KUCHING, Feb 13: The Federal Court’s decision in maintaining that the state and federal governments can sue individuals for defamation serves as a fair warning to all members of state legislative assemblies (ADUNs) and Parliament (MPs) that their privileges are not a blanket of immunity to defame anyone or the government, according to Santubong MP Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar.
He made these remarks in response to the court ruling yesterday (Feb 12) which dismissed Democratic Action Party (DAP) Sarawak chairman Chong Chieng Jen’s bid to review the ruling that the government can sue citizens.
Chong, who is also Deputy Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs, was ordered to pay RM100,000 in costs to the Sarawak government, represented by state legal counsel Datuk Seri JC Fong.
“The court’s decision is based on the merit of the case. But what is interesting about this case is that, a person could be liable for defaming a government.
“To me, it is a watermark (sic) case which demonstrated that the basic principle of defaming an individual is also applicable to the government. Perhaps, it would also apply to corporations. Who knows?” according to Wan Junaidi in a press statement today.
As such, Wan Junaidi pointed out that MPs and ADUNs must fully understand the law as well as their rights and privileges under which they operate to be protected by the Constitution.
“It is not a blanket of immunity to criticise a person or government. Definitely not a warrant to defame anyone or the government,” he noted in reference to Article 63 of the Federal Constitution which affords limited privileges to MPs, and Article 73 with regards to ADUNs.
“But under Article 25 of the Sarawak Constitution, the state may create laws to provide for the limited immunity to ADUN,” he noted.
Wan Junaidi also reminded lawmakers from both sides to be careful with their words as they could be liable under the law when the line of fair comment or other justification under the law is crossed.
“MPs and ADUNs must always bear in mind that they have no such immunity to protect themselves against the law, except, in the course of performing their roles as members of the House.
“Article 63 of the Federal Constitution and all parliamentary privileges defined under it could afford such protection. While Article 10 provides for the freedom of speech and expression, but that freedom is not unfettered or not without boundary,” he said.
He quoted the words of Lord Denning who said: “Your right ends, when the right of others begins.”
“It means, the moment you cross the the line you would be answerable to the law. When you infringe the right of others, then, Lord Denning also says, ‘when there is right, there is remedy’,” he added.
Wan Junaidi also observed that ADUNs have the right to criticise the government or persons, including ministers, officers or others, but within the limit allowed by the law created under Article 25 of State Constitution and the Rules of the House.
“Once the ADUN crosses that line then he has lost his protection. The scope and limits of the privileges are defined by common law imported through the parliamentary system of the Westminster model of government which are applicable in Malaysia’s system of law.
“The parliamentary privileges applied to the MP is also applied to the ADUN and are similar in manner,” he added.
Meanwhile, following the court decision, the defamation suit against Chong will be heard in the Kuching High Court on Feb 19. — DayakDaily
