Ng Ze Xuan v Tan Sing How (BA-23CY-13-09/2021)

TAN SING HOW (NRIC No.: 950805 -03-5809)

LAI PHUI KHAE (NRIC No.: 941123 -14-6478)

KALYSTA SDN. BHD. [Company No.: 201801037280 (1299310 - H)] …DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff's claim is based on allegations of defamation against the Defendants, arising from seven (7) defamatory statements in nine (9) publications made by the respective Defendants against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, as well as general, aggravated, and exemplary damages.

The Defendants filed a counterclaim for breach of contract, seeking the return of commissions and bonuses paid to the Plaintiff.

In April 2019, the Plaintiff joined the Third Defendant, Kalysta, as a sales representative and quickly rose through the ranks. Within Kalysta, sales representatives are organised into groups known as “families,” each led by a leader.

The Plaintiff co-founded and led the “SOULUV” group, which achieved top sales for 2019 and 2020, making her Kalysta’s highest-ranked sales representative with a team of over 400 members.

However, on 26 June 2021, her role as a sales representative for Kalysta was abruptly terminated.

On 16 July 2021, at around 10:25 p.m., the First Defendant published or facilitated the publication of a message in two Kalysta sales representative WeChat groups, which contained defamatory statements about the Plaintiff. At the time, WeChat Group 1 had 297 members and WeChat Group 3 had 318 members. The message implied that the Plaintiff was dishonest, lacked credibility, manipulated others, damaged Kalysta’s culture, and plotted against Kalysta for personal gain, among other negative characterisations.

These statements were defamatory and untrue, constituting serious libel against the Plaintiff. The message painted the Plaintiff as a schemer, compulsive liar, irresponsible leader, and someone with questionable moral values. It presented a highly damaging portrayal that affected the Plaintiff’s standing within Kalysta.

Following the WeChat message, the First Defendant announced an emergency Zoom meeting at 10:30 p.m. that same evening, where they and other group leaders would address the situation involving the Plaintiff. A new WeChat group for the Zoom meeting was created shortly before, including over 200 sales representatives from Kalysta. Members were instructed to contact their group leaders for the meeting link.

On 17 July 2021, at approximately 2:37 a.m., during a Zoom meeting with over 200 Kalysta sales representatives, the First Defendant made two defamatory statements about the Plaintiff. The statements, referred to as Zoom Defamatory Statement No.1 and Zoom Defamatory Statement No. 2, painted the Plaintiff in a highly negative light, insinuating that she was deceitful, manipulative and engaged in actions to harm others for her gain.

Zoom Defamatory Statement No.1 implied that the Plaintiff was a schemer who carefully planned her actions, used trickery, and crafted excuses to justify her behaviour. Zoom Defamatory Statement No. 2 went further, alleging that she had purposely harmed a previous brand and its product, leading to significant losses and negative repercussions for its agents. The statements suggested that she caused irreversible damage to others, was ungrateful and acted selfishly to benefit personally at others’ expense.

These defamatory statements were not only untrue but also amounted to serious slander intended to harm the Plaintiff’s reputation in her trade and business. The remarks were broadcast to a large group of her peers, impacting her standing within Kalysta and her professional community.

On 24 July 2021, at approximately 12:29 a.m., the First Defendant posted a defamatory message about the Plaintiff in the SOULUV WeChat Group, which included 404 Kalysta sales representatives. The statement attacked the Plaintiff's character, portraying her as insincere, unethical, and untrustworthy. Specifically, the message implied that she was superficial, greedy, hypocritical, and ungrateful, among other negative traits.

The defamatory content was intended to harm the Plaintiff's reputation and suggest that she lacked integrity and was unfit for business. The accusations included that she was a backstabber and shunned within her professional circle, casting her in a highly negative light before her peers and subordinates in Kalysta.

This message was untrue and constituted a serious libel aimed at damaging the Plaintiff’s reputation in her field. Notably, the Plaintiff had co-founded the SOULUV group within Kalysta, making the accusations particularly damaging to her established standing within the company. WeChat Group 1, WeChat Group 2 and WeChat Group 3

On 20 July 2021, at approximately 9:03 pm, the Second Defendant published WeChat messages in several Kalysta sales representative groups—WeChat Group 1 (295 members), WeChat Group 2 (324 members), and WeChat Group 3 (381 members). The statements made in these messages specifically referred to the Plaintiff and were defamatory in nature.

The messages implied that the Plaintiff was ungrateful, selfish, and interested only in her gain. They further suggested that the Plaintiff distorts facts, defames others, and has negatively impacted the sales representatives ranked below her. The statements also described her as someone with a problematic attitude, questionable credibility, and recommended that she be shunned and isolated.

These statements, being untrue, constitute a serious libel against the Plaintiff, damaging her personal and professional reputation. WeChat Group 1, WeChat Group 2 and WeChat Group 3

On 20 July 2021, at around 9:09 p.m., the Second Defendant published a notice in WeChat Group 1 (295 members), WeChat Group 2 (324 members), and WeChat Group 3 (381 members), all of which consisted of Kalysta’s sales representatives. The notice contained statements about the Plaintiff that were defamatory in nature.

The statements implied that the Plaintiff was deceitful, a plotter, and a schemer who intended to deceive other sales representatives to the point of causing their termination from Kalysta. They also characterised the Plaintiff as egocentric, willing to sacrifice others' interests for her personal gain, and accused her of defrauding Kalysta out of the latest leadership bonus and engaging in fraudulent business practices.

These untrue statements amount to serious libel against the Plaintiff, damaging her reputation. The Second Defendant further instructed members of the WeChat groups to republish the notice on their Instagram or WeChat accounts, amplifying the defamatory content’s reach.

On 20 July 2021, at around 9:55 p.m., the First Defendant, the Second Defendant, and Kalysta published the defamatory notice as an “Instagram Story” on their respective public Instagram accounts, reaching their significant follower bases: The First Defendant with over 21,000 followers, the Second Defendant with over 176,000 followers, and Kalysta with 8,540 followers. This publication extended the notice to a large audience on Instagram and beyond.

Additionally, the First and Second Defendants saved the notice as a “Story Highlight” on their Instagram profiles, making it permanently accessible. Since these accounts were unrestricted, the notice could be freely accessed by all internet users, allowing anyone online to view the defamatory content. This action amplified the scope of the alleged defamation against the Plaintiff, making the accusations widely available and persistently accessible.

Therefore, the seven (7) purported Defamatory Statements in 9 publications are as follows:

The WeChat 16 July 2021 Defamatory Statement made in two WeChat groups made by the First Defendant.

The Zoom Defamatory Statement No. 1 at the Zoom meeting by the First Defendant.

The Zoom Defamatory Statement No. 2 at the Zoom meeting by the First Defendant.

The WeChat 20 July 2021 @9.03 p.m. Defamatory Statement made in 3 WeChat groups by the Second Defendant.

Defamatory Statements in the 20 July 2021 Notice @ 9.09 p.m. made in 3 WeChat groups by the Second Defendant.

Defamatory Statements in the 20 July 2021 Notice @ 9.55 p.m. made in the First, Second, and Third Defendants' Instagram Account.

The WeChat 24 July 2021 Defamatory Statement made in WeChat Souluv Group made by the First Defendant.

The table below summarises when, where and by whom each defamatory statement was made. TABLE A Defamatory statement When was it made? To whom was it published Who made it? Location 16.07.2021 WeChat Defamatory Statement (Statement 1)

16.07.2021 i) WeChat Group 1 (297 members) ii) WeChat Group 3 (318 members) 1st Defendant B1/2-7 (Chinese) C1/1-6 (BM translation) A/67-68 (Chinese) A/69-71 (BM translation)

17.07.2021 Zoom Defamatory Statement No.1 (Statement 2)

17.07.2021 Attendees of the Zoom Meeting (> 200 sales representatives) 1st Defendant D1/181-182 & 221- 222 (Transcript – Chinese & BM translation)

A/76 (BM translation)

07.2021 Zoom Defamatory Statement No.2 (Statement 3)

17.07.2021 Attendees of the Zoom Meeting (> 200 sales representatives) 1st Defendant D1/242-243 (Transcript – Chinese & BM translation) A/75 (Chinese) A/77-78 (BM translation)

20.07.2021 WeChat Defamatory Statements (Statement 4)

20.07.2021 @ 9.03pm i) WeChat Group 1 (295 members) ii) WeChat Group 2 (324 members) 2nd Defendant B1/13-15 (Chinese) C1/12 (BM translation) iii) WeChat Group 3 (381 members) A/85-86 (Chinese) A/86-87 (BM translation) Defamatory Statements in the 20.07.2021 Notice (Statement 5)

20.07.2021 @ 9.09pm i) WeChat Group 1 (295 members) ii) WeChat Group 2 (324 members) iii) WeChat Group 3 (381 members) 2nd Defendant B1/22 (Chinese) (BM translation) A/89-90 (Chinese) A/90-94 (BM translation) Defamatory Statements in the 20.07.2021 Notice (Republished) (Statement 6)

20.07.2021 @ 9.55pm Public at large and followers of the: First Defendant’s Instagram Account (21,300 followers); Second Defendant’s Instagram Account (175,000 followers); 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendant B1/24, 26 & 28 (Chinese) (BM translation) A/89-90 (Chinese) A/90-94 (BM translation) Third Defendant’s Instagram Account (8,400 followers).

24.07.2021 WeChat Defamatory Statement (Statement 7)

24.07.2021 WeChat SOULUV Group (404 members) 1st Defendant B1/9-11 (Chinese) C1/9-10 (BM translation) A/81 (Chinese) A/82-83 (BM translation)

The excerpts of the defamatory statements are in Table B, attached to this Grounds of Judgment.

