Friday, March 15, 2019

Note of Appreciation to Dr Bahma

During this whole Cyberlaw course, I would like to thank Dr Bahma for having to execute the subject in an interesting manner with her enormous knowledge and experience in this field. She has guided well enough for me to understand and acknowledge my topic of interest to write in this blog. Do enjoy my posting and please do share your opinions and thoughts as it adds value to this blog.




Introduction to Defamation

Defamation - Brief Introduction

Defamation is an untruthful allegation of a crime or a malicious misrepresentation of anothers’ words or actions. The existence of the law is to simply guard from reputational damage to an individual or an organisation. Defamation laws defend both private citizens and public figures. There are two types of statements in the contexts of defamation, libel and slander. Libel can be considered to be permanent statement which comes in the form of writing, recording, or other way. On the contrary, slander is said to be non-permanent communication as it is only executed orally, body language or gestures. Generally, lawsuits are filed by the people who experiences intolerable accusation leading to fatal reputational damage to career, business, organisation, financial injury and others. Plaintiffs or in other words accuser must prove actual harm and not the potential for harm, in a claim.

The ruling enactment of defamation in Malaysia is Defamation Act 1957 which is governed under the Penal Code especially Section 499. Section 499 defines defamation as "Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs, or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation and shall also be liable to fine of such person, is said,except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person". 

The punishment for executing a defamation act falls under the Section 499 stating "Whoever defames another shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both."

There elements of defamation comprises of 4 areas :-

1)      The Statement Must Be Defamatory
False statement that reveals a person to hatred, or contempt, causing them to be shunned, or bringing about injures to him or his business. Statements that are merely offensive are not defamatory. An opinion statement is void in the basis of defamation claim because true or false cannot be proven.

2)      The Statement Must Be About the Claimant
Untrue accusation should be directed and impacting the intended person or subject target. In other words, when another person reads the statement, the sentence should not be read twice in order to understand the meaning. Sometimes, the name of the claimant will not be revealed and will statement of subject will be unclear to precisely identify. However, if the information provided is out rightly describing or revealing the plaintiff, then the criteria is fulfilled.

3)      The Statement Must Be Published
Statement are considered to have reach and communicated to the intended group of people.

4)      The Statement Must Cause Serious Harm
The statement has caused or would be likely to reason a serious harm to the claimant's reputation. If there is lack of evidence supporting the its serious harm to the reputation of the client, then the statement is not deemed to be defamatory

Law as Part of Our Life



Law is an important because it plays a huge role in our life in shaping the way we conduct and execute our actions and allows the nation to function in an orderly manner. The non-existence of it will clearly demonstrate a poor and aimless individual, group, organisation and nation. The composition of law derived from the Parliament and the judges has said confirmed provides a framework for interaction. The law applies in all places which leaves no space to be questionable. Defamation in this current era has far reached people in so many ways via emails, social media, and verbal communication and so on. The channel that’s being used or abused has allowed a wider range of audience to actually witness defamation cases going on. Some of the defamation articles that i will talk about are workplace, racial discrimination, social media, character and educational defamation.

In Malaysia, the number of cases falling under the defamation umbrella is quite a number and that includes from all categories as mentioned previously. This makes it more interesting for me to do more research on defamation as I would be able to surf around for information that could suffice my upcoming articles to be posted. The process of defamation that is being taken into execution by the Malaysian Law is no different from other country as well. Every small action an individual decides to take or act upon will have its consequences if it is done against good will. The current generation of young adults, teenagers has poor awareness on the major consequences that defamation charges could bring about for their actions conducted. Their inconsiderate ad hurtful speech, action and gestures has led to social discrimination regardless if its students or adults. There are some unheard voices from victims who are unaware that they are facing or going through defamation due to lack of knowledge on law that’s in place to protect them. Though aware of the situation, some remain to suppress and be silent fearing that it jeopardizes their current state.
The current law and educational system need to be reinforced and revisited to better ensure the visibility of the law strength among our nations. Some of the suggestions I could propose are :-

a)      Revisiting the education syllabus to include or add on law as a mandatory subject
b)      Organizing talk for all age group on the awareness of defamation law (school, colleges/universities, working world
c)       Mandatory compliance training (online/face-to-face)
d)      Gain the nations trust to believe the law will stand by them – no biasness

Case 1: Teacher Wins RM400,000 in Defamation Suit Against Principal

Summary: Wong from SMK Convent Light Street, Penang filed a case against Lee, the principal of the school for defamation remarks that was being reported to the Penang Education Department. The statement written by Lee are Wong aggressively attacking the principal, scolded the principal “you are gila”, “you are an idiot” and “you go to hell”. In addition to make the defamatory true, he adds her refusal to abide the school regulations and complaint about her performance. She has been accused too of calling her pupils with inappropriate words and being disrespectful among other teachers. 

