RM15m allegation: 'Anwar shouldn’t be offended by legitimate criticism'

RM15m allegation: 'Anwar shouldn’t be offended by legitimate criticism'


Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim should not be offended by legitimate criticism and queries during political speeches, predecessor Muhyiddin Yassin contended.

The defendant raised this in his statement of defence against Pakatan Harapan chairperson Anwar’s defamation suit over claim that the latter had received RM15 million for serving as Selangor’s economic adviser.

Muhyiddin alleged the words uttered during political campaigning for the 15th general election (GE15) were not defamatory.

The Perikatan Nasional chairperson contended that his statements, made during a political event at the Padang Serai parliamentary constituency in November last year, were related to plaintiff Anwar’s public and political conduct and were matters of legitimate public interest.

“The defendant states that the plaintiff, as the head of the unity government, the leader of Pakatan Harapan and the current prime minister, should not take offence at legitimate criticism and queries posed by the defendant during political speeches.

“The defendant further states that the plaintiff ought to have openly and wholeheartedly responded to the queries posed and to deny any allegations which he asserts as false.

“Given that both the plaintiff and the defendant are public figures and leaders of their respective parties, it is incumbent that they were frequently confronted with allegations which may have been misstated, misquoted or taken out of context by the media,” Bersatu president Muhyiddin claimed in dismissing PKR president Anwar’s claim that the impugned statements were made out of malice.

Moral duty

The Pagoh MP contended his words are protected by qualified privilege, which is a defence that applies in a situation where the words were issued by a person who has an interest, or a legal, social, or moral duty to do so.

“The defendant states that as a politician and the chairperson of Perikatan Nasional, there is an existing and established relationship between himself and the electorate in Padang Serai.

“In view of the relationship, the defendant has a legitimate duty to provide information to the party members and electorate within the constituency and to express his opinion on the qualifications of those who hold public office.

“The party members and voters have a corresponding and legitimate social and moral interest in receiving this information and opinions

“In the circumstances, the defendant has a legitimate duty and/or interest to communicate the impugned (allegedly) slanderous words and/or the matters therein to the electorate within the constituency and the party members, who had a legitimate interest to receive and /or be informed of the same.

“The defendant further states that it is necessary for the welfare of society that there should be a frank exchange of information and opinions of those who hold public office and curtailing the same would be a breach of the defendant’s freedom of expression under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution,” Muhyiddin claimed.

Public interest

The defendant also raised the defence of fair comment, which is where the impugned statement was made as a fair comment, rather than as a statement of fact, over an issue of public interest.

Yesterday, Bernama reported that Muhyiddin filed his statement of defence on Jan 1.

On Dec 20 last year, Tambun MP Anwar filed the defamation action against Muhyiddin at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

The civil suit was over Muhyiddin’s statement purportedly made during the PN grand finale Ceramah on Dec 5.

Through the defamation suit, Anwar rubbished the allegation as slanderous, false and disparaging against him, as well as made with malice.

On Dec 7 last year, the Selangor Menteri Besar’s office refuted Muhyiddin’s claims, adding that Anwar was only paid a symbolic RM1 per month during the advisory stint.