There was an agreement between Kalysta and the Plaintiff (the Agreement) stipulating that the Plaintiff was prohibited from engaging in activities contrary to Kalysta’s policies, management decisions, or interests. General Agents were required to focus exclusively on Kalysta’s business without conducting any other ventures.

Kalysta terminated the Plaintiff's position as a General Agent after discovering violations of the Agreement, including actions that adversely affected Kalysta’s interests. Complaints were received from other General Agents alleging that the Plaintiff was involved in a competing business called “Everyday”, which operated under a similar business model. The Plaintiff initially denied these allegations but admitted her involvement after evidence was presented and requested that her status not be terminated.

When the Plaintiff learned of the termination decision, she allegedly spread false information, incited sales representatives in Kalysta Souluv to leave, and concealed her competing business activities to secure bonuses for May, June, and July 2021. During the investigation, the Plaintiff attempted to shift blame onto other General Agents and sales representatives to have them terminated.

The Plaintiff also ignored instructions from the Defendants, such as refraining from accepting payments from sales representatives for stock orders during the investigation. Additionally, she engaged a social influencer, Yong Hoong Ling, to promote Kalysta’s products without authorisation.

The Plaintiff's actions reportedly caused a financial loss of RM217,936.68, and the Defendants asserted that she is not entitled to bonuses due to her violations of established agreements, practices, and systems. The Defendants further alleged that her conduct was intended to harm Kalysta’s business, benefit her competing business, and recruit Kalysta’s General Agents and sales representatives.

Moreover, the Plaintiff retained control of the “KALYSTA SOULUV” WeChat account and the “KALYSTA INTERNATIONAL” Instagram account despite multiple warnings to return the management rights.

The Defendants maintained that their actions and statements were based on investigation findings, made within their professional duties, and without malice.

The Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants, amongst others, are as follows:

(A) Against the First Defendant: i. For libel and slander, the following damages are to be assessed:

General damages.

Aggravated damages.

Exemplary damages. ii. A permanent injunction restraining the First Defendant, whether by himself, his servants, agents, or otherwise, from publishing or causing to be published the following defamatory statements or any words similarly defamatory of the Plaintiff:

The 16 July 2021 WeChat Defamatory Statements.

The 17 July 2021 Zoom Defamatory Statement No.

1.

The 17 July 2021 Zoom Defamatory Statement No.

2.

The 24 July 2021 WeChat Defamatory Statement.

The Defamatory Statements in the 20 July 2021 Notice. iii. An order that the First Defendant removes the Notice from his Instagram account within one (1) day from the date of judgment. iv. An order that the First Defendant, at his own cost, publishes an apology within three (3) days from the date of judgment, on terms proposed by the Plaintiff and approved by this Honourable Court. The apology shall be posted on the First Defendant’s Instagram account (with unrestricted public access) and remain for 14 days.

(B) Against the Second Defendant: i. For libel, the following damages are to be assessed:

General damages.

Aggravated damages.

Exemplary damages. ii. A permanent injunction restraining the Second Defendant, whether by herself, her servants, agents, or otherwise, from publishing or causing to be published the following defamatory statements or any words similarly defamatory of the Plaintiff:

The 20 July 2021 WeChat Defamatory Statements.

The Defamatory Statements in the 20 July 2021 Notice. iii. An order that the Second Defendant removes the Notice from her Instagram account within one (1) day from the date of judgment. iv. An order that the Second Defendant, at her own cost, publishes an apology within three (3) days from the date of judgment, on terms proposed by the Plaintiff and approved by this Honourable Court. The apology shall be posted on the Second Defendant’s Instagram account (with unrestricted public access) and remain for 14 days.

(C) Against the Third Defendant: i. For libel, the following damages are to be assessed:

General damages.

Aggravated damages.

Exemplary damages. ii. A permanent injunction restraining the Third Defendant, whether by itself or through its directors, officers, servants, agents, employees, nominees, or otherwise, from publishing or causing to be published the Defamatory Statements in the 20 July 2021 Notice or any words similarly defamatory of the Plaintiff. iii. An order that the Third Defendant removes the Notice from its Instagram account within one (1) day from the date of judgment. iv. An order that the Third Defendant, at its own cost, publishes an apology within three (3) days from the date of judgment, on terms proposed by the Plaintiff and approved by this Court. The apology shall be posted on the Third Defendant’s Instagram account (with unrestricted public access) and remain for 14 days. 35 The Defendants counterclaim the following from the Plaintiff, among other reliefs: a. An order requiring the Plaintiff to return management rights of the “KALYSTA SOULUV” WeChat account and the “KALYSTA.INTERNATIONAL” Instagram account to the Defendants within seven days of the court's judgment. b. A declaration that the Plaintiff breached the written agreement, understanding, practices, or systems established by the Defendants. c. General damages for the Plaintiff’s breach of the agreement, including a specific sum of RM217,936.68. d. An order for the Plaintiff to publish a statement on her Facebook and Instagram accounts within three days of the judgment, acknowledging that her previous claims (referenced in Paragraph 83) were untrue, using content provided by the Defendants. e. An order for the Plaintiff to issue an apology on her Facebook and Instagram accounts within three days of the judgment, using content provided by the Defendants. WITNESSES

The Plaintiff presented 4 (four) witnesses, and they are as follows:

Jane Tai Le Qian - PW1

Ng Ze Xuan -

Wong Ann Chee - PW3

Lim Siang Wee - PW4

The Defendants also called 4 (four) witnesses, and they are as follows:

Lee San San - DW1

Lee Shye Chean - DW2

Tan Sing How -

Lai Pui Khae - DW4 (the Second Defendant) ISSUES TO BE TRIED

The Agreed Issues to be Tried are as follows: a. Whether the 16 July 2021 WeChat Statement and/or 17 July 2021 Zoom Statement No.1 and/or 17 July 2021 Zoom Statement No.2 and/or 24 July 2021 WeChat Statement and/or 20 July 2021 WeChat Statement and/or Statement in the 20 July 2021 Notice amount to a serious libel and/or slander against the Plaintiff. b. Whether the 16 July 2021 WeChat Statement and/or 17 July 2021 Zoom Statement No.1 and/or 17 July 2021 Zoom Statement No.2 and/or 24 July 2021 WeChat Statement and/or 20 July 2021 WeChat Statement and/or Statement in the 20 July 2021 Notice are protected by qualified privilege and/or fair comment. c. Whether the Plaintiff and Defendants are entitled to their claims respectively under the Statement of Claim dated 22 September 2021 and Amended Counterclaim dated 8 November 2021. d. Whether the Plaintiff has breached the agreement and/or understanding and/or practice and/or system in Kalysta Sdn Bhd by committing an action that is contrary to the agreement and/or understanding and/or practice and/or system in Kalysta Sdn Bhd. e. If the Plaintiff has committed an act that is contrary to the agreement and/or understanding and/or practice and/or system in Kalysta Sdn Bhd, whether the Plaintiff shall return the bonuses amounting to RM217,936.68 for sales made during the period January to March 2021 which have been issued by Kalysta Sdn Bhd to the Plaintiff?

In the case of Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd v Hue Shieh Lee [2019] 3 MLJ 720, the Federal Court explained as follows: “[29] Defamation is committed when the defendant publishes to a third person words or matters containing untrue imputation against the reputation of the plaintiff. Liability for defamation is divided into two categories, that of libel and slander. If the publication is made in a permanent form or is broadcast or is part of a theatrical performance, it is libel. If it is in some transient form or is conveyed by spoken words or gestures, it is slander (see: Gatley on Libel and Slander, (9th Ed) at p 6). [30] In Ayob Saud v. TS Sambanthamurthi [1989] 1 MLJ 315; [1989] 1 CLJ 152; [1989] 1 CLJ (Rep) 321, His Lordship Mohamed Dzaiddin J (as he then was) has clearly laid down the necessary procedure in establishing claim for libel (with which we agree), when he said at p 361 (MLJ); p 155 (CLJ): In our law on libel, which is governed by the Defamation Act 1957, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to show (1) the words are defamatory; (2) the words refer to the plaintiff; and (3) the words were published. … [31] In other words, the plaintiff must prove three elements of the tort of defamation, which are:

the plaintiff must show that the statement bears defamatory imputations;

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

(iii) the statement must have been published to a third person by the defendant. [32] What is ‘defamatory imputation’? There is no precise test to be applied to determine whether or not any given words are defamatory. His Lordship Mohamed Azmi J (as he then was) in the case of Syed Husin Ali v Sharikat Penchetakan Utusan Melayu Berhad & Anor [1973] 2 MLJ 56 at p 58, quoting Gatley on Libel and Slander, (9th Ed) at p 4, stated the following: There is no wholly satisfactory definition of a defamatory imputation. Any imputation which may tend ‘to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally’, ‘to cut him off from society’ or ‘to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule’, is defamatory of him. An imputation may be defamatory whether or not it is believed by those to whom it is published. It was further quoted that: A defamatory imputation is one to a man’s discredit, or which tends to lower him in the estimation of others, or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to injure his reputation in his office, trade or profession, or to injure his financial credit. The standard of opinion is that of right thinking person’s generally. To be defamatory an imputation need have no actual effect on a person’s reputation; the law looks only to its tendency.” [emphasis added]

Therefore, to prove defamation, the Plaintiff must establish that: a. The statements are defamatory in nature. b. The statements refer to the Plaintiff. c. The statements are published to a third party.

