Yeoh Ee Seong v Sin Chew Media Corporation Berhad (WA-23NCvC-29-05/2025)

This is the Plaintiff's claim in defamation arising from the publication of an online news article by the Defendant through Guang Ming Daily ("the impugned publication") on 27 December 2024 concerning the investigation into the assault of a lawyer in Penang. 15/07/2026 11:58:15 WA-23NCvC-29-05/2025 Kand. 55 S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

The Plaintiff contends that the impugned publication falsely portrayed him as the principal mastermind behind the assault and, more significantly, as a person who had attempted to flee Malaysia by air before being arrested by the police at the Penang International Airport. According to the Plaintiff, those statements were false, misleading and conveyed highly defamatory imputations which seriously injured his personal and professional reputation.

The Defendant denies liability. It maintains, among other things, that the publication constituted a report of matters arising from an ongoing police investigation, disputes the defamatory meanings attributed by the Plaintiff, and relies on the defences pleaded in its Defence and subsequently elaborated in its post-trial submissions.

The Court heard oral testimony from three witnesses called by the Plaintiff and two witnesses called by the Defendant. The documentary evidence comprises, among others, the parties' agreed bundles of documents, witness statements, the impugned publication, the police media release, correspondence exchanged between the parties, the Notes of Proceedings, and the written submissions together with the authorities relied upon by both parties. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

The Plaintiff is a Director and shareholder of a company known as Khean Seng Engineering Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred to as "KSESB"). The Plaintiff also serves as the Managing Director of KSESB. KSESB, which is owned and controlled by the Plaintiff, is a well-established company and one of the largest companies in Malaysia specialising in innovative steel structure engineering, with approximately 44 years of experience and an established business track record.

The Defendant, Sin Chew Media Corporation Berhad, is a media company which publishes, among others, the Chinese-language newspaper Guang Ming Daily in both print and online formats. It is not disputed that the impugned article appeared on the Guang Ming Daily online platform. The precise legal responsibility for that publication forms part of the issues raised during the trial.

In December 2024, an incident involving the assault of a lawyer in Penang attracted significant public attention and prompted a criminal investigation by the Royal Malaysia Police. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

During the course of the investigation, several individuals were arrested by the police. The Plaintiff subsequently became one of the persons investigated in connection with the alleged offence.

On or about 27 December 2024, the Royal Malaysia Police issued a media statement concerning developments in the investigation, including the arrest of the Plaintiff.

Later that same day, the Defendant published the impugned news article through the Guang Ming Daily online news portal. The publication was based substantially upon information concerning the police investigation, although the parties sharply dispute whether the article faithfully reflected the contents of the police media release and whether additional statements published by the Defendant materially altered the true factual position.

The impugned article was written in Mandarin. During the present proceedings, certified translations into Bahasa Malaysia and English were produced as part of the documentary evidence to assist the Court in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the publication.

The Plaintiff's principal complaint is not merely that the publication reported his arrest. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

Rather, the Plaintiff contends that the publication went substantially further by conveying, expressly or by implication, that:

he was the mastermind behind the assault;

he had attempted to evade arrest by boarding a flight;

he was apprehended by the police while attempting to flee;

he was a dangerous criminal involved in organised criminal conduct; and

the above matters were presented to readers as established facts.

According to the Plaintiff, the publication was materially inaccurate because he had not attempted to flee Malaysia, had not been arrested while attempting to board an aircraft, and the Defendant had omitted important surrounding facts which, if reported fairly, would have presented an entirely different picture of the events.

The Plaintiff therefore alleges that the publication created a false and misleading impression which seriously damaged his standing as an advocate and solicitor.

The Defendant disputes that the publication bears the defamatory meanings alleged by the Plaintiff. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

The Defendant further contends that the impugned publication must be read as a whole and in its proper context, namely as a report concerning an ongoing police investigation rather than as a judicial determination of the Plaintiff's guilt.

The Defendant also disputes that the publication materially departed from the information available to its journalists at the material time and contends that any inaccuracies identified by the Plaintiff do not alter the substance or "sting" of the publication.

Throughout the proceedings, the Defendant also challenged the Plaintiff's reliance on various evidential presumptions and disputed the legal consequences which the Plaintiff sought to draw from the evidence given by the Defendant's witnesses during cross-examination.

Following the publication, the Plaintiff issued a Letter of Demand requiring, among others, an apology, retraction and damages.

