FMT:
Court weighs PAS MP’s appeal against RM750K award to DAP trio
5 hours ago
Faisal Asyraf
Siti Mastura Muhammad’s lawyer says her comments were ‘ideological comparisons’, while Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng and Teresa Kok seek higher awards for reputational harm
Siti Mastura Muhammad is appealing against a judgment made in favour of Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng and Teresa Kok, handed down by the Penang High Court in December 2024.
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in PAS MP Siti Mastura Muhammad’s appeal against a ruling ordering her to pay RM750,000 in damages for defaming three senior DAP politicians.
In court today, counsel Yusfarizal Yusoff, representing Siti, argued that her remarks linking Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng and Teresa Kok to the late Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) leader Chin Peng were intended to reference similarities in political ideology, not to suggest literal family ties.
Yusfarizal submitted that when Siti used the word “cousin” during a political speech in Kemaman, Terengganu, on Nov 4, 2023, she was drawing an ideological comparison between CPM’s and DAP’s principles.
“When the defendant used the phrase ‘Chin Peng’s cousin’, she was drawing a comparison at the level of political ideology, which could be equated with DAP’s principles,” he said.
Yusfarizal referred to DAP’s 1967 Setapak Declaration, submitting that it showed alleged similarities with communist principles.
He stressed that Siti’s remarks were made in the context of a political speech delivered during an election period, and should be understood as political criticism rather than an allegation of criminal or subversive conduct.
“My humble argument is that the context is a political speech and that an election was around the corner,” he said, emphasising that the comparison stopped with political ideology.
He said the High Court judge had “over-analysed” the issue, adding that DAP had previously attempted to equate PAS’s ideology with the Taliban, which he said reflected the prevailing political climate in the country.
On Dec 4, 2024, the Penang High Court ruled in favour of the trio, awarding RM300,000 to Kit Siang, RM250,000 to Guan Eng and RM200,000 to Kok.
Justice Quay Chew Soon also ordered Siti to pay RM25,000 in costs to each plaintiff, with 5% interest from the date of judgment.
‘Trio suffered reputational harm’
Counsel SN Nair, appearing for the DAP leaders, argued that Siti’s intentions were neither accidental nor benign, and that the High Court was correct in finding malice.
He submitted that the remarks were “specious, calculated and profoundly malicious”, aimed at demonising his clients rather than engaging in legitimate political debate.
Nair said Siti’s speech exploited deeply rooted racial and historical sensitivities by equating Chinese political leadership with communism, violence and terrorism.
“This conduct was directed at the general electorate, in particular the sizeable Malay voting population, by invoking auto-suggestive historical conditioning rather than rational debate,” he said.
Nair also said that the false linkage to Chin Peng carried an unmistakable pre-election message and caused reputational harm that was “enduring and effectively irreversible”.
He asked for Siti’s appeal to be dismissed with costs. Nair also asked for his clients’ cross-appeal for higher damages to be allowed, to properly vindicate their reputation and reflect gravity and excessive aggravating conduct.
At the end of proceedings, the three-judge panel, chaired by Justice Ahmad Kamal Shahid and comprising Justices Evrol Mariette Peters and Latifah Tahar, fixed Feb 24 for case management.
In court today, counsel Yusfarizal Yusoff, representing Siti, argued that her remarks linking Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng and Teresa Kok to the late Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) leader Chin Peng were intended to reference similarities in political ideology, not to suggest literal family ties.
Yusfarizal submitted that when Siti used the word “cousin” during a political speech in Kemaman, Terengganu, on Nov 4, 2023, she was drawing an ideological comparison between CPM’s and DAP’s principles.
“When the defendant used the phrase ‘Chin Peng’s cousin’, she was drawing a comparison at the level of political ideology, which could be equated with DAP’s principles,” he said.
Yusfarizal referred to DAP’s 1967 Setapak Declaration, submitting that it showed alleged similarities with communist principles.
He stressed that Siti’s remarks were made in the context of a political speech delivered during an election period, and should be understood as political criticism rather than an allegation of criminal or subversive conduct.
“My humble argument is that the context is a political speech and that an election was around the corner,” he said, emphasising that the comparison stopped with political ideology.
He said the High Court judge had “over-analysed” the issue, adding that DAP had previously attempted to equate PAS’s ideology with the Taliban, which he said reflected the prevailing political climate in the country.
On Dec 4, 2024, the Penang High Court ruled in favour of the trio, awarding RM300,000 to Kit Siang, RM250,000 to Guan Eng and RM200,000 to Kok.
Justice Quay Chew Soon also ordered Siti to pay RM25,000 in costs to each plaintiff, with 5% interest from the date of judgment.
‘Trio suffered reputational harm’
Counsel SN Nair, appearing for the DAP leaders, argued that Siti’s intentions were neither accidental nor benign, and that the High Court was correct in finding malice.
He submitted that the remarks were “specious, calculated and profoundly malicious”, aimed at demonising his clients rather than engaging in legitimate political debate.
Nair said Siti’s speech exploited deeply rooted racial and historical sensitivities by equating Chinese political leadership with communism, violence and terrorism.
“This conduct was directed at the general electorate, in particular the sizeable Malay voting population, by invoking auto-suggestive historical conditioning rather than rational debate,” he said.
Nair also said that the false linkage to Chin Peng carried an unmistakable pre-election message and caused reputational harm that was “enduring and effectively irreversible”.
He asked for Siti’s appeal to be dismissed with costs. Nair also asked for his clients’ cross-appeal for higher damages to be allowed, to properly vindicate their reputation and reflect gravity and excessive aggravating conduct.
At the end of proceedings, the three-judge panel, chaired by Justice Ahmad Kamal Shahid and comprising Justices Evrol Mariette Peters and Latifah Tahar, fixed Feb 24 for case management.
No comments:
Post a Comment