Action: Wong had indeed won the case by proving all those defamatory statements wrong and not aligned with her character and actions. Judge Azman ordered Lee to pay a total of RM430,000 damages and ruled Lee to immediately stop carrying out such remarks and claim RM 1.8mil in damage. Both teachers was transferred to different school to continue their profession respectively.

Review: The case has taken over all the points under the Law of Malaysia, Defamation Act 1957. The law also applies Section 211 and 233 of the Communication and Multimedia Act 1998 for which the defamation remarks was circulated via electronic platforms to higher authority and wide range of audience. In addition to that, the principal can be charged under Section 509 under Section 211 for insulting the modesty of the plaintiff Wong by words. The allegations thrown upon by the defendant to the plaintiff are proven wrong. Because of the report, Wong would have felt a feeling of hatred, ridiculed and humiliated by society members, friends and staff of SMK Convent Street. The statement made also had clearly stated her name only and not a certain group or class of people which makes the claimant identifiable. Wong and the court preceding viewed the same page as the publication of the report containing defamatory remarks to the Department had severely tarnished her professional status, character and reputation. I believe that the defendant should have undergone a counselling session with strict probation period to monitor his course of action over the time. This can be made a lesson to all concluding that regardless of who a person is in the society, the law tolerates no misconduct of action regardless of the degree of impact. The case here is touching based on conventional law which also applies strongly in cyberlaw context because as mentioned in artcicles in this blog, any wrong act done in real also applies the same in cyberspace with no distinct penalty to offenders. The above case can be further supported with “Teacher Gets $363K For Student’s Lie, Defamation” that took place in Californi (https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2013/11/teacher-gets-363k-for-students-lies-defamation.html)



Case 2 : Kambala Girls' School and Former Principal Settle Defamation Case Out of Court



Summary : Former school Principal of Sydney’s Kambala Girls’ School, Debra Kelliher confirmed to have her former employer and another 2 teachers to be sued for circulating series of emails containing defamed statements. The misconduct of the act was executed by head of music teacher Mark Grandison and Head of Social Science Department, June Peake. Case was brought to NSW Supreme Court and agreed to settle the issue out of the courts attention to avoid damaging each other’s reputation publicly. The school accused her 3 year leadership as tyrannical, bullying and unethical behaviour. In the end, Kelliher was satisfied with Kambala’s apology to her and the apology that had been made public. Upon her resignation at the school, approximately 100 teachers of other schools lose confidence in her leadership.

Action: Kambala School together with the two teachers had issued a letter of apology to express their regret and unequivocally withdraw all the comments and remarks made against Kelliher. They further apologise for the publication and distribution of emails and the damage that has brought about in her personal life and her line of profession. A copy of the apology letter with signature was issued to 300 people and they accepted the letter. The settlement amount was not disclosed however she has lost $650,000 of her annual income and claimed total compensatory damages of $2million.

Review: From the news analyse, the defamatory allegations made by Kambala School and the two teachers was proven wrong because they could not support their allegation against the plaintiff. The two teachers had the same target subject who was the plaintiff alone and none other involved. The statement was libel since it’s in writing and circulated using an electronic platform that has reached almost 300 recipients and 200 comebacks on the email. The seriousness and damage caused by the defendant (Kambala and the school teacher) has resulted in obstruction of career pursue, reputational damage among the members of school, parents and society. Though she has expressed her satisfactory towards the letter of apology, the impact of the incident leaves a mark that is prominent.
The relevant act that can be associate with the above case is Section 211 Communication and Multimedia Act 1998. Both teacher can be further charged under the Penal code Section 298A and Section 499. Since there was unexpected number on the combacks on the email those who have forwarded those defamtaroy remarks can be charged under Computer Crime Act 1997 Section 7 Aiding and abeiting for aiding the the two teachers crime act. The above case can be further supported with Idaho high court considers 'defamation by inference' lawsuit (https://apnews.com/5880f22380224142b6d50604554268ec ).



