Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

TORT OF DEFAMATION – NO MALICE, NO DEFAMATION: POLITICAL COMMENTARY STANDS PROTECTED

1. Summary and Facts

In Lim Guan Eng v Datuk Tan Teik Cheng & Anor [2025] 2 MLJ 791, the Court of Appeal addressed a defamation suit filed by the appellant, Lim Guan Eng, against Datuk Tan Teik Cheng (R1) and The Star Online (R2).

On 7.3.2022, The Star Online published a “Letter to the Editor” authored by R1, then Vice-President of MCA. The article alleged, among other things, that Lim had politicised Chinese education and claimed to allocate RM4 million to SJKC Kuek Ho Yao during the Johor State Election campaign – allegedly with a condition to rename the school. The article ended with a question: “When will he come out to explain this matter?”

Lim Guan Eng claimed the statements were defamatory and sought RM5 million in damages. The High Court dismissed the claim. Lim appealed to the Court of Appeal.

2. Legal issues

• Whether the article, in its natural and ordinary meaning, was defamatory of the appellant.
• Whether the defences of fair comment, justification, and reportage applied.
• Whether the statements were published with malice, which would defeat any available defence.

3. Court Findings

• The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the High Court’s decision, ruled that the statements were not defamatory when read in context. They were inquiries seeking clarification, does not amount to misconduct.
• When read as a whole, the article did not carry a defamatory meaning. It called for clarification rather than making a direct accusation. The final sentence, inviting an explanation from Lim, diluted any defamatory sting.
• The Court found the article to be an expression of opinion on a matter of public interest. The statements were based on facts known to the public at the time and constituted views that a fair-minded person could honestly hold. The defence of fair comment was successfully established.
• The Star Online was entitled to rely on the defence of reportage. The article was published in a neutral and disinterested manner, clearly attributed to R1, and without editorial endorsement. The article was placed in the “Letters to the Editor” section, allowing space for public response – including from Lim himself.
• The Court rejected the argument that political rivalry alone established malice. R1 had made prior inquiries and genuinely believed in what he wrote. There was no evidence of recklessness or dishonesty in the publication.

4. Practical Implications

This decision reinforces several key principles in defamation law. A statement that invites clarification — even if critical — may not be defamatory when fairly expressed. Fair comment remains a robust defence if the opinion is honest and grounded in fact. Reportage protects publishers reporting on ongoing public controversies, provided the report is neutral and does not adopt the allegations. Malice must be proven with more than political animosity — there must be evidence of dishonesty or bad faith.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 尚無留言

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 尚無留言

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们