MKCS committee meeting held on 4th April 2019, it was mentioned that we will organise it on the 27th of April 2019. Today is the last day of sending out the notice for the AGM to be held on that day. Unfortunately, nothing has been arranged. When I asked for documents from the committee before this and until today, I was denied access and ignored and the committee also changed the MKCS gmail password 3 days ago without informing the Chairperson. An email was sent to all committee members to ask on the AGM and the answer that I received is to wait for the Secretary to revert on the date. And I just received a message from one of the committee members that they themselves have discussed it and they want to hold it in June, without consulting the Chairperson not taking the ordinary members request without consideration. The reason for me to highlight this in the group chat is because I no longer have a group of committee members who cooperate and they have been doing a lot of things on their own, without consulting the Chairperson. You are the members who have voted us in as committee members and entrusted us to do whatever that is required for the MKCS. I would like to request for your advise on how to move forward from here.”.

Whether the statement, particularly those in bold dated 12.4.2019 refers to Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam as a whole and/ or individually and if so, whether it is defamatory?

Whether Carol can rely on the defence of justification and/ or fair comment? Statement 6 Carol’s impugned defamatory letter against Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam, either jointly and/ or severally, dated 14.4.2019: “Dear All, RE: Unsubstantiated Accusations by MKCS Committee Members Kindly refer to my reply in red with regards to the baseless accusations thrown at me by the MKCS members (Tan Wai Ping, Aida Abdullah, Shereen Abdullah, Dato Ngiam Foon and Chew Chin Swee). a) The fundamental issue with the current MKCS Committee is the Chairperson does not want to work with the rest of the Committee members. Kindly refer to Sequence 2 in order to know the answer. b) The Chairperson decided she wants to oust all the Committee, members and bring her own people just because the other Committee members did not agree with her interpretation of the ROS grant application principles and her insistence that a Committee member should be removed based on her interpretations of wrongdoings without formally tabling the matter in a Committee meeting and giving the accused an opportunity to respond. I have a video recording, which was recorded on 20th February 2019 at 5.23pm. I had taken out my handphone to record it as I was scared when one of the committee members chased after me and kept on asking me what I wanted again and again and later on asked me if I wanted to fight. (I had kept this all this while, just in case there is a need to use it) For those whom I had asked to help just in case my MKCS committee members leave me as I was threatened that they will leave if I were to pursue this issue, they are generally ordinary members of the MKCS who are also in the MKCS Chat Group, whom I don't know very well, whom I thought would be good to try to work with them as we have the same level of understanding through our previous conversations and some should be able to assist in specific areas based on their expertise and knowledge...And some were those who have been a great support during the past few months when I was struggling to address the issue of committee members who do not practice good work ethics. The issue of the ROS Grant Application Form by the Office Bearers of the MKCS, who purposely increased the amount to the ROS just to get more money for the MKCS was brought to the attention of more than 50 people, to ask them to see if was ok or it was wrong. All said that it was wrong. I have also checked with lawyers and auditors, and all of them said the same. Even my daughter, who is only 11 years old says that it is wrong. This was also highlighted to Dato Razali bin Basri, a retired Head of the D5 Legal Department in Bukit Aman and when he saw the documents, he immediately said that it's wrong for committee members to do that. Dato said, quote, “A misrepresentation, however small or trivial, is still an offense. There was fraud committed involving public money”. Unquote. This was also brought up to one officer at DBKL Segambut Branch and I was asked to go to the MACC to make a report. i. The whole issue started in October 2108 during the Gotong Royong Event which was held on Oct 27, 2018. There was some minor difference of opinions between the Chairperson and the Treasurer who was assigned to coordinate the event. I believe that the issue started when 3 of my office bearers sat down with me on 22nd October 2018, just before the Hubba2 Seni Food Tasting to discuss the gotong-royong, the Treasurer (seated on my left) suggested that we falsify receipts to claim more money from ROS for the MKCS and it was also suggested for me to keep the money and take it out when we need to use it for MKCS events/programs and she would write it on a separate book. And I immediately said NO and felt offended that a person would dare to suggest that to me. I had assumed that the other 2 office bearers who were seated together were in support of this idea as they didn’t even say a word after I told her off. It was very clear that my reaction didn't go well for the 3 of them as I could see that they were not happy. As for the Gotong Royong, I had to put my foot down to say no to them allowing a Mosquito Trap sponsor, EntoGenex, to present the mosquito traps on-stage just to YB Hannah and DBKL Health and Environment Department (knowing their true intention), unless it also included the DBKL Segambut Branch, who had kindly sponsored the stage, backdrop, tables and chairs and also the sound system. I did mention that if they wanted to just give to the 2, best to do it off-stage. I knew that DBKL Segambut Branch would be unhappy to see the DBKL Health and Environment Department going up instead of them, who did most of the work. I knew that they will be sensitive about it as I was once told sarcastically by one of the DBKL Segambut Branch officers that the MKCS only likes to go to the top to get things done for Mt Kiara. I had to apologise to him, as when I first started, I didn’t know whom to look for and I didn't know that the DBKL Segambut Branch even existed. I fear that the DBKL Segambut Branch will not be as helpful or cooperative if they got offended again. The above was highlighted to my committee members but they tried to ignore my warning. That was when I had to put my foot down and they showed their long faces and even ignored me at the gotong royong. I had to knock on doors in DBKL for at least 6 months when I first started a few years back and still achieved nothing until I gatecrashed an event where I knew that the KL Mayor was there and not many people would pay much attention to him as the Prime Minister was there too. So, I went to see him, to highlight the issues that we are facing in Mt Kiara and mentioned that I was desperate, as I couldn’t get anyone in DBKL to help us. There were meetings in DBKL previously but nobody came to do the work. The KL Mayor then gave me his handphone number and asked me to contact him. Subsequently, an Executive Director, requested by the KL Mayor to assist us, helped us a lot and we could see faster progress in Mont Kiara. ii. A couple of days later, on October 29, 2019, the Chairperson set up a series of WhatsApp messages to query the Treasurer on 2018 ROS grant application which was already submitted to ROS on October 24, 2019. The Chairperson prompted the Treasurer that she had committed wrongdoings regarding the ROS grant application based on her interpretation of guidelines. The Chairperson made snapshots of their private communication and then on the same day sent them to various third parties as evidence of wrongdoings. This was the start of a personal campaign to oust the Treasurer from the Committee. Kindly refer to Sequence 2. iii. The Chairperson continued to push to the rest of the Committee members privately to accept her accusations of the Treasurer’s alleged wrongdoings without a thorough investigation. Yes, it was sent to them individually first and then to the whole group after one of our MKCS meeting, and I was ignored by them despite the fact that I had showed them that I was lied to by my Treasurer and also the confession she made. At that point in time, I was already certain that it was wrong as I had checked with quite a number of people but was very puzzled as to how come all my committee members had ignored me, without even mentioning that they will investigate the matter. I already had proof and just short of getting the committee to call for a meeting to get the Treasurer to answer to whatever that she has done and subsequently see what the committee needs to do in terms of discipline. But it never transpired. iv. On Jan 28, 2019, after some discussions on the Committee WhatsApp chat group on how to update a report to share on the MKCS chat, some of her suggestions were not fully supported. She got angry and abruptly removed herself from the Committee chat group and declared that she was resigning as the Chairperson because she had enough of the Committee for creating camps, joining for their own benefits, backstabbing, etc. This left the Committee without a Chairperson and the Committee had to scramble to formalize the Deputy Chairperson as Acting Chairperson due to the irresponsible action of the Chairperson. The above was the 3rd incident that happened when I had to put my foot down to tell the committee member not to insert the ‘Operasi (road blocks etc) venue, date and time by the Sri Hartamas Police into the minutes of the dialogue with Tuan Rizal, who was then the new Head of the Sri Hartamas Police Station. All of them gave comments like... ‘What's wrong?’, ‘It was already highlighted in the dialogue and others could have taken pictures and sent them out to others’, ‘People would know of the road blocks when they see them’ etc (the words used were somewhere along those lines)...despite the fact that I told them that this should be private & confidential, and not shared out with everyone in the Minutes of the Meeting. I was frustrated that my committee members couldn't even see what they should or should not include in the minutes. And I had to debate with them. and had to constantly tell them that they have to be very careful when dealing with the authorities. Once we lose their trust or when we get in trouble, everything that we have built with them thus far will go down the drain. There were numerous incidents apart from what was specified above where committee members jumped into conclusions and also had a different level of understanding without checking the facts first. Another instance was the program rundown of the Townhall Dialogue which I had sent to all committee members to update them, though they said that they had no time to help, except for Chew, who helped in the security part. One committee member harped on fact that we shouldn’t give any of our VIPS (i.e. FT Minister, YB Hannah etc) any token as they are being paid by the Rakyat to do their work, another committee member asked why should we give them money etc. I had to take a snapshot of the meaning of ‘token’ from the dictionary, in order to show them the meaning of it. And I also mentioned that the kids in MKIS wanted to give the VIPs their artwork, so that they can feel proud about it too. And the kids artwork was going to be the token. They were supposed to check their facts first before making assumptions. I must admit that I felt very agitated with such comments from the committee members as I was already busy organizing the whole Townhall Dialogue on my own, with hardly any help from my committee members, where I was given approximately 9 days to organize. I was experiencing a lot of pain at thtat time as I have TMD (temporomandibular disorder) and also had a decayed tooth, which I was required to undergo a root canel as it was extremely painful. I couldn’t secure an appointment for the surgery before the townhall dialogue. Hence, I had to be on strong pain killers for at least 5 days before and during the event day. And that day was also my husband’s Birthday, which I had sacrificed my time to celebrate with him as I thought that it would be quite selfish to say that I couldn’t organize the Townhall Dialogue on that date when I had waited for sometime and also chased for the confirmation of the date with YB Hannah’s office. The only time when some of them appeared, was on the day of the Townhall Dialogue, supposedly to help. v. On Jan 30, 2019, the Chairperson announced on MKCS chat groups that she needed to temporarily step down as Chairperson due to certain reasons. The Chairperson only submitted her leave of absence to the Committee on Feb 3, 2019. She had advised that she would not want to be involved in any Committee activities during her leave of absence. However, she chose to selectively post instructions and guidance on MKCS chats regarding MKCS matters. When asked why she was doing that, her response was “I am acting as an individual owner and resident who has been doing this for DBKL and other authorities even before MKCS existed.”. Please refer to Sequence of Events 2. I was questioned by my own committee members, as to why I had posted it without going thru them and I should channel everything to them and they will decide whom will post it. Does a Chairman have no right to post anything when on leave when DBKL sends them to me? Plus they failed to realize that some of those that I had posted wasn’t attention to the MKCS but to all RA’s etc in general. vi. On February 20, 2019, an informal meeting was held to allow the Chairperson to present her case on her accusation of the Treasurer for wrongdoings on the 2018 ROS grant application. From the start of the meeting, the Chairperson insisted the Committee just accepts her evidence. When the Committee wanted to discuss the case in detail, she disagreed and abruptly walked out of the meeting, accusing the Committee members of not having same level understanding and not working with her. She subsequently mentioned that all the Committee members should leave and she would bring in people who can work with her. In fact, all the current Committee members were invited or convinced by her to join the Committee in the first place. Kindly refer of Sequence of Events 2 and would also involve the same video recording. This is the very thing that I was afraid of, that they would put words into my mouth. That’s why at that point in time, I had quickly recorded the video. vii. Since that day the Chairperson has been on a campaign to discredit and oust the Committee members using misleading information. This is a serious accusation from the committee members! Little did they know that there was a 2nd EGM petition that went on from 27th March 2019, to call to dissolve MKCS and register another society, to include Hartamas into it, to give it a more positive spin to things and also leave things better off. Am sure many of you had received this message from me and it says: ‘Hi...there is a new MKCS petition, where the agenda should be considered as a better option considering that the MKCS committee cannot be dissolved as they have the right to remain in the committee for 2 years, unless a motion is passed in the AGM for a disciplinary committee to be formed to investigate irregularities and decide on the action. However, in our case, things might turn ugly. The fact is this...even if committee members were to leave or are taken out, damage has already been done by them. ROS will most likely be doing their audit on us this year. We are at risk of being blacklisted or deregistered. Hence, the best option is to dissolve the MKCS and set-up a new society to give it a more positive spin. Plus, we can leave things better off instead of highlighting some people's dirty laundry in public. Can....please support to sign this petition?’ c) The Chairperson started to instigate the MKCS members to sign a petition for an EGM to be held on Mar 23, 2019, on the basis of undefined discrepancies in the MKCS, to dissolve the Committee and re-elect new Committee members. Mark Seaton was the proposer for the petition but he has not provided details on the alleged discrepancies in MKCS. Mark contacted me once he saw my message that I had wanted to temporarily step down, to ask me what was the reason for doing that. At that time, I felt lost as I was alone in this and kept on wondering why is it that nobody (as in all committee members) seem to see that whatever they have done is wrong. When he knew the reason and saw what I had showed him, he wanted to help me by saying that he would help to come up with a petition to get at least 1/5 of the ordinary members to call for an EGM to highlight the discrepancies, as I could not call for one. Based on the MKCS constitution, either the committee or 1/5 of the ordinary members could call for it. He did not know the ordinary members in Mt Kiara and asked me to help to bring the petition to the ordinary members to sign on the petition. I had to show the ordinary members the documents, in order for them to know what were the discrepancies before they signed it. i. As the 1st petition has not proceeded pending Mark Seaton detailed clarifications on the alleged discrepancies, the Chairperson continued her campaign to instigate the MKCS members to call for EGM or AGM to oust the Committee members. Would appreciate if all committee members were to refer to the EGM agenda and see that it was clearly stated that it was to dissolve the whole committee, which includes ME! And I was willing to step down to allow others to take over, as long as I know that the MKCS is in good hands. ii. A meeting was held on Mar 27, 2019 to instigate MKCS members to sign another petition to dissolve the MKCS and form a new society to expand to Hartamas. I just realized that they do know of the 2nd EGM petition and am surprised that they had reacted in such a way despite my good intention. The same answer from (vii) applies. iii. On April 1, 2019, some Committee members saw the Chairperson at the WP ROS office chasing for the status of the complaint she lodged on the 2018 ROS grant application. This ROS complaint was submitted without the knowledge of the Committee. During the informal meeting with the ROS Director, after reviewing the Chairperson’s complaint, he advised that the MKCS 2018 ROS grant application was in order and there were no wrongdoings. He also advised the Chairperson to go back and resolve any internal issues with the Committee. The Chairperson did not agree with the ROS Director and responded that she would take the complaint further to Putrajaya ROS. The committee members have clearly made an assumption as to the reason that I was there, which was COMPLETELY WRONG! I was there to ask if we need to change the name of the society, whether we also need to dissolve current society and register a new one. And at the same time, I also showed the documents of the 2018 ROS Grant Application Form by the MKCS to the lady officer there and asked her personal opinion and she said it was wrong. (I have recorded my conversation with her to show as proof). Before I had lodged a formal complaint at the ROS KL, I already gave my committee members many chances and none of them felt that they were wrong and none had showed any remorse. I have been asked numerous times for me to go to the police and MACC to report on them but I felt that it was too harsh to be doing that to them. That was the reason why I didn’t do it. On 1st April, coincidentally 3 office bearers and 1 committee member walked into the ROS as well and when the officers saw us, they invited us to the meeting room. None of the 3 office bearers said a thing as the committee member had signaled for them to keep quiet and he would do all the talking. He first introduced himself as a DATO and gave his card. He subsequently mentioned to the Head of ROS KL that he has had a lot of dealings with the ROS HQ and also said that if the Head of the ROS KL were to ask anyone in ROS HQ, they would know him. The reason for highlighting this particular part is because I fear that this kind of introduction would affect the view of the Head of ROS KL. When the Head of ROS KL gave his views, he did not mention that there was no wrongdoing, as that wasn't his specific words. He did say that the ROS would investigate the matter. He only mentioned that its usually ok to write more, as long as the money is still in the society's bank account and/or used for similar programs the following year. I did ask him one question when he said that.....As in then why are we required to specify each item that we intend to spend on? Better still if we ask for a lump sum of RM10k (which is their maximum grant amount), with a general list of what the money will be used for and don’t waste time on specifics, as long as ROS can see the money in our account that its utilized for the programs in the general list. And he kept quiet after that. (Please refer to the 2nd page of the ROS letter for our MKCS Audit, which requires us to show a report of our activities and expenses. So, how would we be able to justify the RM1,000 for the Ride A Bike Event, when we only spent RM160 for the said event, and we already knew the cost prior to the submission of the ROS grant application form?) Based on the unsatisfactory explanation by the Head of the ROS KL and also my fear of certain influence by others, that was why I wanted to go to the ROS HQ. *Please note that the conversation was recorded as I was afraid that others might twist their words and do not give a true picture of what transpired there. d) On Apr 11, 2019, the Chairperson instigated the MKCS members to hold the AGM on Apr 27, 2019 and proceeded to prepare for AGM without the rest of the Committee involvement. This is contrary to the procedures of the Constitution. The committee members who had attended the official MKCS meeting on 4th April 2019 had confirmed the date of the AGM. *I have proof as the conversation was also recorded, to ensure that the true picture is revealed. These actions of the Chairperson are not in line with the Constitution and also a breach of the Rule of Conduct that all Committee members signed (see attached). Specifically, Rule 6 of the Rule of Conduct which stipulates that “Committee Members shall ensure that their actions and conduct do not bring the integrity of their position or that of MKCS into disrepute.”