When determining whether the statements are defamatory, the Court must interpret the words in their natural and ordinary meaning, as they would likely be understood by a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence (see: Rajagopal v Rajan [1972] 1 MLJ 45).

As the Court of Appeal decided in the case of Chok Foo Choo @ Chok Kee Lian v The China Press Bhd [1999] 1 MLJ 371, the ordinary and natural meaning includes any implication or inference that a reasonable reader, relying solely on general knowledge and unaffected by strict legal rules of interpretation, would derive from the words. Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as his lordship then was) in his judgment stated that- “It cannot, I think, be doubted that the first task of a court in an action for defamation is to determine whether the words complained of are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. And it is beyond argument that this is in essence a question of law that turns upon the construction of the words published. As Lord Morris put it in Jones v Skelton [1963] 3 All ER 952 at p 958: The ordinary and natural meaning of words may be either the literal meaning or it may be an implied or inferred or an indirect meaning: any meaning that does not require the support of extrinsic facts passing beyond general knowledge but is a meaning which is capable of being detected in the language used can be a part of the ordinary and natural meaning of words (see Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1963] 2 All ER 151). The ordinary and natural meaning may therefore include any implication or inference which a reasonable reader, guided not by any special but only by general knowledge and not fettered by any strict legal rules of construction, would draw from the words. The test of reasonableness guides and directs the court in its function of deciding whether it is open to a jury in any particular case to hold that reasonable persons would understand the words complained of in a defamatory sense. In my judgment, the test which is to be applied lies in the question: do the words published in their natural and ordinary meaning impute to the plaintiff any dishonourable or discreditable conduct or motives or a lack of integrity on his part? If the question invites an affirmative response, then the words complained of are defamatory. (See JB Jeyaretnam v Goh Chok Tong [1985] 1 MLJ 334.) Richard Malanjum J, in an admirable judgment in Tun Datuk Patinggi Haji Abdul-Rahman Ya'kub v Bre Sdn Bhd & Ors [1996] 1 MLJ 393, collected and reviewed the relevant authorities upon this branch of the subject and I would, with respect, expressly approve the approach adopted by him.”

The question then this Court has to ask is whether the said statements have the tendency to lower the estimation of the Plaintiff in the mind of right-thinking members of society generally, and that the Plaintiff is exposed to hatred, being avoided, shunned or ridiculed. Whether the statements published in their natural and ordinary meaning impute to the Plaintiff any dishonourable or discreditable conduct or motives or lack of integrity on her part? If the answer is in the affirmative, the statements are defamatory.

Defamation, once published, is akin to releasing feathers into the wind. Like scattered feathers, words of a defamatory nature cannot easily be retrieved or undone once they take flight. The damage caused by such words often spreads beyond the initial audience, impacting the victim’s reputation in ways that cannot be fully reversed.

This Court is tasked with determining whether the statements made by the Defendants constitute defamation and whether they have caused harm that warrants legal redress. In doing so, it is vital to consider not only the words themselves but also the broader implications of their dissemination and the irreversible nature of their impact.

Upon careful examination of the cause papers, thorough consideration of the detailed written submissions, and hearing the oral arguments presented by both parties, I find that the Plaintiff has, on a balance of probabilities, successfully established that all seven

statements are defamatory in nature, both directly and indirectly.

In reaching the decision, this Court considered the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in their context, as understood by reasonable members of society. The test applied was objective: What would a reasonable person infer from the statements, without requiring extrinsic knowledge? The Court found that the words clearly imputed dishonesty, lack of integrity, and disloyalty to the Plaintiff.

Malice was a recurring theme throughout the Court’s findings. The following factors indicated malice: a. The statements were made recklessly, without regard for their truth. b. The Defendants deliberately excluded the Plaintiff from opportunities to explain or rebut the allegations. c. Repeated publications on public platforms, such as Instagram, showed intent to maximise reputational damage.

This Court finds a wide dissemination of the defamatory statements-a. internal WeChat groups with hundreds of members. b. a Zoom meeting attended by over 200 colleagues. c. social media accounts with tens of thousands of followers. This extensive publication increased the harm caused to the Plaintiff and the defamatory impact of the statements.

I will now proceed to analyse each of the statements in detail to establish how the three (3) elements of defamation have been satisfied. Are the statements defamatory in nature?

Having carefully analysed all seven (7) purported defamatory statements, this Court finds that each of the statements is capable of lowering the Plaintiff’s estimation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. In their natural and ordinary meaning, the statements expose the Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or social ostracism.

Furthermore, this Court is of the considered view that the statements, when construed in their natural and ordinary sense, impute to the Plaintiff dishonourable or discreditable conduct, improper motives, or a lack of integrity, thereby tarnishing her reputation. Statement 1 - 16. July 2021 WeChat Defamatory Statements 53 The screenshots of the messages from WeChat groups with more than 600 members collectively showed the statements directly targeted the Plaintiff.

The statements were presented as factual conclusions following an alleged “investigation” by the Defendants, giving them a false sense of credibility and authority.

Sales representatives who were part of the group testified that the statements were understood as factual and damaging to the Plaintiff’s reputation.

This Court agrees with the Plaintiff that these statements, in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean that-a. the Plaintiff is a dishonest person and untrustworthy in her professional dealings. b. she is a manipulative leader who incites others to violate company rules. c. she is a compulsive liar who tells lies to cover up previous lies. d. she plotted to harm Kalysta’s operations and culture for personal gain. e. she lacks integrity and moral values, making her unfit for her position.

It is evident that the messages accused the Plaintiff of dishonesty, scheming to harm Kalysta, manipulating others to violate company rules, and enriching herself at the company’s expense. The Statements included phrases like “dishonest,” “manipulative,” “compulsive liar,” and “irresponsible leader,” which imputed serious moral failings.

This Court accepts that the statements published in the two WeChat groups accused the Plaintiff of dishonesty, manipulation, and inciting others to violate company rules. Specific allegations included that the Plaintiff was plotting to harm the company’s culture and operations and cheat Kalysta for personal financial gain. These imputations suggested that the Plaintiff was untrustworthy, scheming, and immoral. To right-thinking members of society, these allegations would cast doubt on her character, portraying her as a person lacking honesty, professional ethics, and integrity. The statements were inherently damaging to her reputation, particularly within the professional network where she was a leader.

The First Defendant accused the Plaintiff of harming Kalysta’s operations and culture, painting her untrustworthy and disloyal.

The statements were made during a meeting attended by over 200 participants. The transcript captured the defamatory remarks in their natural meaning.

The meeting was attended by sales representatives from Kalysta, many of whom worked directly under the Plaintiff, amplifying the harm to her professional standing.

The Plaintiff was not invited to the meeting, denying her the opportunity to defend herself, which reinforced the defamatory nature of the statements.

This Court agrees with the Plaintiff that these statements in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean that-a. the Plaintiff acted in a manner that damaged Kalysta’s organisational culture. b. she is disloyal to Kalysta and has violated its core values. c. she is an individual who cannot be trusted to fulfil her professional responsibilities.

This Court finds that during the company-wide Zoom meeting, the First Defendant reiterated allegations of dishonesty, claiming that the Plaintiff had acted against Kalysta’s interests and harmed its organisational culture. These statements, delivered in a professional setting to an audience of over 200 colleagues, implied that the Plaintiff was unfit for leadership and guilty of professional misconduct. By accusing her of such serious transgressions, the statements impugned her moral character and professional reputation, portraying her as a person motivated by self-interest at the expense of the company.

The Defendants accused the Plaintiff of unethical conduct, including betraying Kalysta by operating another business (“Everyday”).

The statements were specific and directly linked to the Plaintiff, asserting that she had acted in bad faith.

The Defendants claimed the Plaintiff admitted her involvement in “Everyday” during their investigation. However, cross-examination revealed that this “confession” was misrepresented and unsupported by credible evidence.

Witnesses testified that such accusations damaged the Plaintiff’s leadership role and trust within the company.

This Court agrees with the Plaintiff that these statements in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean that-a. the Plaintiff engaged in unethical business practices by running another business, "Everyday", while employed by Kalysta. b. she betrayed Kalysta by acting contrary to her contractual and moral obligations. c. she is motivated by personal greed at the expense of the company.

This Court finds that the second statement made during the same Zoom meeting accused the Plaintiff of unethical business practices, including betraying Kalysta. The natural and ordinary meaning of these words suggested that the Plaintiff was deceitful and disloyal. Such accusations would likely lead right-thinking members of society to view the Plaintiff as lacking integrity and loyalty. The repeated dissemination of these allegations during the meeting reinforced the defamatory nature of the statements and aggravated the harm to her reputation. Statement 4 – 20 July 2021 WeChat Defamatory Statement @ 9.03 p.m

These statements repeated allegations of dishonesty and policy violations, framing the Plaintiff as unfit for her position within Kalysta.

The messages were sent to over 1,000 members across three WeChat groups, including Kalysta sales representatives.

The statements were framed as official updates from Kalysta’s leadership, which would lead recipients to believe the allegations were factual.

The Plaintiff’s standing among her peers was significantly affected, as shown through testimony and the Plaintiff’s evidence of reduced professional opportunities.

This Court agrees with the Plaintiff that these statements in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean that-a. the Plaintiff breached Kalysta’s policies by engaging in prohibited external business activities. b. she is untrustworthy and has no respect for her commitments or the company’s rules. c. her actions jeopardised the interests of Kalysta and its sales representatives.

