By Dorcas Ting
KUCHING, Feb 19: The High Court today heard final submissions in a high-profile defamation lawsuit filed by Sarawak United Peoples’ Party (SUPP) president Datuk Amar Dr Sim Kui Hian against Democratic Action Party (DAP) Sarawak chairman Chong Chieng Jen over a series of Facebook posts.
The lawsuit concerns two Facebook posts made in April 2020, during the Movement Control Order (MCO), which the plaintiff alleges were defamatory and damaged his reputation.
The defendant, however, maintained that the posts were directed at the Sarawak GPS government’s policy on food aid distribution and not at Dr Sim personally.
Dr Sim’s legal team led by Dato Shankar Ram argued that the Facebook posts must be examined in their full context, alongside the defendant’s press statements and other public remarks, which, they claimed, formed a continuous attempt to discredit the plaintiff.
The plaintiff’s submissions, supported by case law, asserted that the defamatory nature of the statements, became clear when viewed as a whole.
The counsel further contended that Chong’s failure to verify facts before publication demonstrated a reckless disregard for the truth, which constitutes malice.
The plaintiff also presented witness testimony from Sarawak Welfare, Community Wellbeing, Women, Family and Childhood Development Minister Dato Sri Fatimah and Assistant Minister for Education, Innovation and Talent Development Dr Annuar Rapaee, both of whom testified that the Facebook posts did, in fact, refer to Dr Sim.
Chong’s legal team countered that the posts were a critique of the GPS government’s handling of food aid distribution, which the defendant believed was unfairly administered during the pandemic.
They insisted that Dr Sim was not the target of the posts and that the statements were protected under the defenses of fair comment and qualified privilege.
Citing legal precedents, the defendant’s counsel Michael Kong argued that malice cannot be inferred because the defendant had an honest belief in the truth of his statements at the time of publication.
They also maintained that as a public figure, Dr Sim was subject to public scrutiny, particularly on matters concerning governance and public welfare.
During proceedings, the High Court refused to accept a last-minute written submission filed by Chong’s legal team, ruling that only previously filed submissions would be considered.
However, the court granted the defendant’s legal team the opportunity to present oral arguments.
A major point of contention in the case was the “single meaning rule”, with the defendant arguing that each Facebook post must be interpreted independently.
In contrast, the plaintiff contended that the entire series of statements, including press releases, should be examined together to establish a pattern of defamatory conduct.
Additionally, the plaintiff’s legal team urged the court to determine whether the defendant’s statements amounted to malicious falsehood, given that Chong allegedly ignored factual clarifications from government officials before making his posts.
With final arguments presented, the case is now under deliberation. The court’s ruling is expected to set a significant legal precedent for online defamation and political commentary cases in Malaysia. – DayakDaily