Auditor’s Report and Attempted Reconciliation a) On April 4, 2019, the 8th Committee meeting took place which the Chairperson attended, to review the auditor’s draft report which contained two qualifications: i. petition for EGM based on undefined discrepancies in MKCS ii. ROS complaint lodged by the Chairperson on the 2018 ROS grant application. b) The auditor clarified that if the two qualifications could be resolved, he would remove them as the rest of the financial account is in order. c) The Committee agreed that two qualifications would affect MKCS standing with ROS, and thus it is critical to work towards removing them from the audit report. Hence he Committee agreed to work on resolving the two audit qualifications over the coming days. d) Meanwhile it was agreed to reschedule the AGM to April 27, 2019 or later, if we needed more time to resolve the two audit qualifications but in time before the latest date to hold the AGM, i.e. June 9, 2019, 12 months from the last AGM per the original Constitution. To date, neither the Committee nor the auditor has received any details from Mark Seaton, the proposer of the petition for an EGM on the serious allegation of discrepancies in the MKCS. e) On Apr 8, 2019, the Chairperson responded that she would not withdraw her ROS complain and may appeal up to ROS HQ unless she got an understanding by Apr 10, 2019 that Tan Wai Ping, Shereen Abdullah and Aida Phang Abdullah would resign at the AGM. This was done to give them the last chance to repent and not have all the evidence being shown to all in the general meeting. This was done to save them from embarrassment.

