Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) lecturer Kamarul Zaman Yusoff has been ordered to pay RM400,000 in damages to Youth and Sports Minister Hannah Yeoh.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision was in relation to Kamarul’s Facebook posts in 2017, which defamed the DAP lawmaker.
Judge Aliza Sulaiman awarded the sum as general and aggravated damages - RM200,000 for each defamatory post. The court also ordered Kamarul to pay RM80,000 in legal costs.
In her judgment, Aliza ruled that she found no merit in the defendant’s submission that Yeoh lacked locus standi to initiate the suit.
The judge also disallowed Yeoh’s request for a public apology, stating: “Any apology would not be sincere.”
Aliza also granted an injunction to restrain the defendant, his servants, or agents from republishing the impugned words or similar statements.
When met by reporters, Yeoh expressed her gratitude to her legal team for their tireless efforts in seeking justice on her behalf.
“After enduring years of defamation, justice has finally prevailed. These allegations were entirely false, and I have been praying since 2017 for this. I sincerely hope that moving forward, no one will resort to exploiting religious sentiments or spreading baseless accusations about me or my book.
“The court has acknowledged that the issue at hand involved religious sentiment.
“In a multiracial and multireligious country like ours, invoking such sentiments is akin to playing with fire. It is dangerous, especially when it involves slander. I believe slander is prohibited in Islam,” Bernama reported the Segambut MP as saying.
The defamation suit, filed in 2022, arose from two Facebook posts made by Kamarul between May 10 and May 17, 2017, in which he alleged that Yeoh had a proselytising agenda and was using her political platform to advance Christianity.
He also cited her autobiography, “Becoming Hannah: A Personal Journey”, as evidence of her purported Christian agenda, further alleging that she sought to turn Malaysia into a Christian nation.
In his statement of defence, Kamarul denied that the posts were defamatory and asserted that his statements were justified.
Kamarul to challenge decision
In an immediate response, Kamarul said he would be filing an appeal with the Court of Appeal to challenge the High Court's decision.
"I wish to stress that I respect the court’s decision. However, I do not agree with the findings or the reasoning behind the judgment that led to this outcome.
"As such, I will be filing an appeal to the Court of Appeal in the near future to challenge this decision on both factual and legal grounds," he said in a statement.
Kamarul also expressed gratitude to his legal team and supporters, stating that the legal process is far from over.
He urged the public to allow the courts to review the matter fully at the appellate stage.
Burden of proof
Bernama reported the judge as saying that the court was satisfied that the plaintiff, Yeoh, had discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities in establishing that the first and second posts were defamatory of her.
"He (defendant) suggests the plaintiff (Yeoh) is a threat to Islam and used her position to 'Christianise' the country.
"In a multiracial and multireligious country where the issue of religion is, of course, very sensitive, this would surely expose the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule and contempt," she said.
The judge noted that the defendant had pleaded the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege, but found that none had been successfully established.
Aliza further held that if the defendant genuinely believed the plaintiff had committed an offence, lodging a police report would have been sufficient. Instead, the defendant chose to publish it on Facebook.
She noted that the publication was not in dispute, and it was evident from both the titles and content that the statements were directed specifically at the plaintiff.
The judge also rejected the defence’s contention that the first publication was aimed at DAP as a political party, rather than the plaintiff personally.
"Even the defendant’s own pleadings mentioned the plaintiff by name, and the title of the article made the target unmistakable. The defendant’s personal understanding of the book is not relevant, as what matters is how an ordinary reader would interpret the statements.
"The readers would reasonably believe that the plaintiff was spreading Christianity unlawfully and, by implication, committing a crime," she said, as quoted by Bernama.
Yeoh was accompanied by her counsel, Sangeet Kaur Deo, while Kamarul was not in attendance. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.