This Court finds that the statements published in three large WeChat groups accused the Plaintiff of breaching company policies and engaging in dishonest conduct to undermine Kalysta. These allegations were presented as facts rather than opinions, which implied that the Plaintiff was dishonest, manipulative, and unethical. In their natural meaning, the statements suggested the Plaintiff had no regard for professional standards or integrity, damaging her standing in both her professional network and among members of the general public who might come across the accusations. Statement 5 – Defamatory Statement on the 20 July 2021 Notice in the Wechat Groups @ 9.09 p.m.

This notice accused the Plaintiff of unethical behavior, dishonesty, and breaching her contractual obligations.

The notice was presented in a formal tone, enhancing its credibility and the belief that its contents were factual.

The notice was shared widely within Kalysta and on social media, and the notice reached both professional and public audiences, further spreading the defamatory imputations.

This Court agrees with the Plaintiff that these statements in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean that-a. the Plaintiff is guilty of unethical behaviour and breaches of her contractual obligations with Kalysta. b. she is dishonest and acts in bad faith to undermine the company. d. the Plaintiff’s actions caused harm to the company’s operations and reputation.

This Court finds that the formal notice disseminated via WeChat and social media further accused the Plaintiff of unethical behaviour and breaching her contractual obligations. The tone and content of the notice implied authoritative judgment against the Plaintiff, suggesting that her actions were deliberate and malicious. The statements directly imputed dishonesty and a lack of professional ethics, portraying the Plaintiff as someone unworthy of trust or respect. This would naturally lower her reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society, particularly within her professional community. Statement 6 – Defamatory Statement in the 20.07.2021 Notice on Instagram (Republished).

The Defendants republished the defamatory notice on Instagram, sharing it with tens of thousands of followers.

Instagram accounts with significant followings (175,000 followers for the Second Defendant’s account) ensured the notice reached a large and diverse audience, amplifying its harm.

The republication emphasised the allegations, reinforcing the perception of the Plaintiff as dishonest and unethical.

The Plaintiff submitted screenshots showing the reach and impact of the posts, which tarnished her reputation in both professional and public spheres.

This Court agrees with the Plaintiff that these statements in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean that-a. the Plaintiff is dishonest, unethical, and has acted against the interests of Kalysta. b. she is responsible for professional misconduct that breached her contractual duties.

This Court finds that the republication of the defamatory notice on Instagram accounts with large followings significantly broadened the audience exposed to the allegations. The notice reiterated accusations of dishonesty, betrayal, and unethical conduct, portraying the Plaintiff as a person of questionable morals. By disseminating these statements to thousands of social media followers, the Defendants amplified the harm to her reputation. The publication was not only damaging to her professional standing but also to her personal reputation among the general public.

This statement accused the Plaintiff of undermining Kalysta’s values and betraying the trust of her team.

Published in the SOULUV WeChat group, consisting of 404 members directly tied to the Plaintiff’s professional work.

Testimony indicated that the Plaintiff’s leadership and integrity were questioned as a result of the statement, isolating her from her team.

The Defendants failed to provide proof supporting their claims, further highlighting the defamatory nature of the accusations.

This Court agrees with the Plaintiff that these statements in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean that-a. the Plaintiff betrayed the trust of her team and the company. b. she acted in a way that undermined Kalysta’s values and integrity. c. she is a disloyal and unethical leader who failed her responsibilities.

This Court finds that the statement published in the SOULUV WeChat group accused the Plaintiff of undermining Kalysta’s values and operations. These allegations directly targeted her integrity and leadership capabilities within her immediate professional circle. By accusing her of betraying the trust of the organisation and its members, the statement portrayed the Plaintiff as deceitful and unethical. This would lead right-thinking members of society to question her morality and professional integrity, further isolating her within her professional community.

Therefore, taken together, the seven (7) statements in question imputed serious allegations of dishonesty, betrayal, manipulation, and unethical behaviour to the Plaintiff. It further portrayed her as an individual with questionable morals, a lack of integrity, and no respect for professional or contractual obligations. Their natural and ordinary meanings were defamatory.

These allegations, presented as factual and disseminated widely within her professional network and to the public, caused significant damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation. In their natural and ordinary meaning, the statements clearly exposed the Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, and contempt among right-thinking members of society.

Furthermore, upon perusal of the transcripts containing the alleged defamatory statements, I find that the statements constitute a direct personal and character attack against the Plaintiff, employing language that is strong, harsh, and lacking in propriety. Whether the statements refer to the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff must prove that the defamatory statements referred to her, either explicitly or by implication. The test is whether individuals acquainted with the Plaintiff would reasonably understand the statements to refer to her.

This Court finds no dispute that all seven (7) statements referred to the Plaintiff.

It is undisputed that many of the statements referred to the Plaintiff by name (e.g., Stella Ng or Ng Ze Xuan) and explicitly connected her to the allegations of dishonesty and unethical behaviour.

References to the Plaintiff’s leadership role in Kalysta (“SOULUV” group leader) and specific business dealings left no ambiguity about her identity.

Additionally, witness testimony confirmed that recipients of the WeChat messages and attendees of the Zoom meeting understood the statements to be about the Plaintiff.

Thus, this element is established. Whether the statements are published to a third party

Publication occurs when the defamatory statements are communicated to at least one person other than the Plaintiff (see: S Pakianathan v Jenni Ibrahim [1988] 2 MLJ 173). The extent of publication affects the level of harm caused and the damages awarded.

In the present case, this Court finds that all seven (7) statements were widely published to third parties, including the sales representatives of the Third Defendant and the general public, through various platforms such as the Zoom meeting, WeChat, and Instagram posting exacerbating the harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation. a. 16 July 2021 WeChat Statements: - Shared in two (2) WeChat groups with 297 and 318 members, respectively, consisting of Kalysta sales representatives. b. 17 July 2021 Zoom Statements (Nos. 1 & 2): - Made during a Zoom meeting attended by over 200 sales representatives, who were informed about the alleged misconduct. c. 20 July 2021 WeChat Statements and Notice: - Shared in three (3) WeChat groups with over 1,000 members collectively. d. Republished Notice: - Disseminated on Instagram accounts with tens of thousands of followers (e.g., the Second Defendant’s account had 175,000 followers). The republication significantly broadened the audience, extending the harm to a wider public audience. e. 24 July 2021 WeChat Statement: - Published in the “SOULUV” WeChat group, consisting of 404 members directly linked to the Plaintiff’s professional network.

In conclusion, the general evidence supporting defamation across all seven (7) statements are: a. No Supporting Proof by the Defendants i. The Defendants claimed the Plaintiff admitted to wrongdoing during their investigation, but this was shown to be unsubstantiated during cross-examination. ii. There was no corroborative evidence to support allegations of dishonesty or unethical behaviour. b. Malicious Intent i. The Defendants acted with express malice, as evidenced by their failure to verify the truth of their statements and their repeated publications across multiple platforms. ii. The exclusion of the Plaintiff from key discussions and meetings demonstrated bad faith and a deliberate intent to harm her reputation. c. Widespread Publication The statements were disseminated through internal company channels, social media, and public platforms, ensuring maximum damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation.

It is well-established that once the three (3) elements are proven, the burden then shifts to the Defendants to substantiate their defences.

Once the three (3) elements are established, the burden of proof shifts to the Defendants to substantiate, with credible evidence, their pleaded defences and/or demonstrate that the impugned statements are not defamatory (see: Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Dr M Mahadevan v Dr Jeyaratnam Mahalingam Ratnavale [2015] 1

The Defendants may raise the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege.

Section 8 of the Defamation Act 1957 provides for the defence of justification. Under the defence of justification, the Defendants must prove that the defamatory statements are true or substantially true. A mere belief that the allegations were truthful is insufficient (see: S Pakianathan v Jenni Ibrahim [supra]). The burden of proof lies entirely on the Defendants (see: Dato’ Seri Mohammad Nizar bin Jamaluddin v Sistem Televisyen Malaysia & Anor [2014] 4 MLJ 242).

This Court finds that the Defendants failed to present credible evidence proving the Plaintiff’s alleged dishonesty, unethical conduct, or involvement in the business “Everyday”.

Even if the Plaintiff’s involvement in “Everyday” was true (which was not proven), the statements went beyond this and accused her of being a “compulsive liar” and a “manipulative leader”, imputations that were unconnected to the purported investigation.

While the Defendants claimed the Plaintiff confessed during their investigation, cross-examination revealed inconsistencies and the Plaintiff denied the allegations.

The statements contained accusations far beyond what was supposedly investigated, such as branding the Plaintiff as a person lacking moral values.

In defamation law, defamatory statements are presumed false unless proven otherwise. The Defendants did not meet this burden, and their inability to justify the statements further highlighted their defamatory nature.

The defence of fair comment is provided under section 9 of the Defamation Act 1957. In the case of J.B. Jeyaretnam v Goh Chok Tong [1985] 1 MLJ 334 held that for the defence of fair comment to succeed, the Defendants must establish the following elements: a. The statements were comments, not assertions of fact. b. The comments were based on true facts. c. The comments concerned matters of public interest. d. The comments were ones a fair-minded person could honestly make on the proven facts.

The defence of fair comment will fail if the statements are actuated by express malice.

The Defendants contended that their statements were fair comments based on their investigation into the Plaintiff’s alleged breach of contract by engaging in another business ("Everyday") during her tenure as a general agent for the Third Defendant.

This Court finds that the defence of fair comment could not succeed for several reasons- a. the statements were not comments but assertions of fact, presented as conclusive findings from an alleged investigation. For example, the Defendants stated that the Plaintiff was a “compulsive liar” and a “betrayer” without providing context or framing these as opinions. b. the Defendants’ investigation lacked credibility. The alleged “confession” by the Plaintiff was contradicted during cross-examination, and the Defendants failed to produce any independent evidence substantiating the claims. c. while professional misconduct may be a matter of public interest within Kalysta, the statements went beyond legitimate critique and attacked the Plaintiff’s character. d. malice was evident in the Defendants’ actions, particularly their decision to repeatedly publish defamatory content on platforms such as Instagram. This Court finds that the statements were motivated by a desire to harm the Plaintiff rather than to inform the public.