The MKCS Constitution and Membership Issues a) Unfortunately, we have bad news. b) During the ROS meeting Apr 1, 2019, we were told the new Constitution (amended and approved at MKCS 1st AGM) is not valid because the ROS Registrar has not approved it yet, even though MKCS had submitted it together with the minutes of the 1st AGM in July 2018 but it is not in ROS record. Hence the original Constitution is still applicable. Please note that what was said in the unofficial meeting with the ROS officers at ROS KL was that they have not received the revised MKCS constitution, which was supposed to be submitted to them within 60 days after the AGM. This is contrary to the committee members now saying that ROS acknowledged that they had received it and haven’t approved it yet, which is untrue. (They are all in the recording) I was told by my office bearer that the revised MKCS constitution and AGM Minutes have to be submitted to the ROS via online and I had placed my trust in the 3 office bearers to do what was necessary. Please note that only the Secretary has the password to have access to our MKCS online page in ROS. This is a regulation by ROS. Even I, as the Chairman am not allowed to know the password. That is why I couldn’t check and only relied on the office bearers. The same question was raised in the recent MKCS meeting and when I asked one of my office bearers responsible for the submission of the MKCS Meeting Minutes and MKCS Revised Constitution. And her answer was that she had submitted it but she didn't ask the officer at ROS to stamp on the copy to acknowledge that she had received it as she didn’t bring along a copy. When asked which officer whom she had passed it to, she said she forgot, considering that there are only a handful of officers at ROS KL. Then again, I later on realized that there were some inconsistencies about this as I remembered being told that the MKCS AGM Minutes and revised constitution were supposed to be submitted via online. (There is a recording to show proof of what was mentioned above) c) Following subsequent investigation, the Committee has discovered more serious discrepancies in the MKCS as a whole. d) Based on the original Constitution, there is only one category of membership Ordinary Members and the membership fees consist of RM 10 Application Fee plus RM 500 Annual Membership fee. e) In January 2018, the Chairperson and the previous Committee changed the membership category to Ordinary, Individual, Associate and Honorary Members. The membership fees for Ordinary Member RM 50, Individual Member RM 10, Associate Member - RM RM 100 and Honorary Member - RM 0 (free). f) The Chairperson issued another notice on January 16, 2018 to recruit members based on the amended membership categories and fees without adoption at an AGM or EGM and without prior approval from the ROS Registrar. * This is contrary to the Constitution Clause 16 and a violation of Section 11 of the Societies Act 1996 (see attached extract). Section 11 (2) stipulates “If a registered society fails to comply with this section, the society and every officer-bearer of the society shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding *three thousand ringgit.” g) Since no one has paid the required membership fees as per the original Constitution, technically the MKCS currently has no members. The current Committee is currently consulting the WP ROS Office for options to resolve this issue. We now need to work together to resolve the current MKCS Constitution and membership issues. The undersigned Committee members would like to propose a town hall meeting to clarify the accusations made against us and update the MKCS community in detail on the current state of MKCS. We will also seek your support to proceed with the nest course of actions to recover MKCS from the current predicaments, If April 27, 2019 is a suitable date, we can plan on this accordingly and provide more details for the meeting later. I am not sure if some of the committee members were not given the full picture or the committee members were deliberately not highlighting some pertinent parts of this issue, as 2 out of 5 of my current committee members were with the previous committee. ROS KL came to Almaspuri on 11th April 2018 and did an audit on the MKCS. They are aware of our revised MKCS constitution. They had mentioned that it is not in line with the MKCS constitution but was very sympathetic with us, knowing that we are a new society and taught us what to do, which is to ensure that we make those changes in the AGM that year, which we did. At that point of the audit, our Secretary, who is now the Deputy Chairperson, another committee member and I were there. (Letter is attached. Am surprised that the committee can make such accusations when the original copy of the letter is kept in our MKCS file, which is currently with one of our office bearers. I have confirmed with my previous committee member that she was there and she could clearly remember what transpired and is willing to come out to testify in the name of justice.) NOTE: If there is any member who would like to listen to any of the recordings or video, you are welcome to contact me. Thank you. Yours sincerely ....sgd..... Carol Lee Chairman of the MKCS”.

Whether the statement, particularly those in bold in the letter dated 14.4.2019 refers to Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam as a whole and/ or individually and if so, whether it is defamatory?

Whether Carol can rely on the defence of justification, fair comment and/ or qualified privilege? Statement 7 Carol’s impugned defamatory WA message against Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam, either as a whole or individually, dated 16.4.2019: “I would like to request for all defunct committee to stop all the serious false allegations as there clearly evidence to show that they are clearly false. Instead of the Secretary taking responsibility for forgetting to submit the revised constitution and minutes of the 1st AGM via online, the defunct committee is now throwing allegations at the pro tem committee. ROS already knew about this when they did an audit and helped us to resolve it by asking us to ensure that we make the necessary changes in our 1st SGM, which we did. The pro tem committee Secretary: Tan Wai Ping The defunct committee: Shereen Abdullah The pro tem committee Secretary, when questioned about the above issue, had mentioned in our MKCS meeting on 4th April 2019 that she had submitted it at the counter but didn't give a copy for ROS KL to sign. There was confirmation by ROS that all changes wld need to be done online and not at the ROS counter.”.

Whether the statement, particularly those in bold dated 16.4.2019 refers to Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam as a whole and/ or individually and if so, whether it is defamatory?

Whether Carol can rely on the defence of justification and/ or fair comment?

Whether the abovementioned Statement 1 to Statement 7 were authored, published and/ or posted by Carol maliciously to damage and/ or injure Aida’s, Wai Ping’s, Shereen’s, Chew’s and Dato’ Ngiam’s respective reputations?

If the answer to paragraph 19 above is yes, whether Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam has suffered harm and/ or damages, as a whole and/ or individually as a result of the abovementioned Statement 1 to Statement 7? SUIT 24 (Carol v Chew): Statement 8 Chew’s impugned defamatory WA message against Carol dated 16.4.2019: “Hi Fellow Mont Kiara Community Residents, Please let me share with you an insider's perspective of the current mess in MKCS where single person has got the whole MKCS community involved and wasted so much non productive time and energy just to achieve a personal objective to maintain total authoritative control of managing the MKCS and remove anyone who stands in the way. Most of you in the MKCS community are smart and trustworthy people. You would believe someone you trust when presented with a set of “evidence” that someone has done some serious wrongdoings and logically support the person in good faith (btw I also did initially until I found out the truth). Unfortunately the person you trust most has misled everyone using information out of context, misinterpreted guidelines, rules, Constitution and the law (Societies Act 1996), all to achieve the personal agenda. Let me highlight the latest instances of how this person that you trust, continues to manipulate everything to achieve the personal agenda. Let me highlight the latest instances of how this person that you trust, continues to manipulate everything to achieve the personal agenda.

The Chairperson led the previous Committee to ignore the original Constitution on membership fees and implemented the amended membership fees in early 2019 without AGM endorsement and subsequent ROS Registrar approval (violated Societies Act 1966), causing the current issue of the MKCS not having valid members and she now blames the Secretary for not submitting the new Constitution online as the reason”.

The Chairperson and the Committee should be working together with the ROS to review options to correct the current mess and then review collectively with the MKCS Community with all the facts to move forward (already propsed by the Committee). Unfortunately, the Chairperson continues to abuse her position to misinform/misguide the Community and proceed with her own actions without proper consultation...

One quick action consistent with her personal agenda was immediately removed some Committee members from some MKCS chat groups without valid justifications. I am sure you smart people can see by now how this pattern has repeated over the past few weeks. For your information, the MKCS Constitution (original and new), Clause 8.4 clearly stipulates that the MKCS is run by the Committee not by the Chairperson “The function of the committee is to operate and manage the daily operations of the Society and to make decisions and to execute matters in accordance with the general policy set at the Annual General Meeting. The Committee shall not take any action contrary to the Annual General Meeting. The committee must always abide by the decision of the Annual General Meeting. The Committee shall submit its previous year' activities report at each Annual General Meeting.” The Chairperson' obligations are clearly stipulates per Clause 9.1 “The Chairperson, during his/her tenure, shall be the Chairperson of all general and committee meetings and hold the responsibility of ensuring that all meetings are run smoothly. He/She holds a casting vote and is required to sign all the minutes of the meeting when it is approved.” In the end the MKCS residents/ members have the final say. You decide who and how the MKCS should be managed. Regards Chew”.

Whether Statement 8 dated 16.4.2019 refers to Carol and if so, whether it is defamatory?

Whether Chew can rely on the defence of justification and/ or fair comment?

Whether it was published by Chew against Carol maliciously?

If the answer to paragraph 23 is yes, whether Carol has suffered harm and/ or damages as a result of Statement 8? SUIT 25 (Carol v Shereen, Wai Ping, Aida, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam): Statement 9 Aida’s, Wai Ping’s, Shereen’s, Chew’s and Dato’ Ngiam’s impugned defamatory letter against Carol dated 13.4.2019: “The Real Issue with the Current State of the Mont Kiara Community Society Dear All, We appreciate the concerns raised by the MKCS community regarding the current Committee which is not fully functional per the Constitution. We are equally concerned and have been doing our best to manage the situation to avoid harming the MKCS reputation. We agree that we need to hold a meeting with all the MKCS members to resolve this as soon as possible. So far, everything published and shared has been one sided. We will now share the other side to the issues.

Issues with the current MKCS Committee 2. Auditor's Report and Attempted Reconciliation 3.

Issues with the current MKCS Committee a) The fundamental issue with the current MKCS Committee is the Chairperson does not want to work with the rest of the Committee members. b) The Chairperson decided she wants to oust all the Committee members and bring in her own people just because the other Committee members did not agree with her interpretation of the ROS grant application principles and her insistence that a Committee member should be removed based on her interpretation of wrongdoings without formally tabling the matter in a Committee meeting and giving the accused an opportunity to respond. i. The whole issue started in October 2018 during the Gotong Royong Event which was held on Oct 27, 2018. There was some minor difference of opinions between the Chairperson and the Treasurer who was assigned to coordinate the event. ii. A couple of days later, on October 29, 2019, the Chairperson set up a series of WhatsApp messages to query the Treasurer on 2018 ROS grant application which was already submitted to ROS on October 24,

The Chairperson prompted the Treasurer that she had committed wrongdoings regarding the ROS grant application based on her interpretation of guidelines. The Chairperson made snapshots of their private communication and then on the same day sent them to various third parties as evidence of wrongdoings. This was the start of a personal campaign to oust the Treasurer from the Committee. iii. The Chairperson continued to push to the rest of the Committee members privately to accept her accusations of the Treasurer's alleged wrongdoings without a thorough investigation. iv. On Jan 28,2019, after some discussions on the Committee WhatsApp chat group on how to update a report to share on the MKCS chat, some of her suggestions were not fully supported. She got angry and abruptly removed herself from the Committee chat group and declared that she was resigning as the Chairperson because she had enough of the Committee for creating camps, joining for their own benefits, backstabbing, etc. This left the Committee without a Chairperson and the Committee had to scramble to formalize the Deputy Chairperson as Acting Chairperson due to the irresponsible action of the Chairperson. v. On Jan 30, 2019, the Chairperson announced on MKCS chat groups that she needed to temporarily step down Chairperson due to certain reasons. The Chairperson only submitted her leave of absence to the Committee on Feb 3, 2019. She had advised that she would not want to be involved in any Committee activities during her leave of absence. However, she chose to selectively post instructions and guidance on MKCS chats regarding MKCS matters. When asked why she was doing that, her response was "I am acting as an individual owner and resident who has been doing this for DBKL and other authorities even before MKCS existed.”. vi. On February 20, 2019, an informal meeting was held to allow the Chairperson to present her case on her accusation of the Treasurer for wrongdoings on the 2018 ROS grant application. From the start of the meeting, the Chairperson insisted the Committee just accepts her evidence. When the Committee wanted to discuss the case in detail, she disagreed and abruptly walked out of the meeting, accusing the Committee members of not having same level understanding and not working with her. She subsequently mentioned that all the Committee members should leave and she would bring in people who can work with her. In fact, all the current Committee members were invited or convinced by her to join the Committee in the first place. vii. Since that day the Chairperson has been on a campaign to discredit and oust the Committee members using misleading information. c) The Chairperson started to instigate the MKCS members to sign a petition for an EGM to be held on Mar 23,2019, on the basis of undefined discrepancies in the MKCS, to dissolve the Committee and re-elect new Committee members. Mark Seaton was the proposer for the petition but he has not provided the details on the alleged discrepancies in MKCS. i. As the 1st petition has not proceeded pending Mark Seaton detailed clarifications on the alleged discrepancies, the Chairperson continued her campaign to instigate the MKCS members to call for EGM or AGM to oust the Committee members. ii. A meeting was held on Mar 27, 2019 to instigate MKCS members to sign another petition to dissolve the MKCS and form a new society to expand to Hartamas. iii. On April 1, 2019, some Committee members saw the Chairperson at the WP ROS office chasing for the status of the complaint she lodged on the 2018 ROS grant application. This ROS complaint was submitted without the knowledge of the Committee. During the informal meeting with the ROS Director, after reviewing the Chairperson's complaint, he advised that the MKCS 2018 ROS grant application was in order and there were no wrongdoings. He also advised the Chairperson to go back and resolve any internal issues with the Committee. The Chairperson did not agree with the ROS Director and responded that she would take the complaint further to Putrajaya ROS. d) On Apr 11,2019, the Chairperson instigated the MKCS members to hold the AGM on Apr 27, 2019 and proceeded to prepare for AGM without the rest of the Committee involvement. This is contrary to the procedures in the Constitution. These actions of the Chairperson are not in line with the Constitution and also a breach of the Rule of Conduct that all Committee members signed (see attached). Specifically, Rule 6 of the Rule of Conduct which stipulates that “Committee Members shall ensure that their actions and conduct do not bring the integrity of their position or that of MKCS into disrepute.”

