Lawyer claims Muhyiddin’s words damaged Lim’s image

Focus Malaysia:

Lawyer claims Muhyiddin’s words damaged Lim’s image

A STATEMENT made by former premier Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin could lead a reasonable person to believe that DAP leader Lim Guan Eng had revoked Yayasan Albukhary’s tax-exempt status while serving as finance minister, the High Court was told today.

Lim’s lawyer Guok Ngek Seong argued that Muhyiddin’s remarks suggested that Lim, who held the ministerial post from May 2018 to February 2020, had abused his power and acted with bad faith by targeting the foundation which assists the Malay-Muslim community.

It insinuated that the plaintiff (Lim) was anti-Malay and anti-Muslim by targeting Yayasan Albukhary which has been assisting the Malay and the Muslim society, Guok said during the libel trial before judicial commissioner Roz Mawar Rozain.


The trial stems from a defamation suit filed by Lim on March 27 last year, seeking an apology, a retraction of three statements, damages, and legal costs. The case revolves around Muhyiddin’s alleged comments made on March 9, 11, and 12, accusing Lim of revoking Yayasan Albukhary’s tax-exempt status and imposing penalties on the foundation.

Guok contended that Muhyiddin’s defense of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege was not tenable, as the former premier had not verified the claims with Lim before making the statements.

While the defendant is at liberty to exercise his freedom of speech and expression, it is submitted that the constitutional right is no licence to issue defamatory and untrue statements, added Guok, calling for RM300,000 in damages for each of the three allegedly defamatory statements.

Moreover, Muhyiddin’s lawyer Chetan Jethwani countered by arguing that the statements were not defamatory and that any damage to Lim’s reputation was the result of his own conduct.

It is the plaintiff’s statement of the meaning and its widespread publication that has lent a negative perception to the situation.

Chetan said Muhyiddin’s remarks were explanations of his position regarding an investigation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and did not suggest the meanings attributed to them by Lim.

At no point in time did the defendant make any remark which was capable of suggesting any of the meaning ascribed by the plaintiff.

He added that the second statement was a clarification following a social media post by Lim, while the third was made in response to a reporter’s question. Muhyiddin’s defence team also argued that the former prime minister was entitled to rely on fair comment and qualified privilege.

Should the court find the defendant liable, the damages should be minimal as there was no serious damage to the plaintiff’s reputation.

Roz Mawar will deliver her ruling on the case on Nov 8. – Sept 12, 2024