Mohd Khairuddin Bin Aman Razali v Sin Chew Media Corporation Bhd (BA-12BCY-2-02/2025)

This is an appeal by the Appellant, YB Mohd Khairuddin Aman Razali (“the Appellant”), against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge delivered on 10 February 2025, whereby the Appellant’s claim in defamation was dismissed. The Sessions Court held that the impugned publication was protected by qualified privilege, that the presentation of the article was not defamatory in law, and that the pleadings failed to comply with Order 92 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012.

Having considered the record, the notes of evidence, the parties’ submissions, and the applicable legal authorities, this

Court finds that the learned Sessions Court Judge erred in fact and in law. The appeal is therefore allowed in full.

These are my full grounds.

The material facts are substantially not in dispute. On 1 September 2020, during the height of the Movement Control Order (“MCO”), the Respondent published an article on its online platform concerning allegations that the Appellant had travelled abroad during MCO. The article was accompanied by a photograph of the Appellant taken in 2016 during an official visit to the Netherlands.

The headline and accompanying text gave the impression that the Appellant, then a Federal Minister, had recently undertaken international travel for leisure purposes, thereby breaching quarantine regulations. The photograph, although taken four years earlier, was juxtaposed with the 2020 headline in a manner suggesting it was contemporaneous.

The Appellant denied the allegation entirely. He contended that the publication was false, defamatory, reckless, and sensational. He further contended that the Respondent had failed to take any steps to verify the date or origin of the photograph, and had not contacted him to seek comment prior to publication.

The Respondent argued that the article merely asked for verification, that the matter concerned public interest, that the publication was done under qualified privilege, and that the subsequent clarification published by the Respondent demonstrated the absence of malice.

The Sessions Court accepted the Respondent’s defences and dismissed the claim. Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the present appeal.

The following issues arise for determination:

Whether the impugned publication conveyed a defamatory meaning;

(ii) Whether the juxtaposition of the 2016 photograph with the 2020 headline created a misleading and defamatory composite meaning;

(iii) Whether the Respondent is entitled to rely on the defence of qualified privilege, neutral reportage, or the Reynolds responsible journalism principle - Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2002] 2 AC 127;

(iv) Whether the Respondent’s argument that it was merely “asking for verification” is sustainable in law;

Whether malice or recklessness was proven; and

(vi) Whether the pleadings offended Order 92 Rule 1, and if so, whether such irregularity is curable under Order 1 Rule 8. S/N NwwJ9tuDuEegHzMQmqmmzQ D. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES Issue 1: Whether the publication was defamatory

The test for defamatory meaning is well-established: whether the words complained of would tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society (Sim v Stretch [1936] All ER 1237).

The publication here both in text and imagery conveyed to a reasonable reader that the Appellant had breached quarantine laws. A Cabinet Minister violating MCO regulations is a serious allegation attracting moral disgrace and legal censure.

The Sessions Court failed to properly consider the natural and ordinary meaning conveyed by the publication. The Respondent’s headline, selection of photograph, and overall presentation gave the impression of factual reporting, not speculation.

I find that the article is plainly defamatory. Issue 2: Juxtaposition of the 2016 photo and 2020 headline

A central feature of the defamatory sting lies in the juxtaposition of an outdated photograph with a contemporaneous headline. The law recognises that defamation may arise from images, captions, or contextual S/N NwwJ9tuDuEegHzMQmqmmzQ arrangement, even where individual elements are factually neutral.

In Tun Datuk Patinggi Abdul Rahman Ya’kub v BRE Sdn Bhd [1996] 1 MLJ 393, the High Court held that a defamatory meaning may arise from “the combination of visual and textual elements creating an impression beyond the literal content.”

Similarly, in Masterskill (M) Sdn Bhd v Sistem Televisyen Malaysia Berhad [2012] 5 CLJ the Court acknowledged that photographs can be used in a misleading fashion to suggest wrongdoing.

The Respondent did not merely report allegations; it visually confirmed the false narrative by pairing the 2016 photograph with the 2020 headline. This composite presentation would cause any ordinary reasonable reader to believe that the Appellant was photographed abroad during MCO.

The Sessions Court erred in treating the photograph as a neutral accessory rather than a material contributor to the defamatory meaning.

I therefore hold that the juxtaposition materially strengthened and deepened the defamatory sting.

The Respondent contends that the publication was made under qualified privilege or neutral reportage. The cornerstone of qualified privilege in defamation law is responsible journalism.