Case 3 : Blogger’s racist attack against Amar Singh invites hate against Sikhs, council says



Summary: Raja Petra Kamarudin is Malaysian blogger known for his racist remarks inciting has insulted Senior police officer Commissioner Datuk Seri Amar Singh turban in his blog. He mentioned that “Amar Singh’s Turban Must Too Tight. Amar Singh, at that time handling Najib’s case in regards to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) financial scandal challenge RPK to produce evidence on the accusation upon PDRM sweeping off RM40mil but eventually statement was retracted. Police commissioner further stressed that the racist remark used as weapon was weak amplifying the level of hatred with minimum reasoning. PRK then continues to bring on the 1MDB issue and Amar Singh having his justification clear cut. He said that the idea of RM43.3million that was allocated into 15 bags with no monitoring of the circuit was certainly impossible and hard to escape from the media’s spotlight.

Action: RPK apologies to Amar Singh and the Sikh community and was made aware of the sacred faith of the turbans. He further mentioned that what he intended was not matter but what was received by the public of how I said mattered. He posted his apologies on blog whilst Majlis Gurdwara Malaysia issued a statement against RPK for his derogatory and racial remark. His apologies not only reached out to the Sikh community but also the Minister of Communication Gobind Singh Deo and Amarjit Sidhu, the lawyer. He claimed and owed his gratitude to Manjeet Singh and Karpal Singh who was his lawyers during his trials, ISA detention and settling in UK after leaving Malaysia in 2009.

Review: the article has mixed up racial and political issue which is branching out into two different discussions. Initially the article was talking about the plaintiff’s turban and the defendant brings in the political issue related to 1MDB financial scandal. Though the plaintiff attack was on the turban, it makes no sense to talk about the financial scandal. The initial issue strike with the latter statements about 1MDB shows no connection to the actual title of the article. However, the article title with the relevant articles to it brings about awareness about the boundaries of freedom of speech. Communications and Multimedia Minister Gobind Singh Deo urges the importance to regulate hate speech laws by using the above as an example. He intends to strengthen such law across the nation’s territorial to ensure strict prosecution of individuals committing to such crime across borders. The necessary act that could be placed upon the racial issue case is Section 211 and 233 of the Communication and Multimedia Act 1998, Section 499 and Section 298A. The above case can be further supported with Matteo Salvini sues black MEP for defamation in racism row (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/19/matteo-salvini-sues-mep-cecile-kyenge-for-defamation-in-racism-row)







Case 4 : Malaysian: Journalist ordered to pay £100,000 damages in Twitter Libel Case



Summary:  the plaintiff who is the managing director of Gapurna Group of companies had accused journalist Nadeswaran, the defendant for defamoatory publication of statement in twitter. The incident occurred on two different time frame 12 July tweeting his first one as “bumiputra”status and 22 December 2010 tweeting regarding the plaintiff as “land thief”. the defendant was instigated even more with the a certain remarks made on the social media platform when letter was sent to him requesting to bring down those post on Twitter, which he in fact ignored. Plaintiff continues to press on the case filed claiming a total of RM17million There was no defense made by the journalist and admitted the claims made by the plaintiff was true.

Action: High Court Justice Amelia only granted total of RM500,000 and issued ruling order against the defendant, Nadeswaran to refrain from publishing such statements. Due to the high number of followers the defendant has, the court urges Nadeswaran to be more vigilant and sensitive in his postings on social media platform.

Review: internet user are certainly lacking of awareness and knowledge to wholly understand the responsibility and risk being taken for each remarks or statement being made on the internet, public or private. Charges for defamation are not light and they could be sued regardless of anything. The alleged made by defendant to the plaintiff in the first posting clearly shows racism and degrading the character by calling the plaintiff land thief. The unlawful remarks has caused reputational damage to the individual and also Gapurna Companies. The statements were libel and made published at a wider scale due to his high number of followers in Twitter. The defendant can be charged against Section 211 Telecommunication and Multimedia Act 1998 and Section 499 for Defamation.The above case can be further supported with Former mayor awarded $120,000 over defamatory Facebook posts https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/former-mayor-awarded-120-000-over-defamatory-facebook-posts-20181015-p509oq.html



Note of Appreciation to Dr Bahma

During this whole Cyberlaw course, I would like to thank Dr Bahma for having to execute the subject in an interesting manner with her enorm...