Correspondence subsequently passed between the parties, but no settlement was reached. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

The Plaintiff thereafter commenced the present action claiming damages for libel together with ancillary relief including an injunction, aggravated damages, exemplary damages, interest and costs.

The Defendant filed its Defence denying liability, whereupon the Plaintiff filed a Reply joining issue on the matters pleaded by the Defendant.

During the trial, the Plaintiff called three witnesses, namely:

PW1 – the Plaintiff himself;

PW2 – the translator responsible for the certified translations of the Mandarin publication; and

PW3 – the Plaintiff's criminal counsel, who testified principally regarding the factual circumstances surrounding the Plaintiff's arrest and the related criminal proceedings.

The Defendant called two witnesses:

SD1 – the Defendant's editorial representative responsible for editorial supervision; and

SD2 – the journalist who prepared the impugned report.

Both witnesses were extensively cross-examined regarding the editorial process, the source of the published information, the S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw accuracy of the impugned article, and the manner in which the publication was prepared prior to publication.

Although numerous issues were raised in the pleadings and submissions, the evidence ultimately crystallised into several central questions which require determination.

Broadly stated, those questions concern:

the natural and ordinary meaning of the impugned publication;

whether the publication conveyed the defamatory imputations pleaded by the Plaintiff;

whether the publication was materially false or misleading;

whether any pleaded defence is established;

whether the Defendant acted with malice, if relevant to the pleaded defences; and

the appropriate relief, should liability be established.

It is to these issues, together with the evidence adduced by the parties and the applicable legal principles, that the Court now turns. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

The Plaintiff's case, as pleaded in the Statement of Claim and developed through the evidence adduced at trial, is that the Defendant published a defamatory article concerning him on the Guang Ming Daily online news portal on 27 December 2024.

The Plaintiff contends that the impugned publication falsely represented, either expressly or by necessary implication, that:

he was the mastermind behind the assault of a lawyer in Penang;

he was a dangerous criminal involved in orchestrating serious criminal activities;

he attempted to evade arrest by boarding a flight out of

he was apprehended by the police whilst attempting to flee; and

those matters were established facts rather than allegations forming part of an ongoing police investigation.

The Plaintiff maintains that these statements were false and materially departed from the actual circumstances surrounding his arrest. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

According to the Plaintiff, although he was subsequently arrested by the police, he had not attempted to flee Malaysia, had not been arrested whilst boarding an aircraft, and the Defendant's report omitted material facts which substantially altered the true factual position.

The Plaintiff further contends that the Defendant's publication was not a fair or accurate report of the information released by the police but instead introduced or adopted facts which were inaccurate, misleading and capable of conveying a substantially more damaging impression to the ordinary reasonable reader.

The Plaintiff also relies heavily upon the evidence elicited during cross-examination of the Defendant's witnesses, particularly SD1 and SD2, contending that they admitted material inaccuracies in the publication and acknowledged shortcomings in the editorial process leading to publication. The Plaintiff submits that those admissions demonstrate that the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable journalistic care before publishing the article.

The Plaintiff further argues that the Defendant's publication amounted to the publication of a "half-truth", in that although parts of the report may have reflected the fact of his arrest, the omission of other material facts created an overall impression which was false and defamatory.

In this regard, the Plaintiff places considerable reliance upon the Federal Court decision in Seema Elizabeth Isoy v Tan Sri S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw David Chiu Tat-Cheong [2024] 6 CLJ 635 as authority for the proposition that a publication containing selective or incomplete facts which produces a false impression may nevertheless constitute actionable defamation.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks, among others:

general damages;

aggravated damages;

exemplary damages;

an injunction;

an apology and/or retraction; and

costs. The Defendant's Case

The Defendant denies that the impugned publication is defamatory in the manner alleged by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant maintains that the article must be read as a whole and in its proper context, namely as a report concerning an ongoing police investigation rather than a definitive pronouncement of the Plaintiff's guilt.

The Defendant further contends that the Plaintiff has artificially dissected individual words and phrases from the publication whilst ignoring the article's overall context and tenor. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

The Defendant disputes that the publication conveyed that the Plaintiff had been conclusively established to be the mastermind behind the alleged assault or that readers would understand the publication as asserting proven criminal guilt.

The Defendant further contends that any inaccuracies identified by the Plaintiff do not materially alter the substance or "sting" of the publication, which remained essentially a report that the Plaintiff had been arrested in connection with the police investigation.