The leading authority is Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2002] 2 AC 127, which enumerates factors such as:

Verification

The Respondent made no attempt whatsoever to verify the date or context of the photograph. This failure alone is fatal.

Opportunity for comment

The Respondent did not seek the Appellant’s response prior to publication, despite the seriousness of the allegation.

Urgency

There was no pressing urgency. The article was not about an imminent threat to life or public safety. Verification could have been sought without delay.

Tone

The tone was accusatory, not neutral. The article read as a factual assertion, not an inquiry.

In Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v NSTP [2010] 2 MLJ 492, the Federal Court emphasised that a publisher must not present allegations as fact.

Thus, the Respondent cannot rely on qualified privilege, neutral reportage, or the Reynolds defence.

The Sessions Court erred in treating the Respondent’s later clarification as evidence of responsible journalism. The clarification came after publication, and cannot retrofit responsibility into a publication which was negligent and misleading at the moment it was made. Issue 4: Whether “asking for verification” is a valid defence

The Respondent asserted that it was merely “asking for verification.”This Court rejects that argument for the following reasons:

Verification must occur BEFORE publication

Responsible journalism requires verification as a precondition to publication, not a justification after publication.

Publishing first and verifying later is the antithesis of Reynolds.

(ii) The tone was accusatory

The headline did not ask an open question; it implied misconduct.

(iii) No evidence of attempts to verity

There is no evidence that the Respondent reached out to the Appellant prior to publication.

A post-publication clarification does not neutralise liability (Anwar Ibrahim, [supra]).

Malice includes reckless indifference to truth Tun Datuk Patinggi Abdul Rahman Ya’kub v BRE Sdn Bhd & Ors [1996] 1 MLJ 393

The Respondent’s: i) failure to verify, ii) selection of a misleading photograph, iii) presentation of allegations as fact, and iv) sensational tone amount to recklessness amounting to constructive malice.

While not borne of personal spite, malice in the legal sense is present.

The Respondent argued that the pleadings were defective because part of the impugned words appeared in Chinese.

The evidence shows the pleadings were substantially in Bahasa Malaysia, with minimal untranslated Facebook-generated text.

Order 1 Rule 8 provides that non-compliance with procedural rules is not fatal unless prejudice is shown.

No prejudice was shown. Both parties understood the meaning complained of. The Sessions Court’s finding of fatal non-compliance was erroneous.

The Appellant has proven all elements of defamation.

The defences raised by the Respondent are without merit.

The Sessions Court erred in: S/N NwwJ9tuDuEegHzMQmqmmzQ i) failing to appreciate the defamatory sting arising from juxtaposition; ii) improperly accepting the Respondent’s unverified “verification” defence; iii) misapplying Reynolds; iv) wrongly upholding the Order 92 objection.

Appellate intervention is therefore warranted.

The Appellant sought general, aggravated, and exemplary damages.

Given the national readership of the Respondent’s publication, the seriousness of the allegation, the misleading imagery, and the reckless disregard for accuracy, damages are clearly warranted.

Nonetheless, taking into account the Respondent’s later clarification and the passage of time, the Court assesses the total award at RM50,000.

The award is allocated as follows: i) General Damages: RM35,000 ii) Aggravated Damages: RM10,000 S/N NwwJ9tuDuEegHzMQmqmmzQ iii) Statutory interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the judgment sum from the date of judgment until the date of full settlement. iv) Appeal Cost: RM5,000 Total: RM50,000

This award balances vindication of the Appellant’s reputation with proportionality.

The appeal is allowed in full.

The Sessions Court’s judgment dated 10 February 2025 is set aside in its entirety.

This case highlights the responsibility of media organisations in matters of public interest reporting. Journalism protected by the law of qualified privilege must be accompanied by responsible verification, balanced tone, and caution in the use of imagery.

The increasing prevalence of online publication, rapid information circulation, and the ease of misinterpreting images heighten the need for caution.

The Respondent’s conduct fell below the standard expected of a professional media organisation. The law will protect freedom of expression, but not at the expense of factual accuracy or fairness. Dated this 2nd December 2025 -sgd- ………………………………….. Datin Asmah binti Musa Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Counsel for Plaintiff : Mr. Abdullah Az-Zubayr b. Awaluddin. Messrs Zulpadli & Edham Counsel for Defendant : Mr. Yiew Voon Lee