Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

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

Defamation

  • 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

Recent Post

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us