PETALING JAYA: Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohamed Hanipa Maidin today joined the chorus of criticism against the recent Federal Court ruling that the government can sue individuals for defamation.
Hanipa, who is deputy minister in charge of law, said the judgment left much to be desired.
“As far as I am concerned, the decision by the English court in Derbyshire is very sound and should deserve our utmost respect,” he told FMT in a text message.
Hanipa, a lawyer by training, added that the English judgment reflected the true nature of law on defamation.
He said the people had the right to comment on their elected government, even if their comments appeared defamatory in nature.
“The government must not be given any right to sue for defamation, period.”
He added that the Federal Court appeared to have failed to differentiate between an ordinary civil suit and an action for libel.
“With the greatest respect, this has made the judgment hard to swallow in any democratic nation. It renders the right to free speech useless and meaningless.”
Adding that the apex court seemed to have taken a literal interpretation of the law, he said this could be seen as a mockery of the law on defamation.
Yesterday, a Federal Court bench chaired by Ahmad Maarop dismissed an appeal by Stampin MP Chong Chien Jen, holding that federal and state governments could sue individuals for defamation.
Ahmad, who delivered the unanimous ruling, said in Malaysia, the right of governments to sue was provided for under Section 3 of the Government Proceedings Act (GPA) 1956.
He said the common law principle based on the 1994 case of Derbyshire was not suitable in Malaysia as there were also restrictions to the right to freedom of speech under the Federal Constitution.
Hanipa, who is deputy minister in charge of law, said the judgment left much to be desired.
“As far as I am concerned, the decision by the English court in Derbyshire is very sound and should deserve our utmost respect,” he told FMT in a text message.
Hanipa, a lawyer by training, added that the English judgment reflected the true nature of law on defamation.
He said the people had the right to comment on their elected government, even if their comments appeared defamatory in nature.
“The government must not be given any right to sue for defamation, period.”
He added that the Federal Court appeared to have failed to differentiate between an ordinary civil suit and an action for libel.
“With the greatest respect, this has made the judgment hard to swallow in any democratic nation. It renders the right to free speech useless and meaningless.”
Adding that the apex court seemed to have taken a literal interpretation of the law, he said this could be seen as a mockery of the law on defamation.
Yesterday, a Federal Court bench chaired by Ahmad Maarop dismissed an appeal by Stampin MP Chong Chien Jen, holding that federal and state governments could sue individuals for defamation.
Ahmad, who delivered the unanimous ruling, said in Malaysia, the right of governments to sue was provided for under Section 3 of the Government Proceedings Act (GPA) 1956.
He said the common law principle based on the 1994 case of Derbyshire was not suitable in Malaysia as there were also restrictions to the right to freedom of speech under the Federal Constitution.
He said Parliament imposed restrictions for defamation and the incitement to any offence.
 |
S Nair |
Meanwhile, lawyer SN Nair said Attorney-General Tommy Thomas should advise the government to amend the GPA as the ruling was an anomaly.
“A clause should be inserted in the GPA to state no defamation proceeding can be brought against citizens,” he said.
As a matter of public policy, he said, the government must learn to accept criticism. He added that it could reply to critics through the media and the legislature.
He also warned against the government being seen to use public funds to mount a legal challenge against an individual for expressing his views.
“This is like the servant trying to sue the master as governments are elected by the people to serve them,” he said.
In above earlier post, I mentioned that not one single minister of the new Mahathir government has raised any comments on the draconian ruling. I take that back and apologise to YB Hanipa Maidin. Good on you Hanipa.
(2) FMT - Cenbet: Amend GPA to stop governments from suing for defamation.
(2) FMT - Cenbet: Amend GPA to stop governments from suing for defamation.
Even more sadly, Cha Bor had not made one single comment on the case when the Najib government pursued the original defence on the draconian ruling.
ReplyDeletePariah indeed.
Don’t jump the gun.
ReplyDeleteMalaysians elected a Harapan government, not Federal Court judges. This wrong decision caught everyone, including the government, by surprise. Can always ask for judicial review and set right.
"Hanipa Maidin puts PKR & DAP & Pribumi to shame"
ReplyDeleteCCJ not only "raised any comments on the draconian ruling". He brought action to the court. CCJ is not from DAP meh?
Cha Bor didn't give a shit when the Then Najib government originally took their position on the case.
DeleteThis Johnny come lately's interest is only to Hentam Pakatan Harapan.
Hai-ya!
Deletecognitive selectivity induced by dedak kpi ma.
I am trying to guess how much dedak Monsterball has been paid to carry on his irrelevant tirade on behalf of a Pakatan establishment that has now make criticisms of the government possible libellous case
DeleteLet's be very clear on the history of this case.
DeleteIt was Chong Chieng Jen, DAP MP vs. The Najib Administration.
Cha Bor didn't give a shit about the case, I can only guess the eye-watering amount of Dedak Cha Not received to buy his silence.
Now, this Johnny Come Lately just wants to Hentam Pakatan Harapan over a legal stand they did NOT make, instead it was made by the previous Najib Administration.
No doubt more Dedak now to buy his vicious attacks.
previously the Sarawak govt couldn't sue Chong Chieng Jen but NOW it can - so stop bullshitting just for your dedak
DeleteCha Bor is trying to say the background history to the case , just 1-2 years ago is irrelevant .....But what about Cha Bor's carping on events that happened 30 years ago ?
