Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

TORT LAW – DEFAMATION – POLITICIANS – PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES – IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION

Fitnah

  • Publication of a statement that lowers the reputation of another person.

Types of Defamation

  • Libel – Defamatory statement in a permanent form (e.g. articles, Facebook posts, WhatsApp messages).
  • Slander – Defamatory statement in a temporary form (e.g. spoken words).

 Can a politician be sued for defamation in the Parliament?
No.

  • A defamation suit is not possible against a politician for words spoken in the House of Parliament.

Why can’t a politician be sued?

  • To enable Parliament to perform their functions effectively and without interference from anyone outside of Parliament, the Constitution confers certain rights and legal immunities under “Parliamentary Privileges” Members of Parliament (“MP”).
  • In other words, it is to safeguard the freedom, the authority and the dignity of Parliament.

Is this governed by any Malaysia law?
Yes.

  • Article 63(2) and 63(3) of the Federal Constitution – No person shall be liable to any proceedings in court for anything said or published by them in either Houses of Parliament.
  • Section 7 of the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952 – Immunity of members from civil or criminal proceedings.
  • Generally speaking, MP enjoys complete freedom of expression in the House and in the committees of the House.

 What are the actions that can actually be taken against the politician?

  • Each House has power to discipline its own members.
  • Each House can penalize its members for breaches of the privileges or contempt of that House.
  • If a politician is accused of abusing his freedom of speech or of committing contempt of the House, he may be investigated, tried and either convicted or acquitted by the House itself.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »
12 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »
12 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »
12 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »
1 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »
1 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
1 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami