Bestinet Sdn Bhd and its founder, Aminul Islam Abdul Nor, are suing 10 media outlets and individuals, including Malaysiakini, with over RM1 billion being sought as damages.
This is over Bloomberg’s report titled “Everyone gets a cut, and migrant workers pay the price”, published on Jan 23, and subsequent reports repeating its claims and commenting on the issue.
In their statement of claim, Bestinet and Aminul claimed that the impugned statements, among others, portrayed them as being involved in human trafficking, money laundering, corrupt practices, deliberately denying the government access to the Foreign Worker Centralised Management System (FWCMS), and had enriched themselves at the expense of vulnerable migrants.
“The impugned statements are defamatory, false, untrue, inconsistent, baseless, published with malice, misleading, and a complete fabrication,” Aminul said in his affidavit, according to filings made at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur on Feb 12 and served to Malaysiakini today.
Malaysiakini is named as the fifth defendant in the suit, while Bloomberg’s New York office and Kuala Lumpur office are respectively named as first and second defendants.
Other defendants are The Edge Communications Sdn Bhd (publisher of The Edge), MNow Media Sdn Bhd (publisher of MalaysiaNow), Norhafizan Muhamad and Nur Azwan Nusi (as owners of a partnership that operates Harapan Daily), former MACC chief commissioner Latheefa Koya, former economy minister Rafizi Ramli, and content creator Iswardy Morni, who runs the YouTube channel “YB Youtube Channel”.
The plaintiffs sought RM500 million in special damages from each of the two Bloomberg entities, and RM5 million from each of the other eight defendants.
They also sought general, aggravated, and exemplary damages assessed by the court, a five percent per annum interest on all damages, a written apology, and retraction of the offending articles.
In addition, the plaintiffs sought an ex parte injunction against the defendants to prevent them from further disseminating the allegedly defamatory statements, pending the conclusion of the suit, arguing that the statements would likely be repeated unless the defendants are restrained and would further damage their reputation.
“Although damages are claimed by the plaintiffs in the statement of claim, the plaintiffs genuinely believe that damages alone are not sufficient and/or appropriate remedy as this matter concerns the plaintiffs’ reputation and good name, which are incapable of being restored, and if the injunction sought in the notice of application is not granted, any damage suffered by the plaintiffs would be irreparable.
“The defamation has seriously injured and prejudiced the long-standing 18-year goodwill and reputation built by the first plaintiff (Bestinet) in the field of IT and manpower consultation, and the long-standing 38-year goodwill and reputation built by me in managing service-oriented business as well as a responsible citizen of Malaysia,” Aminul wrote in his affidavit.
Judge rejects gag order bid
However, the application for an injunction was rejected by High Court Judge Roslan Mat Nor without orders as to cost.
In his written judgment dated last Friday, the judge wrote that the allegedly defamatory statements pertain to a matter of public interest, namely the recruitment of migrant workers to Malaysia.
“If an interim injunction is granted, it would prevent the defendants from voicing opinions on such public interest matters. This court is of the view that it directly threatens the defendants’ freedom of speech,” he said, while affirming that the freedom is still subject to legal provisions.
The judge also disagreed with the plaintiffs’ arguments that any of the defendants’ possible answers and defences to the lawsuit are without merit, pointing to the possibility that the defendants could argue that their statements were justified or were fair comment.
In addition, the judge said the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently demonstrate that rejecting the application would lead to immediate and specific harms to the plaintiffs, such as losing business opportunities.
“Since there are no such testimonies, it is difficult for the court to say that the defendants’ public statements have caused harm to the plaintiffs and an interim injunction should be granted immediately through this ex parte application,” he said.
Spotlight on migrant recruitment fees
The Bloomberg article was centred around the plight of Bangladeshi migrants who had to borrow a hefty amount of money so they could pay an alleged “syndicate fee” to work in Malaysia. It attributed this to the FWCMS created by Bestinet and adopted by Malaysia in 2015.
Following the report, Latheefa criticised the government on X for keeping mum about the report and questioned its commitment to fighting corruption.
Rafizi, meanwhile, said in his weekly podcast that the Bloomberg report is damning, and urged the implementation of proper procedures in the digital recruitment system to prevent further exploitation of migrant workers.
Citing findings by a 2023 government audit report, he said the government is essentially locked out of the FWCMS system while access was given to non-government operators. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.