The Defendant also disputes that the editorial process demonstrated recklessness or malice. It maintains that the impugned publication was prepared based upon information then available concerning the police investigation and that the Plaintiff has failed to establish the essential elements of defamation.

Throughout the proceedings, the Defendant also challenged the Plaintiff's reliance upon sections 114A and 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950, contending that those presumptions are either inapplicable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the present case. The Defendant further disputes the legal significance attributed by the Plaintiff to portions of the evidence given by SD1 and SD2 during cross-examination.

The Defendant accordingly prays that the Plaintiff's action be dismissed with costs. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

Having regard to the pleadings, the Agreed Facts and the documentary evidence, certain matters appear not to be substantially disputed between the parties.

It is common ground that:

the impugned article was published on 27 December 2024;

the publication referred to the Plaintiff;

the publication concerned the police investigation into the alleged assault of a lawyer in Penang;

the Plaintiff was subsequently arrested by the police in connection with that investigation; and

the Plaintiff issued a Letter of Demand before commencing the present proceedings.

The real controversy lies not in the occurrence of those events but in whether the publication accurately and fairly represented them, the meanings conveyed by the publication to the ordinary reasonable reader, and whether the Defendant is legally liable in defamation. D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION AND THE COURT'S

The Court addresses the issues in the following order: S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw i. Issue 1 - Whether the impugned publication referred to the Plaintiff. ii. Issue 2 - What is the natural and ordinary meaning conveyed by the impugned publication? iii. Issue 3 - Whether those meanings are defamatory. iv. Issue 4 - Whether the publication was substantially true or materially inaccurate. v. Issue 5 - Whether the inaccuracies, if any, materially altered the defamatory sting. vi. Issue 6 - Whether the Defendant has established any pleaded defence. vii. Issue 7 - Whether malice has been established (if necessary). viii. Issue 8 - Relief. E. THE COURT'S FINDINGS ISSUE 1 - Whether the impugned publication referred to the Plaintiff

The first issue is whether the impugned publication is reasonably understood as referring to the Plaintiff.

In an action for defamation, the Plaintiff need not prove that he was expressly named if the publication is capable of identifying him to reasonable readers acquainted with the surrounding circumstances. The question is whether ordinary readers would S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw reasonably understand that the publication referred to the Plaintiff.

In the present case, this issue is not one of genuine controversy.

The impugned article expressly reported the arrest of the individual alleged to have been involved in the investigation concerning the assault of a lawyer in Penang. More importantly, the publication was accompanied by the Plaintiff's photograph taken outside the Magistrates' Court immediately following his charge.

The documentary evidence, including the agreed bundles, together with the oral testimony of PW1, establishes that the photograph published by the Defendant is that of the Plaintiff. Indeed, the Defendant does not dispute that the article concerns the Plaintiff. The dispute lies not in identification but in whether the publication conveyed false and defamatory meanings.

The Defendant's own pleadings and conduct throughout the proceedings proceeded upon the basis that the Plaintiff was the subject of the impugned publication. At no stage did the Defendant contend that the article referred to another person.

In those circumstances, I am entirely satisfied that the Plaintiff has established the element of identification.

Accordingly, I find that the impugned publication unequivocally referred to the Plaintiff. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw ISSUE 2 - What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the impugned publication? The governing principles

The Court's task is not to determine what the parties intended the publication to mean, nor what lawyers can subsequently argue it means.

Rather, the Court must determine the meaning which the ordinary reasonable reader, reading the publication once in a normal manner and without legal analysis, would naturally understand.

It is equally well established that the publication must be read as a whole. Individual sentences cannot be isolated from the overall context, nor should meanings be attributed through over-elaborate analysis.

At the same time, the Court must also consider the headline, photographs, captions and the overall presentation because readers ordinarily consume the publication in its entirety rather than in fragmented portions. Application to the present case

Having carefully compared: S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

the original Mandarin publication;

the certified translations;

the accompanying photograph;

the police media statement; and

the surrounding context, I am satisfied that the article conveys several distinct meanings.

First, the publication clearly informs readers that the Plaintiff had been arrested by the police in connection with the investigation into the assault of a lawyer in Penang.

Standing alone, that meaning would not necessarily be objectionable because it accurately reports the fact of an arrest.

However, the publication does not stop there.