For the defence of qualified privilege to succeed, it must be demonstrated that the occasion on which the communication is made arises from a duty or interest—whether legal, social, or moral—on the part of the publisher to make the communication, and a corresponding duty or interest on the part of the recipient to receive it. The Federal Court in the case of Dato’ Dr Low Bin Tick v Datuk Chong Tho Chin & Other Appeals [2017] 8 CLJ 369, explained that whether an occasion is a privileged occasion depends on the circumstances of each case. The Court stated- “Qualified privilege depends on the occasion upon which the communication is made, and not the communication itself. A qualified privilege occasion is an occasion where the person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty, legal, social or moral to make it to the person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is so made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. If the communication were made in pursuance of a duty or on a matter in which there was a common interest in the party making and the party receiving it, the occasion is said to be one of qualified privilege. Whether an occasion is a privileged occasion depends on the circumstances of each case, the nature of the information and the relation of speaker and recipient. It is for the judge alone to determine as a matter of law whether the occasion is privileged (Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309; [1916-17] All ER Rep. 157).”

However, the privilege is defeated by malice or if the statements go beyond the scope of the duty or interest.

The Defendants claimed that the statements were made in discharge of their duty to inform agents within the company about the Plaintiff’s misconduct and alleged breach of contract.

This Court concluded that the Defendants’ reliance on qualified privilege was unsuccessful for the following reasons: a. The defence failed to demonstrate a reciprocal duty or interest between the Defendants and the recipients of the defamatory statements. The audience of social media followers, particularly those unrelated to Kalysta, had no legitimate interest in receiving the statements. While internal communication within Kalysta’s WeChat groups might have been privileged, the republication of the statements on Instagram to tens of thousands of followers lacked any legitimate purpose or duty. b. The Defendants’ language extended beyond what was necessary, including irrelevant and exaggerated personal attacks, such as calling the Plaintiff a “compulsive liar” and “irresponsible leader”. These extraneous statements were not protected by privilege. c. This Court finds that the Defendants acted with malice by recklessly publishing the statements without verifying their truth. For instance, the Defendants’ “investigation” was limited and failed to address the content of the defamatory statements. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to provide evidence of genuine intent to protect the company's interests. d. this Court concluded that the statements were made with the intent to damage the Plaintiff’s reputation rather than to fulfil any legitimate duty (see: Abdul Rahman Talib v Seenivasagam & Anor [1965] 1 MLJ 142b - malice when language is unnecessarily strong).

The Defendants also argued that the principle of bane and antidote applies to negate the defamatory meaning of the statements. Specifically, they contended that the statements must be read in their entirety, including the context or purpose of the publication, which allegedly neutralised the sting of the defamatory words.

The principle of bane and antidote, as articulated in Chalmers v Payne [1835] 2 C.M. & R. 156, provides that-a. where a statement contains both defamatory and non-defamatory material, the entire context must be considered to determine whether the defamatory meaning is neutralised. b. the “antidote” must appear within the same publication and directly address the “bane” (the defamatory sting). It cannot rely on external references or subsequent clarifications to mitigate the defamatory content.

However, this Court finds that the Defendants’ reliance on the bane and antidote principle is misplaced for the following reasons: a. No identifiable antidote: The Defendants failed to identify specific parts of their publications that could neutralise the defamatory sting. For example: i. in the 16 July 2021 WeChat Statements, the accusations of dishonesty, manipulation, and being a “compulsive liar” were standalone defamatory remarks. The publication did not contain any mitigating language or context within the same statements. ii. similarly, in the 20 July 2021 Notice, the formal tone and authoritative language amplified the defamatory meaning rather than neutralised it. b. Improper reliance on external context: The Defendants attempted to rely on the purpose of the statements, such as updating sales representatives or addressing alleged misconduct, to justify their publications. However, under Chalmers v Payne (supra), external purposes or investigations cannot act as antidotes unless explicitly included in the same publication. For example, the alleged investigation into the Plaintiff’s involvement in “Everyday” was not referenced within the defamatory statements themselves. As such, it could not serve as an antidote to mitigate the sting. c. Defamatory sting not neutralised: In all seven (7) statements, the defamatory content was unambiguous and unqualified. For example: i. The 17 July 2021 Zoom statements explicitly accused the Plaintiff of betrayal and dishonesty without providing any balancing or mitigating context. ii. The 24 July 2021 WeChat Statement accused the Plaintiff of undermining company values and betraying trust, with no accompanying language that could soften the defamatory impact. d. Improper conflation with other defences: The Defendants conflated the principle of bane and antidote with the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege. While fair comment and qualified privilege may require an assessment of the broader context or purpose, the principle of bane and antidote is strictly confined to the publication's content.

Furthermore, this Court notes that the issue of bane and antidote was neither pleaded nor supported by any evidence presented during the trial. It is a well-established principle that parties are bound by their pleadings (see: Samuel Naik Siang Ting v Public Bank Bhd [2015] 6 MLJ 1).

Hence, the Defendants’ defence bears no connection to the attacks on the Plaintiff's character as conveyed in the defamatory statements.

Upon careful examination of all the defamatory statements, it is apparent that the Defendants were motivated by malice and bad faith in making these assertions against the Plaintiff.

The defamatory statements have caused significant harm to the Plaintiff’s character, credibility, and, most critically, her reputation as an individual and a businesswoman.

In conclusion, the evidence clearly demonstrated that the seven (7) statements, in their natural and ordinary meaning, imputed dishonesty, lack of integrity, and discreditable conduct to the Plaintiff. These imputations were supported by the Defendants’ choice of words, the contexts in which the statements were published, and the significant harm caused to the Plaintiff’s reputation among her peers and the public. The Defendants’ failure to substantiate their allegations or provide any credible defences further solidified the defamatory nature of the statements.

This Court finds the Plaintiff and her witnesses to be credible and reliable. The testimonies were consistent, clear and supported by evidence. The Plaintiff’s account of events was coherent and remained unshaken during cross-examination, which further reinforced her credibility.

Conversely, this Court finds the Defendants’ witnesses to lack credibility. Their testimonies were marked by contradictions, evasiveness and inconsistencies. The Defendants failed to substantiate their claims with reliable evidence, and their responses during cross-examination were defensive and often vague. Furthermore, the demeanour of the Defendants’ witnesses suggested an unwillingness to engage with key issues, further diminishing their reliability.

The Defendants’ counterclaim alleged that the Plaintiff breached her contract, resulting in claims for recovery of bonuses, commissions, and social media accounts.

The Defendants argued that-a. the Plaintiff breached clause 10.4 of the Independent Contractor Agreement, which prohibited agents from engaging in activities that conflicted with their role in Kalysta. b. the Plaintiff’s alleged involvement in “Everyday” constituted a competing business, which diverted her attention and resources away from her responsibilities at Kalysta. c. the Plaintiff influenced other agents to leave Kalysta, causing financial and reputational harm to the company.

This Court finds that the Defendants failed to prove that the Plaintiff breached the Independent Contractor Agreement for the following reasons: a. Insufficient Evidence of Competing Business i. The Plaintiff admitted to financially assisting “Everyday”, a business run by her boyfriend’s brother, but denied receiving any profits or managing its operations. ii. The Defendants failed to provide credible evidence demonstrating that the Plaintiff’s involvement in “Everyday” conflicted with her duties at Kalysta. iii. Witness testimony supported the Plaintiff’s position that her financial assistance was personal and unrelated to her professional role. b. Allegations of Influencing Agents Unsubstantiated i. The Defendants alleged that the Plaintiff encouraged other agents to leave Kalysta but did not provide specific evidence or identify any agents who were influenced. ii. This claim appeared speculative and was not adequately pleaded or supported during the trial. c. Failure to Prove Financial Harm i. The Defendants did not quantify or substantiate any alleged financial losses resulting from the Plaintiff’s actions. ii. The absence of tangible harm undermined their claim for breach of contract.

The Defendants contended that: a. Bonuses and commissions were contingent upon the Plaintiff fulfilling her contractual obligations. b. By breaching the agreement, the Plaintiff forfeited her entitlement to these payments, and the Defendants were entitled to recover the sums already paid.

This Court finds that the Defendants are not entitled to recover bonuses and commissions paid to the Plaintiff for the following reasons: a. No Evidence of Forfeiture Clause i. The Independent Contractor Agreement (clauses 8.1 and 10.4) did not include a forfeiture clause entitling the Defendants to reclaim bonuses or commissions already paid. ii. The Defendants failed to demonstrate that the Plaintiff’s alleged breach of contract automatically invalidated her entitlement to these payments. b. Bonuses Already Earned Bonuses and commissions were tied to the Plaintiff’s past performance, which was undisputedly successful. The Defendants presented no evidence to suggest that these payments were unearned or conditional on ongoing contractual compliance.

The Defendants claimed that-a. the WeChat and Instagram accounts used by the Plaintiff for her role as a General Agent were owned by the Third Defendant. b. these accounts contained proprietary information and were integral to Kalysta’s business operations. c. upon termination, the Plaintiff was contractually obligated to return these accounts to the company.

This Court finds no basis for the Defendants’ claim over the Plaintiff’s WeChat and Instagram accounts for the following reasons: a. The Defendants have failed to establish that they have any right to the accounts in question. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the accounts were created, maintained, or owned by Kalysta. b. The Defendants have not proven that the Instagram account is under the Plaintiff's control. c. The Defendants have not provided evidence to prove the existence of the WeChat account in question.