Auditor’s Report and Attempted Reconciliation a) On April 4,2019, the 8th Committee meeting took place which the Chairperson attended, to review the auditor’s draft report which contained two qualifications: i. petition for EGM based on undefined discrepancies in MKCS ii. ROS complaint lodged by the Chairperson on the 2018 ROS grant application. b) The auditor clarified that if the two qualifications could be resolved, he would remove them as the rest of the financial account is in order. c) The Committee agreed the two qualifications would affect MKCS standing with ROS, and thus it is critical to work towards removing them from the audit report. Hence the Committee agreed to work on resolving the two audit qualifications over the coming days. d) Meanwhile it was agreed to reschedule the AGM to April 27, 2019 or later, if we needed more time to resolve the two audit qualifications but in time before the latest date to hold the AGM, i.e. June 9,2019,12 months from the last AGM per the original Constitution. To date, neither the Committee nor the auditor has received any details from Mark Seaton, the proposer of the petition for an EGM on the serious allegation of discrepancies in the MKCS. e) On Apr 8, 2019, the Chairperson responded that she would not withdraw her ROS complaint and may appeal up to the ROS HQ unless she got an understanding by April 10, 2019 that Tan Wai Ping, Shereen Abdullah and Aida Phang Abdullah would resign at the AGM.

The MKCS Constitution and Membership issues a) Unfortunately, we have bad news. b) During the ROS meeting April 1, 2019, we were told the new Constitution (amended and approved at MKCS 1st AGM) is not valid because the ROS Registrar has not approved it yet, even though MKCS had submitted it together with the minutes of the 1st AGM in July 2018 but it is not in ROS record. Hence the original Constitution is still applicable. c) Following subsequent investigation, the Committee has discovered more serious discrepancies in the MKCS as a whole. d) Based on the original Constitution, there is only one category of membership - Ordinary Members and the membership fees consist of RM10 Application Fee plus RM500 Annual Membership fee. e) In January 2018, the Chairperson and the previous Committee changed the membership category to Ordinary, Individual, Associate and Honorary Members. The membership fees for Ordinary Member - RM50, Individual Member RM10, Associate Member - RM RM100 and Honorary Member – RM0 (free). f) The Chairperson issued a notice on January 16, 2018 to recruit members based on the amended membership categories and fees without adoption at an AGM or EGM and without prior approval of the ROS Registrar. • This is contrary to Constitution Clause 16 and a violation of Section 11 of the Societies Act 1996 (see attached extract). Section 11 (2) stipulates “If a registered society fails to comply with this section, the society and every office-bearer of the society shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding *three thousand ringgit.” g) Since no one has paid the required membership fees as per the original Constitution, technically the MKCS currently has no members. The current Committee is currently consulting the WP ROS Office for options to resolve this issue. We now need to work together to resolve the current MKCS Constitution and membership issues. The undersigned Committee members would like to propose a town hall meeting to clarify the accusations made against us and update the MKCS community in detail on the current state of the MKCS. We will also seek your support to proceed with the next actions to recover MKCS from the current predicaments. If April 27,2019 is a suitable date, we can plan on this accordingly and provide more details for the meeting later. We look forward to your response and support. Regards, MKCS Secretary for and on behalf of Committee Members (Tan Wai Ping, Shereen Abdullah, Aida Phang Abdullah, Dato Ngiam, Chew Chin Swee)”.

Whether Statement 9 dated 13.4.2019 was authored, written, published and/ or posted by Shereen, Wai Ping, Aida, Chew or Dato’ Ngiam?

Whether it refers to Carol and if so, whether it is defamatory?

Whether Shereen, Wai Ping, Aida, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam can rely on the defence of justification and/ or fair comment?

Whether it was published against Carol maliciously?

If the answer to paragraph 28 is yes, whether Carol has suffered harm and/ or damages as a result of Statement 9?

In Civil Suit No. WA-23CY-10-02/2022 between Hannah Yeoh Tseow Suan and Kamarul Zaman Bin Haji Yusoff, I had summarised the legal principles on the tort of defamation as follows:

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

bears defamatory imputations;

(ii) refer to, or reflect upon, the plaintiff’s reputation; and

(iii) must have been published to a third person by the defendant [see Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) v Hue Chieh Lee [2019] 3 CLJ 729 at 743 (FC), which was cited by all the parties in the instant suit, and Nurul Izzah Binti Anwar v Tan Sri Khalid Bin Abu Bakar & Anor [2018] 7 CLJ 622; see too, Ayob Saud v. TS Sambanthamurthi [1989] 1 MLJ 315];

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, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. The New Straits Times Press (M) Sdn Bhd [2010] 5 CLJ 301 and Lim Guan Eng v Ruslan Kassim & Another Appeal [2021] 3 MLRA 207);

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

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 Ya’kub v. Bre Sdn Bhd & Ors [1996] 1 MLJ 393); and

the defences available to a defendant are –

justification i.e. that the words convey a meaning that is true;

(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)

In the recent case of Seema Elizabeth Isoy v. Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong [2024] 6 CLJ 635, which also concerns text message sent to a WA group consisting of 56 participants, it was held that a half-truth statement that presents a false impression which affected one’s reputation is defamatory and the action of deliberately publishing a half-truth statement was a conduct actuated with malice. - 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 words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges.”.

The legal position on the defence of justification as explicated by the Court of Appeal in Frances Joycelyn Nathan & Ors v. Siva Subramaniam M Shanmugam & Another Appeal [2024] CLJU 2900 may be summarised 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. - Fair Comment

Section 9 of the Defamation Act 1957 provides that: “Fair comment

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 Dato’ Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail & Anor 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 Dato’ Seri Mohammad Nizar bin Jamaluddin v Sistem Televisyen Malaysia Berhad & Anor [2014] 3 CLJ 560, the Court said: “[50] The law on the defence of fair comment is that if a defendant can prove that the defamatory statement is an expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and not a statement of fact, he or she can rely on the defence of fair comment. The courts have said that whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going on or what may happen to them or to others, then it is a matter of public interest on which everyone is entitled to make fair comment. [51] The comment must be based on true facts which are either contained in the publication or are sufficiently referred to. It is for the defendant to prove that the underlying facts are true. If he or she is unable to do so, then the defence will fail. As with justification, the defendant does not to have to prove the truth of every fact provided the comment was fair in relation to those facts which are proved. However, fair in this context, does not mean reasonable, but rather, it signifies the absence of malice. The views expressed can be exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced, provided they are honestly held. If the claimant can show that the publication was made maliciously, the defence of fair comment will not succeed.” [see too, Chok Foo Choo (supra) and Nurul Izzah (supra)]. - Qualified Privilege

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

the occasion on which the communication was made arises from a legal, moral or social duty on the Defendant’s part to 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, Dato’ Dr Low Bin Tick v. Datuk Chong Tho Chin & Other Appeals [2017] 8 CLJ 369, Nurul Izzah (supra), Dato’ Hj Mahfuz bin Hj Omar v Muhammad Sanusi bin Md Nor [2021] MLJU 2347, Warisan Pinang Sdn Bhd & Ors v Carolyn Khor Tsai Chen [2023] MLJU 1753, Mohamed Apandi bin Ali v Lim Kit Siang [2024] 1 MLJ 306, 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 on Libel and Slander ,13th Edition, paragraph 15-015 at pp 533 - 534).

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

As only Carol has filed the Notices of Appeal, this judgment shall set out my reasoning in respect of Statement 1 and Statement 6 in Suit 71, Statement 8 in Suit 24 and Statement 9 in Suit 25.

For purposes of addressing some of the submissions related to Statement 3, which were put forth in respect of the four Statements under appeal, it is suffice for me to state that the main reason I found that the claim by the five Committee Members against Carol in relation to Statement 3 was unmeritorious was that Statement 3 was not written, authored or published by Carol. The author of Statement 3 was Mark Seaton. Carol merely assisted to bring the EGM Petition to the attention of some members of MKCS. In the circumstances, the words used in Statement 3 cannot be attributed to Carol. Suit 71 (Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam v Carol):

Whether Statement 1, particularly those in bold dated 20.2.2019 has been distributed and/ or caused to be distributed by Carol?

Whether it refers to Aida and if so, whether it is defamatory?

Whether Carol can rely on the defence of justification and/ or fair comment?

There was no dispute that Statement 1 was authored and posted or distributed by Carol on 20.2.2019 at around 11.05 a.m. to the “MKCS Main Committee” group chat which comprised of the parties in Suit 71.

Carol submitted that the purpose of the said group chat was to ease and expedite the duties of the Committee Members and to inform amongst themselves the latest affairs based on their respective roles and responsibilities (see paragraph 16 of the Defence). During cross-examination, Aida, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam agreed that Carol was entitled to forcefully and strongly express her views because the group chat is small and private and not open to the 123 members.

