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

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

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
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us