In conclusion, the Defendants’ counterclaim is dismissed for the following reasons: a. The allegations of breach of contract, including the Plaintiff’s alleged involvement in “Everyday” and influencing agents, were speculative and unsupported by evidence. b. The Defendants failed to establish a legal or factual basis for recovering bonuses and commissions. c. The claim for the return of social media accounts lacked contractual and evidentiary support.

Hence, this Court finds that the counterclaim was unsubstantiated and devoid of merit. The Defendants have failed to prove their counterclaim on a balance of probabilities.

This Court finds that the Plaintiff has proven her case against the Defendants on a balance of probabilities.

Damages in defamation serve two primary purposes: a. To compensate the Plaintiff for harm caused to their reputation, emotional well-being, and standing in society. b. To vindicate the Plaintiff’s reputation, signalling to the public that the defamatory statements were unfounded.

In this case, this Court allowed general damages and aggravated damages to be awarded to the Plaintiff.

It is trite that libel is actionable per se. Therefore, harm to reputation is presumed, and there is no need for the Plaintiff to prove actual damage (see: Abdul Rahman Talib v Seenivasagam & Anor (supra); MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & other appeals [1995] 2 MLJ 493).

The factors to be considered are outlined in the case of Chin Choon v Chua Jui Meng [2005] 2 CLJ 569, include: a. The gravity of the allegations. b. The size and influence of the circulation. c. The effect of the publication. d. The extent and nature of the Plaintiff’s reputation. e. The behaviour of the Defendant. f. The behaviour of the Plaintiff.

Additionally, in MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & other appeals (supra), the Court emphasised factors such as: a. Any mental disturbance, disappointment and/or feelings of hurt that the Plaintiff has suffered; b. The uncertainty felt by the Plaintiff during trial; c. The absence of refusal of any apology or retraction or correction of libel; and d. Any malice on the part of the Defendant.

The Court finds that the defamatory statements caused substantial harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation and emotional well-being.

The allegations against the Plaintiff, including fraud, dishonesty, manipulation, and betrayal, were severe attacks on her character and professional integrity. These accusations have long-lasting effects on the Plaintiff’s reputation and credibility.

The defamatory statements were widely disseminated across multiple platforms: a. WeChat, where hundreds of sales representatives received the statements. b. Instagram, where the posts were public and accessible to a global audience. c. Zoom, where defamatory remarks were made during a formal meeting attended by a large audience.

The wide circulation of these statements exacerbated the damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation. The standing of the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff is a business leader and social media influencer with over 17,300 Instagram followers. Her professional reputation was integral to her career, and the defamatory statements caused irreparable harm.

The Plaintiff experienced significant humiliation and emotional distress due to the public and persistent nature of the defamatory statements.

Aggravated damages are awarded to reflect the heightened harm caused by the Defendant’s malicious or reckless conduct.

Aggravated damages are appropriate when the Defendant acted with malice or a reckless disregard for the truth, compounding the harm caused to the Plaintiff (see: Rookes v Barnard and Others [1964] AC 1129).

Aggravated damages may also be awarded where the Defendant refuses to retract or apologise, prolonging the harm caused by the defamatory statements (see: MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & other appeals (supra)).

Widespread publications on social media are particularly harmful due to their permanence and global reach, warranting consideration for aggravated damages (see: Peguam Negara Malaysia v Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 2 MLJ 652). 158 This Court finds that the Defendants’ conduct warrants the award of aggravated damages for the following reasons: a. Malicious and Deliberate Acts i. The First Defendant knowingly made false statements during the Zoom meeting, attributing blame to the Plaintiff for acts committed by another individual. ii. The Second Defendant reposted defamatory statements on Instagram 1½ years after the initial publication, causing renewed humiliation to the Plaintiff. b. Failure to Apologise Despite receiving a Letter of Demand, the Defendants refused to retract or apologise for their statements, prolonging the harm caused to the Plaintiff. c. Exacerbating Harm Through Social Media The Second Defendant instructed approximately 1,000 sales representatives to repost defamatory content, significantly amplifying the reach and harm caused by the statements. d. Persistent Malice The Defendants refused to remove the defamatory “Menang Kes” Instagram Story Highlight, even after the Sessions Court’s decision referenced was overturned in favour of the Plaintiff.

Guided by the precedents established in the authorities submitted by the parties on damages, and having carefully considered the gravity of the allegations, the breadth and influence of the circulation, the impact of the publication, the extent of harm caused to the Plaintiff’s reputation, and the Defendants’ lack of remorse, including their failure to issue an apology to date, I find the following damages to be appropriate: a. The First Defendant i. 16 July 2021 WeChat Defamatory Statement ii. 17 July 2021 Zoom Defamatory Statement 1 & 2 (taken as one since it was published to the same set of people at the same event) iii. Defamatory Statement on 20 July 2021 Notice in Instagram iv. 24 July 2021 WeChat Defamatory Statement v. Aggravated Damages RM70,000 b.

20 July 2021 WeChat Defamatory Statement @ 9.03 p.m.

(ii) Defamatory Statement on the 20 July 2021 Notice in the WeChat Groups @ 9.09 p.m. RM50,000

(iii) Defamatory Statement on 20 July 2021 Notice in Instagram

(iv) Aggravated Damages RM80,000 c. The Third Defendant Defamatory Statement on 20 July 2021 Notice in Instagram RM100,000 —————- RM600,000

For the foregoing reasons, I, therefore, ordered that the Plaintiff’s claim as per the prayers in paragraphs 64.1, 64.9 and 64.17 for damages be allowed as stated above. The remaining prayers in paragraph 64 of the Statement of Claim are allowed as sought. The Defendants’ counterclaim is dismissed. The Defendants are to pay costs of RM60,000.00 to the Plaintiff. Dated: 21 January 2025 -sgd-JAMHIRAH ALI JUDGE High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam (NCVC 1) To the parties’ solicitors: For the Plaintiff : Bryan Ho Jiann Yau, Siew Kai Hwei & Kimberly Ng Wenn Mei (Messrs Ho Partnership) For the Defendants: Pung Jenn Jiang (Messrs Y.F. Chan & Partners) TABLE B No. Statement (as defined in SOC) Date Excerpt (emboldened parts, as extracted from SOC)

1.

16.7.2021 WeChat

16.7.2021 “Syarikat telah memberi kuasa secara rasmi untuk mengeluarkan notis: Berita penting KALYSTA Selepas disiasat dan disahkan oleh syarikat, bahawa STELLA NG ZE XUAN, orang ini, telah melanggari sistem syarikat dengan serius semasa tempoh dia sebagai Ketua Ejen jenama. Dia telah melanggari konsep operasi yang jujur, memudaratkan system dan budaya dalam tempoh dia sebagai ejen, kredibilitinya amat dipersoalkan, ini adalah didapati selepas siasatan syarikat dan laporan melalui mesej yang dibuat oleh beberapa orang pemimpin. 1st Defendant A/69-71 C1/4-6 Dari 2021/5/28 hingga 2021/6/03, ketika syarikat mulai membuat siasatan ke atasnya, dia telah berkali-kali berbohong, menyembunyikan fakta, akhirnya, setelah dia mendapati bahawa syarikat telah mempunyai pengetahuan dan pemimpin lain telah membuat laporan tentangnya, dia mula menolak tanggungjawab dia sendirinya kepada orang lain, pada akhirnya, apabila syarikat memutuskan untuk membatalkan pemberikuasaannya, barulah dia sudi untuk mengakui semua perkara yang telah dilakukannya dan berharap dapat dimaafkan oleh syarikat. Syarikat telah mengesahkan bahawa, dari April 2021, dia mula mengambil bahagian dalam operasi jenama lain, mempergunakan nama orang lain namun, dia yang sebenarnya mengambil bahagian dalam operasi dan pengawalan membuat rancangan untuk mejejaskan hak dan kepentingan syarikat dan ejennya. Dalam tempoh tersebut, dia cuba menyembunyikan perkara tersebut daripada semua orang, sehingga Mei, oleh kerana insiden YBB, syarikat telah membatalkan pemberikuasaannya dan apabila sedang menangani urusan yang berkaitan dan penyerahan, STELLA mengambil kesempatan pada masa syarikat sedang sibuk dengan urusan tersebut, dia telah melakukan perkara yang untuk mendapat kemasyhuran dan untuk kepentingan dirinya untuk mendapatkan keuntungan tanpa kebenaran syarikat, dan berniat untuk memudaratkan jenama. Selepas syarikat mengeluarkan notis untuk memberhentikan semua urusan YBB, dia telah mencari pihak tersebut untuk mempromosikan jenama tanpa izin, yang hampir menyebabkan kerosakan ke atas reputasi yang tidak dapat dipulihkan ke atas jenama kami, apabila beberapa pemimpin yang datang untuk mengesah, syarikat telah memberitahunya sebaik sahaja mendapat tahu, dia berpura-pura tidak terlihat mesej WhatsApp & WeChat & dia juga tidak menjawab telefon bimbitnya, dengan sengaja menunggu selama lebih dari 30 minit dan hampir satu jam kemudian, sehingga syarikat meminta YBB untuk membatalkan promosi tersebut, barulah dia meninggalkan mesej pesanan kepada YBB. Selepas itu, dia telah memberi kami banyak alasan, berbohong dan memberi jaminan dengan yakin, namun, kami mempunyai bukti bahawa dia sengaja melakukan perkara tersebut, sengaja tidak memadamkannya dengan secepat mungkin, demi kemasyhuran di media sosial peribadinya dan untuk penjualan stok, sanggup mencari seorang yang telah dibatal pemberikuasaannya oleh syarikat oleh kerana dia menipu orang ramai, untuk mempromosikan jenama dan dirinya. Termasuk dia menyertai jenama lain, menyembunyikan daripada syarikat Sengaja melanggar peraturan. Dalam situasi pelanggaran peraturan dan menyembunyikannya dengan sengaja Berniat untuk menipu bonus kepemimpinan penggal terkini Juga terus mencemarkan nama syarikat dan menghasut orang lain untuk melanggari peraturan, pada akhirnya, apabila syarikat telah menyiasat dan mengesahkannya, dia telah banyak kali menolak tanggungjawabnya kepada pemimpin lain di bawahnya, memfitnah nama orang lain dan cuba menipu syarikat. Kami memberinya banyak peluang untuk mengaku Tetapi dia memilih untuk berbohong untuk menutup pembohongannya Tingkah lakunya telah menghancurkan ketiga-tiga pandangan Sebagai seorang pemimpin tahap atasan, bukan sahaja dia tidak memimpin dengan teladan yang baik, namun, dirinya telah dijadikan teladan yang buruk Dia telah meminta maaf dan mengaku, namun, ini hanyalah untuk mendapat kemaafan dan berpura-pura bahawa dia telah berubah untuk menjadi baik. Apabila dia mendapat tahu bahawa dia tidak dimaafkan, dia terus berpaling muka dan tidak mengaku perkara tersebut. "Dia secara sepihak" menterbalikkan perkara yang betul dan salah dan menyesatkan orang bawahannya yang mempercayainya, dia juga memfitnah pemimpin lain dengan sengaja untuk menutup kebenaran sebenarnya. Perkara-perkara seperti itu telah memudaratkan nama dan perkembangan pemimpin lain, walaupun selepas pemberikuasaannya ditamatkan, dia masih banyak kali menghalang operasi syarikat sehingga kini, tidak ingin memberikan kerjasama dan membuat penjelasan. Malam ini, kami akan mengadakan mesyuarat kecemasan dan penting pada pukul 10.30 malam, melalui ZOOM. Kami Bersama dengan para pemimpin akan menjelaskan supaya semua orang akan faham tentang kejadian ini! Sila menghubungi pemimpin anda, sertai kumpulan yang baru dan dapatkan LINK Catatan: Mesyuarat ini hanya terhad kepada ejen yang diberi kuasa, dan hanya boleh membuat pemberitahuan secara dalaman. Ia adalah tidak dibenarkan untuk menjemput orang yang tidak berkenaan dan merakam tanpa kebenaran. Tidak dibenarkan untuk menghantar mesej lain kepada ejen bukan untuk jenama kami, sila mematuhi peraturan mesyuarat.”