It was further submitted that none of the statements made in Statement 1 are defamatory, whether expressly or impliedly and they do not have the meaning as alleged by Aida and the other

the statements are based on facts and matters that are true and justified (see paragraph 17.4 of the Defence);

as regards the 2018 Grant Re-submission application, Carol did discover that there was a falsification in the MKCS activities costing in the same. Aida had admitted to falsifying or fabricating the MKCS activities costing. She also stated that Wai Ping had been fabricating the MKCS activities costing since 2017. Aida had concealed from Carol the true status of the 2018 Grant Re-submission application when she falsely informed Carol Lee that the said application had been cancelled by the ROS and no new application was allowed. In actual fact, it was not cancelled and monies were received pursuant to this application. Carol informed the other Committee Members of this incident but they failed to act on the same. During cross-examination, Aida agreed that Carol did highlight to the rest of the Committee about the issue and it is factually true that no action was taken as at 20.2.2019 and she was allowed to stay in the Committee until that date; and

the statements were fair comment made by Carol as the Chairperson of MKCS honestly and without malicious intent based on the interests and welfare of MKCS. It was reasonable for Carol to inform the other Committee Members within a private chat group of the misconduct of Aida and Wai Ping relating to the fabrication of the ROS 2018 Grant Re-submission application. Carol was entitled to express her disappointment that the other Committee Members refused to do anything and that Aida and Wai Ping still held positions in the MKCS Committee. As Chairperson, Carol was entitled to be concerned and to remind the Committee Members of their duties and responsibilities to act honestly and with integrity. There was no evidence to refute Carol’s testimony that the statements made by her in Statement 1 were opinions honestly held by her. The facts stated in Statement 1 which form the foundation of her opinion are correct and undisputed. As such, Carol was entitled to hold the opinion based on those facts.

In my assessment, the words “one person in the committee”, “this person” and “the person” in Statement 1 undoubtedly refers to Aida for the following reasons:

Carol had forwarded the screenshots of the WA conversation between herself and Aida on 29.10.2018 to Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam privately and separately on several occasions;

the WA conversation concerns Carol’s allegation of falsification and fabrication of the ROS Grant Application Form dated 24.10.2018 which was submitted by Aida and Wai Ping for and on behalf of MKCS in October 2018 (‘October 2018 GA’); and

it is known to the Committee as a whole that Aida who was the then Treasurer is in charge of the resubmission of the Grant application.

I was further of the view that the bolded texts in Statement 1 are untrue, false in nature and defamatory of Aida, which in its plain, natural and ordinary meaning, bears the imputation that Aida –

had fabricated or falsified documents;

has committed and is guilty of a grave criminal misdeed; and

is unscrupulous and unethical.

Statement 1 in its implied meaning or innuendo, whether false or true, meant that Aida –

is dishonest and a liar;

had abused her position as the Treasurer;

is a dishonest and untrustworthy person;

is an unethical person who does not practise good work ethics;

is unprincipled and lack moral standings;

is unscrupulous; and/ or

is someone devoid of, and lack, integrity.

The main issue in the three suits before this Court was whether there was any wrong-doing and misconduct by Aida in relation to the purported fabrication and falsification of the October 2018 GA.

Carol was of the firm view that Aida should have submitted the actual costs incurred for the events because at the time when the application was submitted, the events had taken place and hence, the actual costs were known.

On the other hand, Aida and the other four Plaintiffs in Suit 71 took the position that the application was a resubmission and not a fresh application, or one for reimbursement of costs already incurred. Mr. Viknesh submitted that this means “ROS allowing MKCS to turn back time as through the Grant Application for 2018 is still within time and resubmit it as through the March 2018 Grant Application was never submitted”. Seen in this context, Mr. Viknesh argued that estimated amount and figures can be used for the October 2018 GA and that there was nothing fraudulent or unlawful about what Aida had done.

Upon deliberation of the lengthy and detailed submissions by the parties, I was inclined to accept the position taken by Aida and the four Plaintiffs in Suit 71 on this matter.

Carol could not have believed that Aida had fabricated the October 2018 GA. It was Carol’s own assumption that Aida had admitted or confessed to fabricating the amount in the October 2018 GA. Carol also conveniently presumed that what Aida said is true i.e. Wai Ping had been fabricating the past applications when Carol knows that Aida was not involved in the past applications.

Being one of the founders and a former Chairperson of MKCS, Carol would be well-versed in the management of a society and procedures by the ROS. Surely Carol cannot genuinely believe that Aida had cancelled the ROS Grant application by merely making a phone call to ROS without any written confirmation required. It is also implausible for Carol to honestly believe that Aida has cancelled the Grant application on 29.10.2018, which is Saturday, since ROS like other government departments, is closed during weekends.

It was also Carol’s own admission that, in the event Aida has indeed cancelled the Grant application, there was no reason why Aida would then be asking Carol for a decision to be made.

It was unreasonable for Carol to expect the Committee to take action when she failed to provide any explanation or context to the selective screenshots which were merely forwarded to each of them in private. If what was alleged by Aida is so serious as being equivalent to murder as claimed by Carol, it would only be prudent for Carol as the then Chairperson of MKCS to raise the matter at the next Committee Meeting so that it may be considered and reviewed by the Committee as a whole. Instead, the issue was only brought up to the Committee as a whole for the first-time during Carol’s outburst in the MK Main Committee Group followed by her leaving the said group.

Contrary to Carol’s answer to Question 11 in WS-DW1 where she wanted to inform other Committee Members of the issue by forwarding WA screenshots to them privately with an intention to handle the issue “as a committee”, Carol could not answer why there was a delay for more than 3 months in sending the screenshots to Wai Ping, as late as 1.2.2019, whereas Carol had sent the screenshots to Chew and Dato’ Ngiam immediately after her conversation with Aida ended.

If Carol genuinely believed that Aida was dishonest and had lied to her, then, there was no reason as to why she did not raise the issue in the open immediately when Aida updated the Committee as to the outcome of the October 2018 GA on 10.1.2019.

Moreover, to date, there was no finding by ROS to confirm that there was any fabrication or falsification as alleged by Carol and neither has any action been taken by any authority pertaining to the complaints lodged by Carol against Aida.

In addition, it was my finding that Carol’s pleaded defences in respect of Statement 1 were untenable for the following reasons:

it was Carol who first used the words “fabricate” and “falsify” in her WA conversation with Aida as evidenced in the screenshots at p 927, B4;

Carol was aware that –

the Grant application forms submitted by MKCS were with estimates for proposed events to be carried out by MKCS, and not for reimbursement purposes;

(ii) the October 2018 GA was a resubmission and not a fresh application for 2018;

(iii) despite it being a resubmission, the October 2018 GA was not for the purposes of reimbursing MKCS for expenditures incurred for events held in 2018; and

(iv) there was nothing fraudulent or unlawful about what Aida had done and in the meeting on 4.4.2019, Carol agreed and admitted that the ROS Director, after meeting the parties on 1.4.2019, had said there was nothing irregular or wrong with the Oct 2018 GA. However, Carol wanted to appeal to Putrajaya as she refused to accept the explanation given by the ROS Director;

Carol admitted that her allegation of Aida having confessed to fabricating the amount is based on her own assumption;

Carol claimed she “presumed” that Wai Ping has been fabricating the past Grant application forms based on Aida’s message despite Aida not being involved in the previous applications. However, there was nothing for Carol to presume since Carol had been directly involved and was leading the MKCS as Chairperson from day one. Carol took the lead in proposing the estimated amount and figures to be included in the Grant application in 2017 and the March 2018 Grant Application while Wai Ping merely assisted by filling up and submitting the applications to ROS. Carol feigned ignorance of this as though she had never played any part nor was aware as to how the Grant application to ROS was made by MKCS previously. In contrast, Aida, who admitted even by Carol, was only involved for the first time in the October 2018 DA. Nonetheless Aida had to submit it within a short time period and which, at that time, was already past the closing date. If anybody has the right to be ignorant or unsure as to the procedure for the Grant applications, it would have been Aida, and not Carol;

Carol herself, knowing the application for ROS Grants only required estimates, clearly threw estimated figures and now sheepishly and conveniently was trying to draw a line that the October 2018 GA at the time when it was submitted “should have been based on actual events and expenses” when she knew and admitted it was not a reimbursement application nor a fresh application but merely a resubmission. Basically, ROS allowed MKCS to “turn back time” as though the Grant application for 2018 was still within time and to resubmit it as though the March 2018 Grant application was never submitted;

Carol misled the other Committee Members by merely forwarding selective WA messages between her and Aida, which initially drew an adverse reaction from Chew, who at the material time knew nothing about the Grant application. Later, when Carol could not convince Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato Ngiam, she carried out similar acts with outsiders such as Mark Seaton and other members of MKCS to oust the entire Committee Members; and

Carol caused all the chaos because the Committee Members wanted there to be a fair hearing in accordance with natural justice i.e. for Carol to put forward her claims and case before the Committee Members and to allow Aida the right to be heard by explaining her version of the events. Apparently, this was too much for Carol as she was bent on having Aida out of the Committee. Carol expected the Committee to bend over and give in to her wishes.

Premised on the above reasonings and findings, Issues 1 and 2 were answered in the affirmative and Issue 3 was answered in the negative. Suit 71 (Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam v Carol):

Whether the Statement, particularly those in bold in the letter dated 14.4.2019 refers to Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam as a whole and/ or individually and if so, whether it is defamatory?

Whether Carol can rely on the defence of justification, fair comment and/ or qualified privilege?

The statements in red in Statement 6 were made by Carol on 14.4.2019 and posted or published to the MKCS – All Matters and MKCS Ind & Assoc group chats in response to Statement 9.

Carol submitted at length regarding Statement 6 (see paragraphs 224 – 231, Written Submissions, encl. 145).

In gist, Carols’ stance was that –

if Statement 9 had not been issued by the five Committee Members against Carol, she would not have to issue the reply in Statement 6 marked in red;

the Committee Members had levelled serious allegations against her in the WA group chat published to 122 members of the MKCS. Therefore, she has the right to reply to the said allegations and explain her version of the events as strongly and as forcefully as possible;

the MKCS members would have read her reply in Statement 6 with considerable circumspection knowing that Statement 6 was a response to Statement 9, which was circulated to disparage her image and reputation by alleging that the issues faced by MKCS was mainly due to her not wanting to work with the rest of the Committee Members;

none of the statements made in Statement 6 are defamatory, whether expressly or impliedly. They do not have the meaning as alleged; and

the Statements made in Statement 6 are based on facts and matters that are true and justified. There is no evidence to refute her evidence that the statements made by her in Statement 6 were opinions honestly held by her. The facts stated in Statement 6 which form the foundation of her opinion are correct and undisputed. As such, she was entitled to hold the opinion based on those facts.