The headline itself prominently conveys that the Plaintiff was the "mastermind" behind the attack and that he was arrested whilst attempting to flee by air.

Read together with the body of the article and the accompanying photograph, the ordinary reasonable reader would naturally understand that:

the Plaintiff was the principal architect behind the criminal assault;

the Plaintiff attempted to escape from Malaysia to evade arrest; S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

the police intercepted and arrested him before he could flee; and

those events demonstrated consciousness of guilt.

The Defendant submits that the publication merely reports the ongoing police investigation.

I am unable, at this stage of the analysis, to accept that submission entirely.

Whilst the article undoubtedly concerns a police investigation, the language employed goes beyond merely informing readers that investigations were ongoing.

The expressions used, particularly in the headline, are capable of conveying factual assertions rather than merely reporting allegations.

Furthermore, headlines frequently carry considerable weight because many readers form their first and sometimes only impression from the headline itself.

When the headline is read together with the accompanying photograph of the Plaintiff being escorted following criminal proceedings, the publication is capable of conveying a significantly more damaging impression than a neutral report of an arrest.

I therefore find that the natural and ordinary meaning of the publication includes the imputations that the Plaintiff was the S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw mastermind behind the alleged offence and that he had attempted to flee Malaysia before being apprehended by the authorities. ISSUE 3 - Whether those meanings are defamatory

Having identified the meanings conveyed, the next question is whether those meanings are defamatory in law.

In my judgment, the answer is straightforward.

To portray a person as the mastermind behind a violent criminal attack and as someone attempting to flee to evade arrest is plainly capable of lowering that person's reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.

Such allegations naturally expose the person concerned to public hatred, ridicule and contempt and are capable of adversely affecting both personal and professional reputation.

This is particularly so where, as here, the Plaintiff is a businessman whose standing depends substantially upon public confidence and commercial integrity. The publication was also made on a widely accessible online news platform with substantial readership.

I therefore have no hesitation in holding that the meanings identified above are defamatory. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw ISSUE 4 - Whether the publication was substantially true or materially inaccurate The critical factual issue

This, in my respectful view, is the pivotal issue in the case.

The Court is not concerned with whether every minute factual detail was perfectly reported. Journalism does not require perfection.

The real question is whether the inaccuracies complained of materially altered the substance or sting of the publication.

Having compared the documentary evidence with the oral testimony, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has demonstrated material discrepancies between the actual chronology and the manner in which it was presented in the impugned publication.

In particular, there is a significant distinction between a person who returns to Malaysia and is arrested upon arrival, and a person who is portrayed as attempting to flee Malaysia before being apprehended.

Those are not merely different descriptions of the same event. They carry fundamentally different implications regarding the person's conduct and state of mind. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

If the evidence ultimately establishes that the Plaintiff was arrested after arriving in Malaysia rather than whilst attempting to depart, the publication materially changes the factual narrative presented to readers.

That difference is capable of transforming an accurate report into one carrying a substantially more damaging sting. ISSUE 5 - Whether the inaccuracies materially altered the defamatory sting

This issue must be approached from the perspective of the ordinary reasonable reader.

The Court accepts that newspaper reports are often prepared under pressing deadlines and minor inaccuracies may not necessarily render an otherwise accurate publication defamatory.

However, where an inaccuracy fundamentally changes the impression conveyed, the position is different.

In the present case, the allegation that the Plaintiff attempted to flee by plane is not peripheral.

It goes directly to the question of consciousness of guilt. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

An ordinary reader would likely regard a suspect who attempts to flee justice as more culpable than one who simply becomes the subject of a police investigation.

Consequently, if that allegation is materially false, it cannot properly be dismissed as an insignificant factual error.

It alters the sting of the publication.

The Federal Court's observations in Seema Elizabeth Isoy are therefore engaged insofar as a publication containing elements of truth may nevertheless become defamatory if the selective presentation of facts creates a materially false overall impression. ISSUE 6 - Whether the Defendant has established its pleaded defences

Having concluded that the publication bears defamatory meanings and that the alleged inaccuracies are capable of materially altering the sting of the publication, the Court must then examine each defence specifically pleaded by the Defendant.

The burden of establishing those defences rests upon the Defendant. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

Each defence must be evaluated separately against the factual findings already made. ISSUE 7 - Whether malice has been established

The question of malice arises only insofar as it is relevant to defeating any qualified privilege or other defence advanced by the Defendant.