2.

17.7.2021 Zoom Defamatory

17.7.2021 “Selepas itu, atas perkara ini, Stella telah menjelaskan bahawa ini adalah kerana ahli keluarganya terlalu sibuk, terlalu banyak kerja, jadi dia memilih untuk membantu untuk mengepek stok. Rupa-rupanya, dia membantu mengepek stok sampai membantu untuk memperkenalkan adik sepupu perempuannya untuk membuat pembasmi kuman. Kemudian, dia kata, adik sepupu 1st Defendant A/76 D1/181-182, 221-222 perempuannya tidak mahu membuat perniagaan kurus badan. Saya pun terimalah ini, tiada paksaan. Tetapi hari ini, dia mengambil segalanya, kamu tahulah, satu orang, jika dia sedang membuat sesuatu, dia akan mempunyai alasan untuk setiap perkara, dan boleh bercakap dengan semula jadi, ini bermaksud bahawa ini sudah dirancangkan terlebih dahulu. Ini bukanlah saya telah melanggari peraturan tersebut secara tidak sengaja, ini bukanlah saya telah melakukan kesalahan secara tidak sengaja. Namun, dia telah merancang keseluruhan kejadian ini terlebih dahulu, dan selepas berlakunya kejadian ini, dia mempunyai Pelan A, Pelan B dan Pelan C untuk menjelaskan keseluruhan prosesnya dengan lengkap." “... Dengan ini, saya ingin memaklumkan semua, saya rasa semua telah tahu apa muslihat mereka. Muslihat dia adalah, dia sudah meramalkannya, dia sudah meramalkannya, apa yang telah diramalkan? Sama ada dia ditangkap oleh pihak syarikat terlebih dahulu dan pemberikuasaannya akan dibatalkan, ataupun, dia dapat menyeret perkara ini selama setahun kerana dia tidak mempunyai cara untuk mendapatkan mana-mana ejen bawahan Kalysta, dan ejen bawahannya pergi bersama-samanya.”

3.

17.7.2021 Zoom Defamatory

17.7.2021 “... Saya ingin memberitahu anda semua suatu fakta. Alasan mengapa bekas jenamanya tidak berjaya, ini adalah kerana pada masa itu, dia dan beberapa pemimpin, dia mempunyai satu pihak atasan, dan pihak atasan tersebut bekerja di bawah pengasas jenama tersebut. Dan demi mencipta jenama mereka sendiri, telah secara khususnya dalam kumpulan keluarga, mengatakan bahawa bahan-bahan dalam produk adalah tidak baik, dan melakukan perkara yang memudaratkan jenama tersebut, sehingga produk tersebut tidak dapat dijual dalam masa satu malam. Ini telah menyebabkan stok semua ejen produk tersekat. Stella adalah salah satu dalang utama di sebalik kejadian ini. Dia juga terlibat dalamnya, bersama dengan beberapa pemimpin yang lain. Betul, kamu lihat, Qianping tulis, dia telah mengalami kerugian sebanyak RM13,000. Sansan juga salah satu peserta daripada mereka dalam kejadian tersebut, tetapi, pada akhirnya, Sansan adalah paling kesian, dia telah 1st Defendant A/77-78 D1/242-243 didakwa oleh peguam, dicari oleh polis, semua ini... saya terlihat dulu mereka ... ini bukan urusan kami, tapi I pernah lihat rekod mesej yang Sansan tunjukkan kepada saya. Mereka yang mendorong Sansan untuk mengeposkan di <KL Chui Shui Zhan>. Perkara ini menyebabkan Sansan didakwa oleh peguam. Untuk perkara ini, saya ingin bertanya, jika anda terlibat dalamnya diri sendiri kamu, saya ingin bertanya Stella bahawa dia terlibat dalamnya dengan pemimpinnya sendiri, iaitu, dia berjaya mendapat keuntungan melalui jenama itu, dan mempunyai lebih kurang 100 orang dalam pasukannya, dan mereka sememangnya mendapat keuntungan melalui jenama tersebut. Mereka menjual produk penjagaan kulit atau benda lain, saya kurang pasti, tetapi, mereka telah keluar kerana mereka ingin mencipta jenama sendiri. Ia tidak mengapa sekiranya mereka hendak keluar dan mencipta jenama sendiri, tapi tidak perlu mencemarkan nama jenama yang pernah membawa kamu keuntungan. Mereka mencemarkan nama jenama sendiri dan kata ia mengandungi bahan-bahan yang tidak baik. Ini menyebabkan semua ejen, menyebabkan semua ejen tidak dapat menjual produk mereka dalam masa satu malam. Jadi, siapa yang mementingkan diri sendiri? Merekalah yang mementingkan diri sendiri...”

4.

20.7.2021 WeChat

20.7.2021 “Selepas mesyuarat ZOOM selama lapan jam pada hari itu, saya percaya semua orang telah memahami selok-belok keseluruhan masalah itu. Stella dan pasangannya telah melakukan kerosakan serius terhadap reputasi orang lain dan melanggari sistem syarikat. Kami berharap semua orang akan berhati-hati dengan kedua-dua orang ini.

Memadamkannya di WeChat & FB, terutama untuk mereka yang menjalankan siaran langsung. Tolong ingat kerana kami menerima berita dari pemimpin lain, pasangannya pernah melaporkan pasangan adik lelakinya apabila dia sedang menjalankan siaran langsung. Baru-baru ini, kami juga telah menerima berita bahawa pemimpin yang membantu ejen untuk berkongsikan siaran langsung yang mana bukanlah masalah pada masa dulu, tetapi, 2nd Defendant A/86-87 C1/12 selepas kejadian tersebut diumumkan baru-baru ini, mereka telah dilaporkan tanpa penjelasan.

Semua ejen platform tidak dibenarkan mengadakan urusan/bertindak dengan emosi dengan mereka, kedua-dua mereka, tingkah laku mereka dan peristiwa tersebut telah terdedah kepada semua. Mereka telah melakukan perkara yang tidak mengenang budi untuk kepentingan diri sendiri, memutarbelitkan fakta, memfitnah orang lain, memudaratkan ejen bawahannya yang telah bekerja bersama selama bertahun-tahun, dan telah menjejaskan perkembangan hak semua rakan KALYSTA. Kami enggan menjalin hubungan dengan mereka lagi, mari kita menjauhkan diri dari orang yang mempunyai masalah kelakuan dan kredibiliti.”

5.