Deleteagain, your dedak-infused immorality attempts to obfuscate the issue
DeleteThe Federal Court Judgement is correct and sound. All Governments have a high reputation to maintain i.e integrity and impartiality.
ReplyDeleteIf citizens can write scurrilous unsupported allegations without proof against the ruling Government, that erodes the reputation of a Government. That actually happened to the Najib Government. The Chinese social media was filled with lies and slanders , all unproven, including lies about 1MDB concocted by CIA/American-financed Malaysian Opposition.
The result was May 9. Najib Government was overthrown based on those fictional hatreds espoused by then Opposition especially by DAP politicians. They were so full of hate against Najib.
The Chinese Malaysians fell for those lies, elected DAP. But what is the result? The Chinese Malaysians are now increasingly being hated by an increasing number of Malays all because of believing the DAP propaganda. The average Malay hatred is palpable even though silent. It is being translated into more extreme Islamic pronouncements because the Malays are using Islam just to spite the Chinese.
Yes Citizens should be sued if he/she lies to destroy the Country. The nonsense of pre-GE14 should be curbed by litigation. I hail the judgment of the Federal Court. Otherwise the Chinese will be further targeted when their irresponsible politicians continue with lies and slanders....just to win votes...but who gets killed? The average innocent gullible Chinese Malaysian
+1. Dear Kiet, I subscribe to your thoughts absolutely. God blessed.
DeleteSnake & rat from the same ketuanan lair!
DeleteYes man those Cina Pukimaks are damn gullible. We are lucky to have you to enlighten us with your wisdom. Please do enlighten the moronic Yanks too especially the DOJ they too might have been duped~!!
DeleteWakakakaka……
DeleteHow much bodoh sombong can u be?
Not duped as much as u, blur & blind dedak-induced sycophant le!
Well, I have my pop corn readied.
"It is being translated into more extreme Islamic pronouncements because the Malays are using Islam just to spite the Chinese."
DeleteStupid is as stupid does, wakakakaka. Cutting the nose to spite the face.
Nose and face are on different racial faces.....
DeleteIt is possible that more Malays will vote in PAS just to annoy the 95% moronic Chinese who voted DAP. PAS vote bank is still strong. During last GE14 PAS, DAP and PKR each got 2 million votes, UMNO 2.5 million votes.
Let's see how PAS does in Port Dickson. If PAS maintains its 7000 votes, then it is a rising force to reckon with. Come next GE15 might see additional 2 states fall to PAS: Kedah and Perlis.
The Chinese error in massively supporting those American-backed, anti-China charlatans in DAP is a backlash in the form of an ascendant conservative PAS. The Malay liberals will vote Pakatan but the angry Malays will vote PAS and not UMNO. And there are more angry Malays than liberal Malays.
UMNO days are numbered unless it has the guts to defend Najib forcefully instead of throwing him under the bus. The perception that Najib was done in by UMNO itself will kill UMNO. Not Mahathir's machinations (hey, he is already almost due....)
Of course, if there is a next election under Anwar.....
Again, stupid is as stupid does, wakakakaka.
Delete"Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the object of one's anger.
The Malays seems to think that by going the Taliban way, they would do something that they think will hurt the Chinese and those open-minded Malays, without realizing or even caring that it will hurt themselves as well.
Apo nak kato...sudah bodoh lagi sombong, hehehe.
Sultanah of Terengganu also suing Sarawak Report. All lawyers very happy. Many celebrating at Long Bar, Selangor Club tonight. Long Live Lawyers.
ReplyDeleteNow Everybody Can Sue. Does this include LGBTs I wonder?
ReplyDeleteSome people are throwing around "Derbyshire" Crap without knowing what it was actually about.
ReplyDeletehttps://swarb.co.uk/derbyshire-county-council-v-times-newspapers-ltd-and-others-hl-18-feb-1993/
The real story.
"Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech. Freedom of speech was the underlying value which supported the decision to lay down the specific rule that a local authority could not sue for libel. The same disability does not apply to the authority’s individual members"
I.e. The UK court ruling was -
The Government authority cannot sue for defamation.
Individual members who serve the government CAN sue for defamation, but of course they have to prove how they have been damaged, as usual legal requirement.
So, Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang could not sue for defamation.
But Lim Guan Eng as a person still had the right to sue for defamation.
Just because he has joined the government as an official does not mean he was no rights to protect his reputation from malicious damage.
Next up Federal Court can sue for defamation. And anyone can also sue Federal Court.
ReplyDeleteBersatu Negeri Sembilan should be renamed Berpecah.
ReplyDeleteA "Govt. Of the People, By the People, For the People" do not create laws to frighten the People from criticising or speaking up.
ReplyDeleteFree speech and democracy is dead when people start to fear a Govt.
What Defamation issues are the Govt. afraid? It really bugs me.
Isn't existing laws enough to handle serious cases of sedition or creating public unrest or the security of the Nation?
What dumb ass when accused of stealing 114 million will say “no no it was actually 160 million”?
ReplyDeleteHRH the Sultanah is still mad at Clare. It was a woolly apology. She should do it face to face, make a correction to subsequent prints of the book and from the profits make a token donation to a charity of Her Highnesses’ choice.
ReplyDelete