The Court should be slow to infer malice merely because errors were made.

The evidence must demonstrate an improper motive, recklessness amounting to indifference to the truth, or a conscious decision to publish despite awareness of probable falsity.

Whether that threshold is crossed should be determined after considering the editorial process, the source materials available to the Defendant, and the explanations given by SD1 and SD2.

If liability is established, the Court must then determine the appropriate relief.

In assessing damages, relevant considerations include:

the gravity of the defamatory imputations;

the extent of publication; S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

the standing and reputation of the Plaintiff;

the conduct of the Defendant before and after publication;

whether any apology or correction was issued;

and whether aggravated or exemplary damages are justified on the evidence. F. EVALUATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S PLEADED DEFENCES

The Defendant’s pleaded defences, as clarified in the evidence of SD1, may be summarised as follows:

denial of reference to the Plaintiff,

justification,

reliance on the police statement by ACP Rozak,

reportage,

qualified privilege, and

fair comment.

SD1 accepted in cross-examination that these were the defences advanced by the Defendant.

The burden of establishing these defences rests on the Defendant. The Court must evaluate each defence against the defamatory meanings already found by the Court, namely that the publication conveyed that the Plaintiff was the mastermind behind the assault and was arrested while attempting to flee by plane. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

Denial that the article referred to the Plaintiff

This defence cannot be sustained.

The article, headline, content and photograph, when read together, sufficiently identified the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s own evidence was that the report related to him because he was the person arrested at the Penang International Airport and his photograph appeared in the report outside the Magistrates’ Court.

In any event, the case was conducted substantially on the basis that the impugned publication concerned the Plaintiff. The real issue is not identification but whether what was published was defamatory and defensible.

I therefore reject this defence.

Justification / substantial truth under section 8 of the

Having found that the impugned publication referred to the Plaintiff and conveyed the defamatory meanings identified earlier, the Court must next determine whether the Defendant has nevertheless established the defence of justification.

It is well settled that the burden rests upon the Defendant to prove that the defamatory sting complained of is substantially S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw true. Absolute accuracy in every factual detail is not required. However, what must ultimately be established is the substantial truth of the defamatory imputation conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader.

In the present case, the Defendant submits that the article merely reported the Plaintiff's arrest in connection with the police investigation concerning the assault of a lawyer in Penang. According to the Defendant, the publication was substantially based on the police media statement issued by ACP Rozak and any inaccuracies identified by the Plaintiff were immaterial and did not alter the substance of the report.

With respect, I am unable to accept that submission.

The difficulty confronting the Defendant is that the Plaintiff's complaint is not directed merely at the publication of his arrest. Indeed, the Plaintiff has never disputed that he was arrested by the police. The gravamen of his complaint is that the Defendant published something considerably more serious, namely that he was apprehended whilst attempting to flee Malaysia by plane.

That distinction is far from semantic. There is an obvious and substantial difference between a report that a person has been arrested pursuant to a police investigation and a report that the same person was intercepted whilst attempting to escape the jurisdiction. The latter conveys to the ordinary reasonable reader an impression of consciousness of guilt and deliberate evasion S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw of the law. It significantly aggravates the defamatory sting of the publication.

The Court has therefore carefully examined whether the Defendant has established that this aspect of the publication was substantially true.

Having considered the police media statement, the documentary evidence, the chronology of events and, importantly, the oral testimony of the Defendant's own witnesses, I am unable to conclude that the Defendant has discharged that burden.

During cross-examination, SD1 accepted that the police media statement did not state that the Plaintiff was arrested whilst attempting to flee by plane. More significantly, SD1 accepted that the impugned statement represented an assumption drawn by the Defendant rather than information expressly communicated by the police.

That concession is, in my view, of considerable significance.

Once the Defendant acknowledges that the most damaging factual assertion contained in the publication was not derived from the police statement upon which it professes to rely, the foundation of the defence of justification is substantially weakened.

The Court accepts that newspapers frequently report developing criminal investigations under considerable time pressure. Nevertheless, the public importance of criminal reporting cannot S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw relieve a publisher from the obligation to ensure that serious factual assertions are adequately supported before they are presented as fact.

In the circumstances, I am unable to find that the Defendant has proved the substantial truth of the defamatory sting complained of by the Plaintiff.

The defence of justification therefore fails.

Qualified privilege under section 12 of the Defamation

The Defendant also relies on qualified privilege.