20.7.2021 Notice

20.7.2021 Selepas penyiasatan, syarikat kami mengesahkan bahawa STELLA NG ZE XUAN, semasa tempoh sebagai ejen jenama kami, telah melanggari sistem syarikat dan konsep operasi yang jujur. Dalam tempoh ini, dia telah merosakkan sistem dan budaya syarikat dan kredibilitinya amat dipersoalkan, ini adalah didapati 1st Defendant, 2nd Defendant and 3rd Defendant A/90-94 selepas siasatan syarikat dan laporan melalui mesej yang dibuat oleh beberapa orang pemimpin. Pada bulan Mei, apabila syarikat kami menjalankan penyiasatan terhadapnya, dia telah banyak kali berbohong, menyembunyikan fakta dan menolak tanggungjawab dan masalah dia sendiri kepada pemimpin lain, dan menyebabkan ketidakadilan terhadap orang lain. Setelah dia mendapati bahawa pemimpin lain telah membuat laporan bersama dan bahawa syarikat mempunyai pengetahuan dan bukti yang relevan, dan akan membatalkan pemberikuasaannya, barulah dia berterus terang dan mengakui kesemuanya, dan meminta syarikat untuk memaafkannya, dia telah meminta maaf secara peribadi kepada syarikat dan pemimpin yang lain. Dalam tempoh masa berkhidmat sebagai pemberikuasaan atasan untuk jenama kami, integriti dan kredibilitinya dipersoalkan dengan serius, sengaja melanggari sistem, dia telah pada 3.6.2021/ 4.6.2021 bertemu dengan pihak syarikat dan mengaku semuanya secara kendiri. Dia telah meminta maaf kepada syarikat kami di luar talian dan dalam talian, dan mengakui bahawa dia telah melanggari peraturan terlebih dahulu, dan menyatakan bahawa dia telah mengecewakan pihak syarikat yang telah memberi kepercayaan dan pemupukan kepadanya selama bertahun-tahun. Dia mengakui dengan jujur bahawa dia tahu dia telah melakukan kesalahan yang besar, dan bersedia untuk menerima semua hukuman dan berharap supaya pihak syarikat dapat memaafkannya, selepas itu, dia telah mengemukakan pelbagai syarat dan banyak kali meminta pihak syarikat untuk mengekalkan pemberikuasaannya dan menyembunyikan perkara ini untuk dia, dia juga mengatakan bahawa sekiranya pihak syarikat tidak dapat meneri ma cadangannya dan tetap memutuskan untuk membatalkan pemberikuasaannya, dia bersedia untuk menghormati keputusan pihak syarikat dengan sepenuhnya, dia juga mengatakan bahawa dia memahami bahawa pihak syarikat perlu menangani masalah ini dengan adil mengikut sistem sedia ada dan bahawa dia telah melakukan kesalahan yang tidak dapat diperbaiki. Selepas membuat siasatan dengan ejen lain yang terlibat, ia telah disahkan bahawa dia sengaja menyembunyikan dan menghasut orang lain, berniat untuk memerangkap orang lain, dan berharap supaya pemberikuasaan orang lain akan dibatalkan bersama-sama. Selepas pihak syarikat mendapati semua ini dan merancang untuk mengambil tindakan undang-undang, apabila dia mendapati bahawa dia tidak dapat mengekalkan pemberikuasaannya, dia telah banyak kali memutarbelitkan fakta/membuat perkara yang memudarat orang lain untuk memanfaat diri sendirinya, dia juga menafikan apa-apa yang dikatakan olehnya terdahulunya, untuk memfitnahkan orang lain dan melanggari konsep pihak syarikat dengan serius, iaitu, untuk mengurus dengan penuh integriti.

Menterbalikkan perkara yang betul dan salah terlebih dahulu, hati nurani berasa salah kerana melakukan kesalahan, sengaja menyembunyi fakta bahawa dia telah melanggari peraturan, menghasut orang lain untuk membuat perkara yang menjejaskan budaya pasukan dan banyak kali memutarbelitkan fakta. Dia juga cuba merasionalkan isu pelanggaran peraturannya, menerbitkan kandungan yang tidak benar di internet terlebih dahulu untuk memberitahu ejen yang tidak mempunyai pengetahuan tentang perkara ini melalui cara yang berbeza dengan sengaja, untuk mendapatkan kepercayaan orang lain, dan kemudian terus menolak tanggungjawab diri sendiri kepada pemimpin utamanya, memfitnah dan merosakkan reputasi orang lain dengan sengaja dan menyebabkan kerosakan kepada reputasi orang lain dan pihak syarikat.

Isu pelanggaran peraturan telah diketahui dan pemberikuasaannya telah dibatalkan. Pada tempoh masa tinjauan dan pertimbangan terakhir, pihak syarikat telah berulang kali memaklumkannya bahawa dia tidak boleh mengutip pembayaran stok daripada mana-mana ejen lagi, sekiranya ada, pembayaran balik perlu dibuat segera, termasuk dia tidak mempunyai sebarang stok di syarikat pada bulan Jun; namun, dia gagal mematuhinya, dan tidak berterus terang dengan ejen lain, dan terus menerima pembayaran stok daripada orang lain selama satu bulan. Pada 5 Julai, dia telah membuat suatu pemindahan wang secara paksa ke dalam akaun syarikat tanpa kelulusan dan kebenaran syarikat, dan bayaran stok tersebut bukan milikan siapa-siapa, pemindahan wang secara paksa tersebut bukanlah harga rasmi lagi yang dimilikinya, kemudian, dia enggan mengembalikan wang kepada ejen-ejen dengan pelbagai alasan yang hanya mengutamakan kepentingan diri sendirinya dan menyebabkan kerugian kepada orang lain secara tidak langsung.

Selepas pemberikuasaannya dibatalkan, telah banyak kali menghubungi ejen kami yang sah dengan orang luar, untuk mengelirukan orang lain yang tidak mempunyai pengetahuan tentang perkara ini melanggar peraturan dengan sengaja, bertujuan untuk meminta ejen-ejen lain yang sah untuk bekerjasama dengannya untuk melakukan perkara yang memudaratkan syarikat/pemimpin lain, selama tempoh itu, dia juga memalsukan fakta untuk memperoleh simpati, dan dia juga meminta orang lain untuk membantunya membuat rakaman/mengambil tangkapan skrin, dan mempergunakan orang lain yang tidak mempunyai pengetahuan tentang perkara ini, untuk membantunya untuk melakukan perkara yang melanggari peraturan.

Berniat untuk memfraud bonus kepimpinan bulanan penggal baru syarikat. Setelah pengesahan oleh pihak syarikat dan beberapa pemimpin, ia adalah disahkan bahawa pada tempoh masa dia melanggari sistem tersebut, dia juga berniat untuk memberikan maklumat yang mengelirukan untuk menyembunyi pelanggarannya, pada masa yang sama, dia berbohong kepada pihak syarikat dengan pelbagai sebab dan alasan, sebagai seorang pemimpin tahap atasan, bukan sahaja dia tidak memimpin dengan teladan yang baik, namun, dirinya telah menunjukkan teladan. Penyalahgunaan kuasa, mempergunakan kepercayaan syarikat kepadanya selama bertahun-tahun, mengekalkan hubungan baik dan kepercayaan dengan syarikat walaupun pada tempoh masa dia melanggari sistem tersebut, dan mempergunakan nama orang lain secara diam-diam untuk menyertai operasi jenama lain, akan tetapi, dia yang sebenarnya menguasainya. Menyembunyikan daripada syarikat dengan sengaja dan juga melakukan perkara yang memudaratkan pasukan/melanggari konsep dan falsafah bagi perkembangan organisasi yang sihat; dalam keadaan tidak mematuhi perjanjian institusi kepemimpinan atasan, dia juga berniat untuk memfraud supaya mendapatkan bonus kepemimpinan bulanan penggal baru syarikat. Pada bulan Jun, syarikat kami telah memberhentikan se gala urusan perniagaan yang berkaitan dengan orang ini, STELLA NG ZE XUAN, secara rasmi, status Ketua Ejen dan pemberikuasaannya telah dibatalkan dan kelayakannya juga dibatalkan secara kekal. Baru-baru ini, penglibatannya dalam pelanggaran pelbagai sistem dan percubaan untuk memfraud syarikat kami adalah salah sama sekali tanpa mengira sebabnya, kami telah memperoleh bukti pelanggaran sistemnya dan beberapa pelanggaran, perkara ini akan ditangani mengikut prosedur undang-undang, kami akan mengambil tindakan undang-undang.

6.

24.7.2021 WeChat

24.7.2021 “...Jangan menyalahgunakan kepercayaan yang diberikan oleh orang lain kepada kamu untuk menyakiti orang lain untuk kali kedua, sekiranya anda berani untuk melakukannya, kamu mesti berani mengakuinya, dan berani menanggung, apabila ia terbocor, kamu tidak boleh terus menipu orang dalaman, mulut manis tapi hati buruk, tamak kepentingan diri dan terlupa budi baik orang lain, pisau tersembunyi dalam senyuman, tamak dan hipokrit adalah sifat sebenar dan teruslah memilh untuk berpura-pura. 1) Sikap dan tingkah laku kamu adalah amat teruk, tiada orang setanding kamu. Tiada seorang pun di dunia perniagaan akan ingin bekerjasama dengan kamu. Kamu sememangnya orang yang tidak mempunyai etika perniagaan, serigala bermata putih, langsung tidak boleh diharapkan. Jika kamu mempunyai masa untuk bermain begitu banyak helah dengan pasangan anda, ia adalah lebih baik untuk berfikir tentangnya dengan betul-betul atau berkomunikasi 1st Defendant A/82-83 C1/9-10 dengan peguam anda, dan berfikir tentang bagaimana untuk melawan tuntutan mahkamah seterusnya, dan melakukan kerja-kerja penyerahan kini dengan baik. Termasuk; Tidak mengembalikan wang yang diterima daripada ejen, menyebabkan kerugian kepada orang lain secara tidak langsung...”