Upon my review of the evidence and submissions surrounding Statement 6, in particular the bolded text, it was my considered view that the statements were false in nature and intended or meant to lower Aida’s, Wai Ping’s, Shereen’s, Chew’s and Dato’ Ngiam’s estimations in the eyes or mind of right thinking society, particularly its existing members of MKCS, if not the public at large, either individually or as a whole.

The statements in Statement 6 in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning meant that Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and/ or Dato’ Ngiam is/ are, among others, –

a person(s) with no morals or principles or is/ are unethical;

dishonest, untrustworthy and not genuine;

attempting to compel by force or exert undue influence on Carol to conceal his/ her/ their misdeeds or wrongdoings;

fraudster(s) and is/ are guilty of siphoning, misusing and/ or defrauding public monies or funds;

intentionally conspiring to defraud or deceive ROS to misappropriate monies;

conspiring with or aiding and abetting the Treasurer, Aida to commit a fraud against MKCS and practices cronyism; and

has/ have committed criminal breach of trust or breached fiduciary duties entrusted by members of MKCS.

The contents of Statement 6, in its implied meaning or innuendo, whether true or false, meant that Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and/or Dato’ Ngiam is/ are, among others, –

irresponsible, selfish and unreliable;

of dishonest and/or insincere character(s);

untrustworthy and not genuine;

guilty of certain misdeeds and wrongdoings and hence, individually or together, they were attempting to restrain Carol from disclosing the truth;

does/ do not have the interest of MKCS and/ or its members at heart; and

has/ have practiced deceit on members of MKCS.

The meanings of Statement 6, whether ordinary or implied and as pleaded by Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and/or Dato’ Ngiam, were further fortified by the comments and remarks given by the recipients of Statement 6.

Carol claimed that she had spoken to over 50 people, including police officers and lawyers, and they had concluded that Aida had committed fraud. However, throughout the trial, not even one witness was called or subpoenaed by Carol to support what she had conveyed to Wai Ping at the material time. It was not impossible to call at least one of these 50 people to testify in order to justify that she had arrived at a reasonable assumption or conclusion in reliance of what these people had said to her. Even the ROS Director whom Carol claimed had agreed that there was some wrongdoing, or any other officer from the ROS whom Carol claimed to have met, was not called or subpoenaed to testify in support of her testimony.

At all material times, Carol was aware of the nature of the ROS Grant which is allocated for future and proposed events and that the October 2018 GA was a resubmission of the earlier application in March 2018 and not a fresh application.

There were explanations and clarifications from different parties, including Dato’ Ngiam, Abraham (who was the auditor of MKCS) and the ROS State Director to Carol in relation to the nature of the ROS Grant on multiple occasions, but Carol insisted that Aida had committed serious wrongdoings that were detrimental to MKCS and the rest of the Committee chose to condone such practice.

Apart from Carol’s own assumption and believe, there was no cogent evidence to support her allegations of wrongdoings and misconduct by Aida in relation to the October 2018 GA.

No action was taken by the ROS or the police in relation to the complaints and police report lodged by Carol. Carol’s allegations against the Committee, particularly Aida, are thus baseless and unwarranted.

Carol had composed Statement 6 recklessly and indicated that Dato’ Ngiam was trying to intimidate or threaten the ROS officer by introducing himself as a Dato’ and giving his business card.

Carol has failed to satisfy the test of “responsible journalism” by failing to act reasonably in publishing Statement 6. Hence, the defence of qualified privilege cannot be applied in her favour.

In final analysis, Issue 15 in respect of Statement 6 was answered in the affirmative and Issue 16 was answered in the negative. Suit 24 (Carol v Chew): Statement 8

Whether Statement 8 dated 16.4.2019 refers to Carol and if so, whether it is defamatory?

Whether Chew can rely on the defence of justification and/ or fair comment?

Whether it was published by Chew against Carol maliciously?

Chew did not dispute the fact that he had authored and published Statement 8 in the WA to the MKCS – All Matters group chat. Neither did he dispute the fact that Statement 8 refers to Carol. The focus of the submission was therefore on whether Statement 8 was defamatory, Chew’s pleaded defences have been established and there was malice in the publication of Statement 8.

Carol’s submissions were framed according to six paragraphs in Statement 8 as follows. 1st paragraph: “Please let me share with you an insider’s perspective of the current mess in MKCS where single person has got the whole MKCS community involved and wasted so much non productive time and energy just to achieve a personal objective to maintain total authoritative control of managing the MKCS and remove anyone who stands in the way.”

Carol contended that the above words, in their ordinary or natural meaning, meant or were understood to mean that Carol has a bad character and a personal agenda to be the Chairperson no matter what and she will remove anyone who does not agree with her.

However, when cross-examined, Chew agreed that no one was actually removed. In fact, Carol agreed with Dato’ Ngiam’s suggestion to discuss about Aida’s wrongdoings during the Committee Meeting.

Chew claimed that other steps which Carol took to remove the Committee Members was via the EGM Petition. This is untrue as submitted in relation to Statement 3.

During cross-examination, Shereen agreed that by the above statement it means that Carol has a personal agenda to maintain total authoritative control of managing MKCS and remove anyone who stands in the way. However, this is inconsistent with what she had communicated to Carol on 30.1.2019 when she said: “I’ve always said MKCS is you. You need not be stressed because we all respect your decision. You told me you love challenges so go and strive for it. You know we would all follow your decision even though we have our opinions … we all know you have done a lot, no buts on this. If not, why would you think we join you? Don’t worry, you are our boss. Take a rest to enjoy your Chinese New Year. You deserve a long relaxing one to energise yourself for more challenges to come. As I say, we all have opinions but eventually we would see your reasons. In a group of people, there would be always disagreement of opinions but it’s eventual action that is important as this means all agree to your direction, objective of how you want to lead, how you want to lead MKCS.”. Shereen agreed, during cross-examination, that what she said privately to Carol and her evidence during the trial is inconsistent.

Similarly, Dato’ Ngiam agreed during cross-examination that by the above statement it means that Carol has a personal agenda to maintain total authoritative control of managing MKCS and remove anyone who stands in the way. The above statement is inconsistent with what Dato’ Ngiam had communicated to Carol on 2.2.2019 when he said: “Carol, taken as a whole, you are a good leader to drive things at MKCS. I honestly doubt a better leader could be found. We all want you to continue as chairperson. Take some of the sharing as feedback wherever and where relevant, consider to adopt, otherwise discard them. Don’t put too much pressure on yourself as this is after all volunteering work for our community.”

In the light of the all of the above, Carol argued that the statement has therefore been proven, on a balance of probabilities, to be blatantly false and is defamatory of, and against, Carol. 3rd paragraph: “Unfortunately the person you trust most has misled everyone using information out of context, misinterpreted guidelines, rules, Constitution and the law (Societies Act 1996), all to achieve the personal agenda.”

Carol asserted that the above words, in their ordinary or natural meaning, meant or are understood to mean that Carol is an irresponsible Chairperson who had instrumentally misled members about the Constitution to achieve her personal agenda.

During cross-examination, Chew confirmed that this statement refers to the same thing that he said earlier about the EGM Petition. There is no evidence that Carol misled the members about the Constitution when she was helping them to sign the EGM Petition so that the Committee Members would be ousted.

Hence, the statement has been proven, on a balance of probabilities, to be blatantly false and is defamatory of Carol. 4th paragraph: “Let me highlight the latest instances of how this person that you trust, continues to manipulate everything to achieve the personal agenda.”

Carol contended that the above words in their ordinary or natural meaning meant or are understood to mean that Carol is a manipulative and an irresponsible Chairperson whose conduct is to achieve her own personal gain.

During cross-examination, Chew confirmed that this statement refers to the membership issue. There is no evidence that Carol manipulated the whole situation relating to the membership issue to achieve her personal agenda. Item (1): “The Chairperson led the previous Committee to ignore the original Constitution on membership fees and implemented the amended membership fees in early 2019 without AGM endorsement and subsequent ROS Registrar approval (violated Societies Act 1966), causing the current issue of the MKCS not having valid members and she now blames the Secretary for not submitting the new Constitution online as the reason.”

It was argued that the above words in their ordinary or natural meaning meant or are understood to mean that Carol is an irresponsible Chairperson who had instrumentally misled members about the Constitution to achieve her personal agenda.

Chew confirmed during cross-examination that this also refers to the membership issue. Chew admitted that he did not exactly know whether Carol did in fact lead the previous Committee to ignore the Constitution and he did not even try to find out what happened. It was submitted that it was malicious of Chew to make a statement against Carol when he did not know the facts and did not even bother to find out whether what he said is true or not.

During cross-examination, Chew admitted that when he made the statement to the members that Carol blamed the Secretary for not submitting online, he did not make it clear that Carol cannot submit the amended Constitution online because only the Secretary has the password and it was the Secretary who did not submit the Amended Constitution online.

When cross-examined, Dato’ Ngiam claimed that by the above statement, Carol led the Committee and persuaded them to ignore the Constitution and the Committee as a whole made a mistake. But he is not in the position to give his views that Carol Lee led the Committee to ignore the Constitution as he did not read the minutes of the earlier Committee Meeting thoroughly to determine whether the Committee innocently did not know what they did were wrong or they knew what the Constitution said and purposely did something different to cheat someone. Item (2): “Unfortunately, the Chairperson continues to abuse her position to misinform/misguide the Community and proceed with her own actions without proper consultation.”

It was submitted that the above words in their ordinary or natural meaning meant or were understood to mean that Carol was abusing her position as Chairperson to carry out what she wanted without consulting the Committee Members.

During cross-examination, Chew confirmed that the statement refers to Carol’s conduct in trying to call for the AGM herself. There is no evidence that Carol abused her position to misinform the members by calling for the AGM to be held on 27.4.2019. Item (3): “One quick action consistent with her personal agenda was immediately removed some Committee members from some MKCS chat groups without valid justifications.”

The above words in their ordinary or natural meaning were said to mean or were understood to mean that Carol abused her position as Chairperson of MKCS by removing some Committee Members for her own benefit and interests.

During cross-examination, Chew confirmed that not all Committee Members were removed because Wai Ping was kept in the Committee. Chew testified that he did not know and did not check why Wai Ping was kept in the Committee but straight away told the members that Carol removed the Committee Members without valid justification. In doing so, Chew was reckless and acted in complete disregard of the truth.