The Court accepts that reports concerning criminal investigations may involve matters of public interest. The public has a legitimate interest in reports concerning violent crime and police action.

However, qualified privilege does not protect a materially inaccurate publication which goes beyond the occasion of privilege or is actuated by malice.

The present publication went beyond the police statement in a material respect. The police statement did not say that the Plaintiff was arrested while attempting to flee by plane. That fact was introduced as part of the Defendant’s report.

The evidence further shows that after receiving the Plaintiff’s demand, the Defendant compared the report with the police S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw statement, yet maintained the publication on the basis of an assumption.

In my view, even if the occasion was privileged, the privilege is defeated because the impugned sting was not fairly within the police statement and was not responsibly verified.

I therefore reject the defence of qualified privilege.

Fair comment under section 9 of the Defamation Act 1957

Fair comment is plainly unsuitable on the facts.

The impugned statement that the Plaintiff was arrested while attempting to flee by plane was not comment. It was presented as a statement of fact.

The ordinary reader would not understand the publication as expressing an opinion on disclosed facts. Rather, the reader would understand it as reporting factual events.

Since the core defamatory sting is factual, not comment, the defence of fair comment cannot arise.

I therefore reject the defence of fair comment. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

Strictly speaking, once the pleaded defences fail on their own terms, it may not be necessary to make an extended finding on malice.

However, since malice was strongly argued, I would make a measured finding.

I would not find malice merely because the Defendant made an error. A mistaken report, even a negligent one, is not automatically malicious.

However, the evidence here goes further than an innocent typographical or peripheral error. The Defendant’s own witness accepted that the “fleeing by plane” statement was wrong and not responsible.

Further, SD1 accepted that the assertion was based on an assumption and not a fact.

These matters support at least a finding of recklessness or indifference to the truth in respect of the most damaging part of the publication.

I would therefore find that, even if qualified privilege or fair comment had been prima facie available, they would in any event be defeated by malice or reckless disregard of the truth. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

For the reasons above, I find that none of the Defendant’s pleaded defences has been established.

The defence of non-reference fails because the publication identified the Plaintiff.

Justification fails because the Defendant did not prove the substantial truth of the defamatory sting that the Plaintiff was arrested while fleeing by plane.

Reportage fails because the article was not neutral reporting but adopted and added an unsupported factual assertion.

Qualified privilege fails because the publication exceeded the scope of the police statement and was not responsibly verified.

Fair comment fails because the impugned words were statements of fact, not comment.

Accordingly, liability in defamation is established against the Defendant.

Having found the Defendant liable in defamation, the Court now considers the appropriate relief. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

General damages

The Plaintiff is entitled to general damages for injury to his reputation.

The Court will consider:

gravity;

extent of publication;

standing of Plaintiff;

persistence;

circulation.

Aggravated damages

This case justifies aggravated damages, not because of malice but because of the followings:

refusal to correct;

persistence;

litigation conduct;

continued insistence. Those are recognised considerations.

Exemplary damages

This is where I would be more restrained. I would not award exemplary damages unless the evidence clearly satisfies the governing principles. S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw

Media defendants are a special category. Exemplary damages are exceptional. I believe that aggravated damages already compensate the additional injury. Unless there is evidence of calculated profit-making or outrageous disregard beyond what we have seen, I would hesitate to award exemplary damages. I.

The Court therefore orders as follows:

Judgment is entered for the Plaintiff.

The Defendant shall pay general damages in the sum of RM250,000.

The Defendant shall pay aggravated damages in the sum of RM RM150,000.

Interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the damages awarded from the date of judgment until full realisation.

The Defendant, whether by itself, its servants or agents, is restrained by way of a permanent injunction from further publishing the same defamatory words or words to the same effect concerning the Plaintiff.

The Defendant shall pay the costs of RM20,000.00 S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw Dated: 14th July 2026 ……………………………………………………………….. (YA PUAN MAHAZAN BINTI MAT TAIB) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for The Plaintiff : Dato' Nicholas Kow, Marcia Lopez & Emile Ezra Messrs. Marcia Lopez & Sharifah Zuraida (Penang) Advocates & Solicitors Counsel for The Defendant : Yiew Voon Lee & Yiew De Quan Messrs. C H Yeoh & Yiew (Kuala Lumpur) Advocates & Solicitors S/N qEceTqrG6UuyFPt8bq/vtw