Let not the court of public opinion prevail

 Journalist P Gunasegaram and businessman Mohamad Salim Fateh Din have an equal right to defend their respective positions and the court is the proper forum to seek a resolution.

From Rozannah Jeffrey

The defamation suit filed against veteran journalist P Gunasegaram by businessman Mohamad Salim Fateh Din has quickly become a debate about more than the article at the centre of the case.

On one side, critics have described the action as a form of strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP), warning that such suits could have a chilling effect on journalists writing about matters of public interest.

On the other, there is an equally straightforward argument: anyone who believes his reputation has been unfairly damaged has the right to seek redress through the courts.

Both principles can exist at the same time.

Journalists must be free to scrutinise matters involving public money, major infrastructure projects and questions of governance.

They are also entitled to draw conclusions and express opinions based on the information available to them, within the boundaries set by the law.

That freedom would mean little if journalists were expected to avoid every subject simply because someone powerful might object to what is written.

At the same time, press freedom does not remove the right of another person to challenge what has been published about him.

If Salim and MRCB believe Gunasegaram’s article conveyed a defamatory meaning, they are entitled to ask a court to determine whether that line was crossed.

That does not make the journalist guilty.

Nor does the filing of a lawsuit automatically mean the action is an attempt to silence journalism.

Those are precisely the questions that should now be tested through the legal process.

Gunasegaram should be given the opportunity to explain the basis of his writing and why he believes it falls within legitimate public-interest commentary.

Salim and MRCB should similarly be allowed to explain why they believe the article damaged their reputations and went beyond permissible criticism.

The danger is in turning the dispute into a public verdict before either side has fully made its case.

Those concerned about press freedom are entitled to raise those concerns. Those concerned about reputational rights are equally entitled to do so.

But once the dispute is before the court, there is little value in trying to determine the outcome through public pressure, political loyalties or social media sentiment.

The court exists precisely for disputes such as this: to examine the words used, the context in which they appeared, the evidence behind them and the legal defences available.

There will be plenty to discuss once a judgment is delivered.

Until then, the fairest position is a simple one — let Gunasegaram defend his journalism, let Salim and MRCB defend their names.

And let the court decide. - FMT

Rozannah Jeffrey is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.