Chew confirmed then said that he found out later that Wai Ping was kept by Carol because Wai Ping was from the Pro Tem Committee. Carol in fact informed the Committee Members of this on 15.4.2019. Chew admitted that he read Carol’s message on 15.4.2019 before he issued Statement 8 the next day. He then admitted that he actually knew the reason why he was removed from the chat group but nevertheless he still said there was no valid reason in Statement 8. He also confirmed that he did not tell the members that when Carol sent the message on 15.4.2019 that what she said was not correct.

Further, Chew claimed that he was removed from four chat groups but he did not produce any evidence of the said removal.

After having considered the juxtaposed arguments by Carol and Chew, I was convinced by Chew’s submissions that Statement 8 was not defamatory in nature and does not bear or was capable of bearing the meaning as pleaded by Carol. I was further persuaded that Chew has established the defence of fair comment. My reasons are as follows:

Carol had on separate occasions forwarded the screenshots of her WA conversation with Aida to Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam without any context and no explanation was provided thereby misleading them to believe that Aida committed certain wrongdoings;

Carol was in fact aware that Aida did not commit any wrongdoings in submitting the October 2018 GA and that Aida did not lie about cancelling the application;

despite the aforesaid, Carol nonetheless proceeded to lodge multiple complaints to ROS and a police report pertaining to the purported wrongdoings of Aida. Although there was no investigation carried out and no proper findings by ROS that what Aida did was wrong, Carol remained adamant and had already decided that Aida was guilty of a criminal offence. On several occasions, Carol demanded Aida to be removed or to resign from her position as Treasurer of MKCS;

Chew was initially misled to believe that the 2018 Grant Resubmission application was meant for reimbursements and initially was of the opinion that what Aida did was wrong. Despite knowing that the Grant application was not for reimbursement purposes, Carol deliberately concealed the fact and mentioned that the application was for current year events;

having realised that Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam had concluded that Aida did not commit any wrongdoings, Carol began to seek support from the members of MKCS by instigating them to call for an EGM with the intention to have the whole Committee dissolved and a new Committee to be elected. Carol approached Mark Seaton and again, merely forwarded documents to him and did not proffer any explanation particularly that the October 2018 GA was a resubmission and not a fresh application;

Carol had turned around and claimed that the rest of the Committee Members chose to condone Aida’s unethical and illegal behaviour when in fact there was no finding that Aida has committed any wrongdoing in the first place;

Carol continuously published announcements and statements to the members of MKCs without notifying the Committee in advance and in the absence of any proper finding or written confirmation, advice, direction or order from ROS, which further misled the members of MKCS;

Carol proceeded to remove some of the Committee Members from several MKCS chat groups on the basis that the Committee was invalid and defunct due to lack of membership despite the fact that the Committee was subsequently recognised by ROS to hold a meeting to rectify the membership and constitution issues;

Despite having been informed that MKCS should not hold any EGM or AGM pending investigation, Carol nonetheless of her own accord went on a recruitment drive for new members and eventually held an AGM on 11.5.2019 and formed a new Committee, acting against ROS’s advice; and

Carol openly displayed much discontentment and resentments towards Aida. She has been leveraging on incorrect information and concealing material facts in order to mislead others to believe Aida and the other Committee Members were at fault. In this sense, Carol appears to be a manipulative person; a “puppet-master” who hides behind the scene to stir up conflict and thereafter provoke unsuspecting individuals to soldier her battles for her, rightly or wrongly.

In conclusion, Issue 21 in respect of Statement 8 was answered in the affirmative insofar as it refers to Carol and in the negative as regards it being defamatory. Issue 22 was answered in the affirmative for the defence of fair comment. Issue 23 was answered in the negative. Suit 25 (Carol v Shereen, Wai Ping, Aida, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam):

Whether Statement 9 dated 13.4.2019 was authored, written, published and/ or posted by Shereen, Wai Ping, Aida, Chew or Dato’ Ngiam?

Whether it refers to Carol and if so, whether it is defamatory?

Whether Shereen, Wai Ping, Aida, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam can rely on the defence of justification and/ or fair comment?

Whether it was published against Carol maliciously?

Suit 25 is Carol’s claim against the five Committee Members for alleged defamatory statements in Statement 9 in relation to one specific letter that was sent on 13.4.2019 to the MKCS – All Matters WA Group which has 123 participants. Carol contended that the five Committee Members had authored or published Statement 9 in the said WA Group.

On the other hand, the five Committee Members claimed that Statement 9 was published by Shereen for and on behalf of the Committee of MKCS, except for Carol, in the said WA Group and in response, Carol had published Statement 6.

Based on the evidence adduced at the trial, I find that it supports a finding in favour of Carol’s position as stated in paragraph 131 above.

The five Committee Members did not dispute that Statement 9 refers to Carol.

Therefore, similar to Statement 8, the issues for determination by the Court were concentrated on whether Statement 9 was defamatory, the five Committee Members’ pleaded defences have been established and there was malice in the publication of Statement 9.

Carol’s submissions were similarly framed according to six paragraphs in Statement 9 as follows. Paragraph 1(b)(iii): “The Chairperson continued to push to the rest of the Committee members privately to accept her accusations of the Treasurer’s alleged wrongdoings without a thorough investigation.”

It was contended that the above words in their ordinary or natural meaning meant or were understood to mean that Carol was using her position as Chairperson to try to unfairly remove Aida from the Committee.

The learned counsel for the Plaintiff highlighted pertinent parts of his cross-examination of the witnesses in submitting that nothing in the conversations which Carol had with the five Committee Members when she sent the screenshot of the WA message on 29.10.2018 show that Carol was pushing the Committee to accept the accusations against Aida without a thorough investigation.

In fact, Carol asked Dato’ Ngiam to check with Wai Ping and Shereen to verify and Carol agreed for the matter to be discussed further in a Committee Meeting.

Aida and Wai Ping agreed that Carol did not say directly in the messages that she does not want an investigation to be carried out. Dato’ Ngiam agreed that Carol never said no to an investigation and she never asked the Committee to proceed without an investigation. Paragraph 1(b)(iv): “She got angry and abruptly removed herself from the Committee chat group and declared that she was resigning the Chairperson because she had enough of the Committee for creating camps, joining for their benefits, backstabbing, etc. This left the Committee without a Chairperson and the Committee had to scramble to formalize the Deputy Chairperson as Acting Chairperson due to the irresponsible action of the Chairperson.”

Carol argued that the above words in their ordinary or natural meaning meant or were understood to mean that she has bad character and left the Committee in trouble.

The statement was said to have been proven, on a balance of probabilities, to be blatantly false and defamatory of Carol on the following grounds:

there was nothing to scramble to formalise a new Chairperson as, under item 2 of Clause 9 the MKCS’ Constitution, when the Chairperson resigns, the Deputy Chairperson takes over in her absence. Moreover, Carol had told Wai Ping that she would help her out with the running of the Committee during her absence. Carol told Wai Ping before she left that she is resigning and gave Wai Ping the opportunity to find someone before she officially resigned. Wai Ping agreed that she did not mention about Carol’s offer to help to the other Committee Members; and

despite claiming that the matter was important, urgent and everyone had to scramble, Aida did not even attend the meeting on 31.1.2019 where Wai Ping was appointed as the Acting Chairperson until Carol returns to office. Paragraph 1(b)(vii): “Since that day the Chairperson has been on a campaign to discredit and oust the Committee members using misleading information.”

These words in their ordinary or natural express meaning were said to mean or were understood to mean that Carol is of a bad character because she is using information incorrectly to try to oust the Committee Members.

In submitting that the statement was defamatory of Carol, her counsel again highlighted the evidence during the cross-examination of the five Committee Members as follows:

Aida agreed that the campaign by Carol must be a campaign to people outside the Committee. The five Committee Members claimed that Carol tried to oust them by calling for the EGM Petition. But they agreed that Mark Seaton was the proposer of the EGM Petition and there was no evidence that Carol was the author of the EGM Petition. The EGM Petition called for the dissolution of the entire Committee, including Carol, and thereafter the five Committee Members can stand for election;

Wai Ping had told Carol that the five Committee Members will be out after the AGM. Aida confirmed that this statement is correct because she already told Wai Ping that she will be leaving the Committee after the AGM. Because of this, Aida agreed that if Wai Ping already told Carol about the five Committee Members leaving after the AGM, there was then no necessity for Carol to go on a campaign to oust or discredit the Committee Members using misleading information or to call for an EGM to remove them;

Aida testified that misleading information means the accusation that she had lied and cheated ROS for more money in the October 2018 GA whereby Carol had raised on “discrepancies” in the EGM Petition. To Aida, the reader of the EGM Petition will know that the word “discrepancies” refers to the discrepancies in the ROS form that she had submitted as the Treasurer. However, no details are given in the EGM Petition of the “discrepancies”. Meanwhile Chew claimed that Carol used misleading information in her message by using the word “discrepancies” because he does not like the word and he thinks it is misleading. As for Dato’ Ngiam, he claimed that the EGM Petition was the misleading information because of the word “discrepancy”. However Mark Seaton as the proposer of the EGM Petition was not sued by the five Committee Members for defamation; and

Wai Ping claimed that Carol had showed to 50 people documents to discredit the Committee Members based on what Carol said in Statement 6 but Wai Ping, Shereen and Dato’ Ngiam did not know what information Carol showed to the 50 people. Paragraph 1(c): “The Chairperson started to instigate the MKCS members to sign a petition for an EGM to be held on Mar 23, 2019, on the basis of undefined discrepancies in the MKCS, to dissolve the Committee and re-elect new Committee members.”

It was contended that the above words in their ordinary or natural meaning meant or were understood to mean that Carol has a bad character because she instigated the members to oust the Committee Members.

In fact, Carol merely helped to get signatures and circulated the EGM Petition.

As mentioned earlier, it was Mark Seaton who was the proposer of the EGM Petition. The Committee issued a letter to him asking to explain what he meant by “discrepancies” in the EGM Petition. Mark Seaton replied that he did not want to share the details of “discrepancies” and that any evidence of the same will only be shared at the EGM. Paragraph 1(c)(i): “As the 1st petition has not proceeded pending Mark Seaton detailed clarifications on the alleged discrepancies, the Chairperson continued her campaign to instigate the MKCS members to call for EGM or AGM to oust the Committee members.”

Carol contended that the above words in their ordinary or natural meaning meant or were understood to mean that she has a bad character as she continued her plan to instigate the members to oust the Committee Members.

