“They cannot hope to cover themselves or hide from the laws. What is freedom without responsibility?” – PM Abdullah Badawi on the historic 2007 defamation lawsuit against two bloggers (Aljazeera)
FOUR decades as a journalist and I have become some kind of an expert on the matter of defamation, I think, even though I’ve never had the chance to read law, let alone practise it. The newsroom is the best of gurus.
And the courtroom, too, of course.
In 2007, barely six months after parting ways with the New Straits Times Press, I was dragged into what Google describes as a “historic defamation lawsuit*** that changed the media landscape in the country”. It was the first time on Earth that a newspaper company was suing a blogger for defamation.
My legal battle would drag on for five years and has made me the wiser: a defamation suit cannot kill press freedom; on the contrary, it provides the journalist an opportunity in front of the whole world to prove that he has, to the best of his ability, reported the truth or he has been fair to all parties in his commentary.
It is not defamation if it is true.
Journalists from my era, those who started reporting in the 1980s, have seen some of the biggest defamation cases. The 1990s was the decade of mega awards, when the norm was for tycoons and corporations who believed they had been defamed would seek tens and sometimes hundreds of million in compensation and damages. The 2000s saw a string of lawsuits against blogs.
But we also had other, bigger concerns, the ISA and the OSA chief among them, yes, some of our bosses and colleagues had been incarcerated without trial. On top of that, there were scores of laws that could be used to shut your publication down without notice and put you out to pasture.
The police raid on the home of journalist Nantha last April over his reports on foreign workers, now that had a chilling effect on journalists.
But with a defamation suit, a journalist get to fight it out in court.
I have my own rules or principles pertaining to defamation: one, journalists (and newspapers or media companies) have no business suing anyone for defamation; and, two, a politician should only sue another politician for defamation.
Salim Fateh Din, who is suing journalist P. Gunasegaram for defamation, is neither journalist nor politician.
He is deputy executive chairman of MRCB, a public-listed property development, engineering and construction company. The EPF is the largest single shareholder of MRCB.
So if Salim decides to sue journalists in this country (which he has on several occassions), journalists in foreign countries (most recently against Murray Hunter), politicians (he recently won a case against a former assemblyman), or anyone else, for that matter, to defend his reputation or the reputation of his family or company, that is his business and his right.
Bear in mind that when someone is sued for defamation, he is not doomed. Whether he is sued for RM1 or RM240 million (probably the biggest case on record in Malaysia) is immaterial, the defendant must still prove his case.
The system gives the defendant ample opportunity to prove defend himself or herself against the accusation.
I know at least a couple of journalists who were sued successfully by Salim for defamation in the past. One of them was ordered to pay the businessman a sum but after a post-hearing table talk and after one party offered a belated but sincere apology, Salim waived that money. All he wanted, Salim had said later, was to protect his reputation.
Last year Salim succesfully sued Murray Hunter, the former lecturer at a Perlis university who has found fun and fame in Thailand as a blogger specialising in finding fault with everything Malaysian. The lawsuit was filed in Thailand. The arms of the law are long. Read my postings on the matter at rockybru.com.my
Hunter had a lot to say until reality hit him, which is, the laws are clear about defamation, yes, and the colour of your skin, your nationality, and your seniority do not count, what matters are facts, the truth and your intentions.
Hunter made a public apology to Salim and admitted that he had defamed the Malaysian.
In another case, involving Chegubard, Salim and the blogger settled their differences out of court. No public apologies were recorded, none in chamber as well, if I’m not mistaken.
Gunasegaram is no Murray Hunter or Chegubard, of course, like langit dan bumi. He was already an established byline when I interned at Business Times some 42 years ago. This.is not his first multi-million ringgit defamation suit. He lost his job (not at BT) purportedly because he published an article that made Proton the national car look bad.
The RM100 million defamation against Guna is not an attack on the journalist and definitely not on presa freedom. Salim felt he had been defamed by Guna, asked the journalist to apologize and bring down the article, and filed the suit only when Guna said he would stand by his article and would not apologize.
Gunasegaram is a bigger expert than me on matters pertaining to defamation, that I am sure of. He will agree with me that while it will be an inconvenience, a great one perhaps, the lawsuit is an opportunity to prove that his commentary or report was was factual, a fair comment in the interest of the public, and was done without malice.
A chance in the court room, not just the court of public opinion, to uphold and fortify that freedom.
In Malaysia’s defamation history, the highest payout was RM7 million in the Ling Wah Press vs Vincent Tan in 2000. Ironically, this was over a series of articles accusing tycoon Vincent Tan, the owner of the Sun newspaper, of using his media group to manipulate politicians and advance his business interest.
*** The historic 2007 defamation lawsuit against Ahirudin Attan (Rocky Bru) ended in January 2012 when the case was settled out of court. [1, 2]
The legal battle drew to a close with a mutual resolution after dragging on for five years:
No Money Exchanged: Crucially, in the spirit of an amicable resolution, both sides agreed that no damages or court costs would be paid. [1]
The Corporate Withdrawal: The primary corporate plaintiff, The New Straits Times Press (NSTP), formally dropped its part of the lawsuit against Ahirudin in September 2010. [1, 2]
The Apology in Chambers: The remaining suit, driven by four former top NSTP executives (including former deputy chairman Datuk Seri Kalimullah Masheerul Hassan), was resolved when Ahirudin agreed to a recorded statement of settlement. He apologized for the “distress, embarrassment, and inconvenience” caused by the 48 blog posts under dispute, withdrew the specific allegations, and published the apology on his blog. [1, 2, 3]
By ending in a cost-free settlement rather than a massive financial judgment, the conclusion was widely seen as a landmark victory for the survival and freedom of independent political blogging and cyber-journalism in Malaysia. – August 20, 2026
Datuk Ahirudin Attan, better known as Rocky Bru, is executive director at Big Boom Media which publishes Scoop.