Further, the statement was false because Mark Seaton had already replied to the Committee saying that details on the alleged discrepancies will only be provided during the EGM. Despite his reply, the Committee Members refused to convene the EGM.

In addition, there are no documents whether a petition, agenda, document or letter which show that Carol had said that she wants to have an AGM or EGM to oust the five Committee Members.

Dato Ngiam had testified that after the EGM Petition, what Carol did was to push for an AGM to be convened, and not an EGM. Hence, Carol cannot be campaigning to oust the Committee Members because an AGM deals with specific AGM matters such as tabling of accounts, etc. Paragraph 1(d): “On April 11, 2019, the Chairperson instigated the MKCS members to hold the AGM on April 27, 2019 and proceeded to prepare for AGM without the rest of the Committee involvement.”

Carol submitted that the above words in their ordinary or natural meaning meant or were understood to mean that she has a bad character and dishonest as she instigated the members to hold an AGM on her own, without wanting the rest of the Committee Members to be involved.

Carol refuted that the Committee Members including herself had discussed during the meeting on 4.4.2019 to have the AGM on 27.4.2019 but it was the five Committee Members who refused to organise it on the said date. Carol then proceeded to prepare the AGM as the members wanted it to be held on 27.4.2019. The last two sentences in paragraph 1(d): “These actions of the Chairperson are not in line with the Constitution and also a breach of the Rule of Conduct that all Committee members signed (see attached). Specifically, Rule 6 of the Rule of Conduct which stipulates that “Committee Members shall ensure that their actions and conduct do not bring the integrity of their position or that of MKCS into disrepute.”

It was contended that the above words in their ordinary or natural express meant or were understood to mean that Carol lacked integrity. However, all that Carol wanted to do was to highlight the issues to the members for them to decide and if the members think what happened was wrong, they can decide to remove all the Committee Members including Carol, and to appoint anyone as the new Committee Members.

In sum, Carol vehemently argued that Statement 9 contains false statements and the comments made therein are not the correct imputations or conclusions to be drawn. In short, Statement 9 was defamatory of Carol and the five Committee Members were not entitled to rely on the defence of justification and fair comment. The five Committee Members, knowing that the facts stated in Statement 9 are incorrect, continued to publish Statement 9 to the MKCS members. The publication was therefore done maliciously to injure Carol’s reputation.

I have deliberated upon the contentions of all the parties and I was unable to agree with Carol. In my considered view, Statement 9 was not defamatory in nature and does not bear or was capable of bearing the meaning as pleaded by Carol, and the five Committee Members have established the defence of fair comment.

Apart from the reasoning as set out in paragraph 129(a) – (i) above, I accepted the version of events as put forth by the five Committee Members, namely, –

on 15.3.2019, Wai Ping notified the Committee in the MKCS Main Committee Group that she received a petition to call for an EGM and suggested to have a meeting on the same day to discuss about the EGM Petition. A special meeting was held on the same day in the absence of Carol, Aida and Chew. Aida and Chew had informed the Committee that they would not be able to attend the meeting due to the short notice. The meeting concluded that the EGM Petition was incomplete and defective for lacking the name and information of the petitioner and this hindered the Committee from seeking further clarification in relation to the contents of the EGM Petition;

the Committee had written to Mark Seaton, who delivered the EGM Petition, to enquire whether he was the petitioner. Subsequently, the Committee received written confirmation from Mark Seaton that he was the proposer of the EGM

an announcement was made by the Committee to all members of MKCS pertaining to the EGM Petition that the Petition was incomplete and lacked details on the reason to call for an EGM and that the Committee has since written to Mark Seaton for further clarification on the claim of “discrepancies” in the MKCS;

Abraham had expressed his concerns on the EGM Petition and he was of the view that the nature of the “discrepancies” must be clarified as there was a possibility that it may affect the accounts and finances of MKCS before he can proceed to sign off the audit report of MKCS. To Abraham, the word “discrepancies” gave the impression that there was mismanagement of monies in the MKCS’s funds;

Shereen and Abraham had, on separate occasions, attempted to reach out to Mark Seaton for clarification of the alleged “discrepancies” but to no avail. Later in the MKCS – All Matters chat group, Mark Seaton outrightly expressed his refusal to cooperate with the Committee’s request. He claimed that the MKCS Constitution does not provide that the proposer’s name must be stated in the EGM Petition and that he has to provide clarification or further information in advance. Mark Seaton said that he will share the evidence and documents in support of the claim of “discrepancies” during the EGM;

at the material time, Carol reached out to members of the MKCS in person or through WA to obtain their support and signatures for the EGM Petition; and

while Carol emphasised on the seriousness of Aida’s alleged wrongdoing and misconduct, the said issue was only brought up for the very first time to the Committee as a whole in the MKCS Main Committee Chat Group in the middle of a discussion on an unrelated matter. Carol claimed that sufficient time has been given to the Committee to take the appropriate action against Aida but the Committee chose to condone unethical practices. Carol said that she will resign as the Chairperson and proceeded to leave the chat group. This sudden outburst by Carol left the other Committee Members in a quandary as no advance notice was given by Carol on her resignation.

Based on the foregoing, Issue 25 in respect of Statement 9 was answered in the affirmative. Issue 26 was answered in the affirmative insofar as Statement 9 refers to Carol, and in the negative on whether it is defamatory.

Issue 27 was answered in the affirmative for the defence of fair comment. Issue 28 was answered in the negative.

A tort action for defamation, and in particular libel, is actionable per se and damages do not need to be proven; they are presumed (see Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong v. Seema Elizabeth Soy [2023] 6 CLJ 51).

In Tan Sri Lim Kit Siang v YB Dr Siti Mastura [2024] MLJU 3687, the Court held that: “[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). [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 MLJ 259 at 275; ; [2019] 2 CLJ 631 at 649, “the days of million Ringgit award for defamation has long gone and consigned to history”. I think that sentiment remains 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).” (see too Chew Hock Jin v. Lim Jenn Shiah [2021] CLJU 114).

Among the factors to be considered by the Court in determining an award of damages are –

the gravity of the allegation;

the size and influence of circulation;

the effect of publication;

the extent and nature of the claimant’s reputation;

the behavior of the defendant; and

the behavior of the claimant (see Chin Choon v. Chua Jui Meng [2005] 2 CLJ 569).

Mr. S. Viknesh had summarised the standings of his clients in paragraph 10 of the Further Written Submission (encl. 163). The learned counsel prayed for a total sum of RM1,250,000.00 to be awarded i.e. RM250,000.00 each to Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam as a global award taking into consideration that there were seven defamatory statements from Carol and the following factors:

the accusations in the defamatory statements by Carol were extremely grave. The implications on Aida in particular were severe given that not only did Carol intentionally made false accusations against Aida to the rest of the Committee Members, but subsequently to the general members of MKCS. Complaints were also lodged with the ROS and the police against Aida and the other Committee members;

Carol’s statements drew adverse responses and reactions from the general members of MKCS against Aida and the others. Some of these adverse comments are in Bundle B8;

the WA chat groups in this case were multiple and it consisted not only of participants within the same condominium but it comprised of office bearers from Management Corporations and Joint Management Bodies of condominiums and corporate offices as well as individuals within the Mont’ Kiara community and representatives from the public authorities. The MKCS - All Matters chat group comprised of 122 participants, MKCS - Safety & Security comprised of 160 members and MKCS – Ind & Assoc. had 56 participants. Carol was the administrator and this aggravated matters as she posted statements without any attempt to delete them;

the five Committee Members are well known within their own communities in their respective condominiums and the entire Mont’ Kiara community and Segambut constituencies, which include Duta and Hartamas as a whole. They are leaders in their own rights in their respective communities in the condominiums and in their related industries and communities. The majority of the people know who they are. Hence, when the defamatory statements were made, the participants in the WA chat groups knew who they were and in fact, Abraham approached Dato’ Ngiam to find out what was happening within the Committee; and

the number of unapologetic and unremorseful postings and publications by Carol as opposed to the sole posting from the five Committee Members to respond to Carol’s postings. Carol portrayed herself to the general members of MKCS as a “knight in shining armour” intending to instil high moral standards and ethics and made it appear to be a fight of good over evil. She made it sound that for a moment, evil even triumphed and she needed the support of the ordinary members to assist to rid of the evil that lurks in the Committee. During cross-examination, Carol occasionally remarked to the effect that she did not even know the truth or facts of her own statements before she posted it and even tried to cover her lies when she was exposed. Since the time when the statements were made until the trial ended, Carol continued to play ignorant of the truth. During the meeting on 4.4.2019, she claimed ignorance of the EGM Petition and pretended as though she played no part in the same which invited the irk of Abraham. Throughout, Carol remained unfazed, unapologetic and unremorseful.

Based on the abovementioned factors, and mindful that I found only two out of the seven statements were defamatory, and that, although the circulation of Statement 1 was limited within the MKCS Committee Members, Statement 6 was published in the MKCS - All Matters and MKCS – Ind & Assoc chat groups with a total of 178 participants, in my opinion an award of general damages in the sum of RM50,000.00 each to Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

As regards the reliefs sought in the respective SOC in –

Suit 71, the claim by Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and

subparagraphs 87.1 to 87.3 was allowed and for subparagraph 87.2, the time frame was 14 days from the date of judgment;

subparagraphs 87.4 and 87.5, general damages in the sum of RM50,000.00 to each of the Plaintiffs with interest at the rate of 5% per annum thereon from the date of judgment until full settlement; and

(ii) subparagraph 87.8 was allowed.

Suit 24, Carol’s claim was dismissed; and

Suit 25, Carol’s claim was dismissed.

In awarding costs, I considered the factors as set out in O. 59, r. 16 of the RC 2012. There were 17 days of trial with eight witnesses called to give evidence. Comprehensive written submissions were filed by the learned counsels. I ordered costs for Suit 71 in the sum of RM80,000.00; for Suit 24, RM20,000.00; and for Suit 25, RM80,000.00. All orders as to costs were subject to allocatur.

Subparagraph 87.7 in the SoC for Suit 71 was allowed i.e. interest on costs at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of judgment until full settlement. Dated: 25.9.2025 (ALIZA SULAIMAN) JUDGE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Solicitors for Aida Phang Binti Abdullah & 4 Ors.: Viknesh Selvanathan (Edmund Chow Zi Sim and Joanne Rachel Jankins with him) Messrs. Viknesh & Yap Solicitors for Lee Siew Mei: Brendan Navin Siva (Aida Haryani Salamon with him)