1.

0 INTRODUCTION
Self reputation is vital in each and everyones life. A good reputation of a person is very
important to maintain self-respect and gain respect among society. Self-respect makes everyone
to love themselves, proud of their position and believe on their ability. Other than that, reputation
is also important to build a good name among society. The way society look at a person is
essential for him or her to continuously move on with achievement. When a person is lack of self
reputation they will face the feelings of shame, guilty, anger, regret and blamed. Other than that,
the person is also will feel difficulties to complete and achieve the desired goal. In short, people
will give much respect as we give respect to ourselves. People will never respect us if we fail to
respect ourselves.
In Malaysia the media is a dominant communication media playing a huge role in
conveying information to nation. Perhaps the media should be aware of the Law of Defamation
that rules the nation. Each of the communication media in Malaysia should be wise in spreading
the messages or information. They should not destroy the reputation of a person by giving wrong
information to the nation. Under the Malaysian Law, a person who spoil another persons good
name may sue and taken legal action. In short, anyone who is giving an unhealthy statement or
giving speech, talking in public must avoid spreading wrong information to nation.
In this paper I would like to discuss about defamation law, online defamation, sedition
statement in Malaysia and differentiate the case of Parliament Datuk Nawawi Ahmad v the late
Karpal Singh and Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor v a 25-year-old man. Under this paper I will
discuss about the cases and how the cases are handled under the defamation law. I also will give
some suggestions and recommendations on how to make our country to be the best in drafting
any online defamation law.

2.0 THE CONCEPT OF LAW

2.1 Defamation Act 1957
Self reputation and defamation are moving in the same path. In the eyes of law,
defamation is a statement that damages a persons good name in public. The law of defamation in
Malaysia is primarily based on the English common law principles and so far it has been
modified by the Malaysian Defamation Act 19571. Defamation is the publication of a statement
which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally,
or which tends to cause the claimant to be shunned or avoided 2. In short, defamation will make a
person to lose the good name among society and face difficulty to live among society. No matter
either they are poor, rich, educated, uneducated, in a corporate or government servant, each and
everyone are same under the law of defamation. Everyone have the rights to defend themselves.
Moreover, defamation is also known as a statement which disparages a mans reputation
in relation to his office, profession, calling, trade or business. For example the imputation of
some quality which would be detrimental or the absence of some quality which is essential to the
successful carrying on his office, trade or profession, such as wants of ability, incompetence and
dishonest or fraudulent conduct3. The statement above is deeply expressing that every business
people are facing difficulty when the other person is spoiling the reputation among society. In
this case the Defamation Law is in favor to plaintiff. To conduct the business and achieve the
desired goal people can use the Defamation Law to walk in with good quality among the nations.
Defamation is falls under two categories. They are Slander and Libel. Both of the
defamatory categories are different from the point of defamatory materials practice to
communicate. Libel defamation is in an everlasting form or permanent form. Libel in permanent
1Talib, Law of torts in Malaysia, (3rd Ed.) Sweet & Maxwell Asia, Petaling Jaya (2010).

2Jones, Tort, 2000.

3Lee Mei Pheng & Ivan Jeron Detta, Business Law, Pg 253-254, Oxward University Press, 2009.

statement can be seen through the eyes. It is not in oral form. The statement that are in the type
of printed, written text, e-mail, blogs, film, picture, statue, and model are known as permanent
statement. They are falls under Libel Defamation. This is proven by section 3 of the Malaysian
Defamation Act 1957. Section 3 indicates the broadcasting of words by means of radio
communication shall be treated as publication and permanent form and therefore constitutes a
libel4.
The example to prove the Act is the case of Derbyshire County Council V Times
Newspaper Ltd. The case of Derbyshire County Council V Times Newspaper Ltd, it was held
that a local authority and so (public authorities and governmental bodies) had no right to sue for
defamation in respect of governing and administrative reputation if no actual financial loss was
pleaded or alleged. It's different from the business or commercial organization, a trading or nontrading corporation which can show that it has a corporate reputation which is capable of being
damaged by a defamatory statement, may sue in libel to protect that reputation in the same way
as could a natural person5. This case indicates that the business or commercial organization that
damaged by a defamatory statement can be sued under Libel defamation.
The other category of defamation law is Slander. Slander is a defamation that falls under
temporary or non-permanent form. Slander is the opposite position of Libel defamation law. The
movement of body gesture and the spoken words are the type of non-permanent form. Slander
category of defamation is not an actionable per se. The person involved in such cases or the
plaintiff needs to prove the harm and actionable movement to succeed in the case. To sue the
case under Defamation law there is a need for plaintiff to prove that the statement is in
permanent form.
Even there are some exceptions to the actual damage in cases of slander. The plaintiff is
can sue the actual damage without proving the harm and actionable movement. The first
exception is slander to women. Under section 4 of Malaysian Defamation Act 1957, words
4Laws of Malaysia Act 286, Defamation act 1957, Section 3, Pg 6, Percetakan Nasional

Malaysia Berhad, Kuala Lumpur, 1 April 2006.

5Defamation, 22 October 2009, malaysialawstudent.blogspot.

spoken and published which impute unchastity or adultery to any woman or girl shall not require
special damage to render them actionable6. This means a case can be investigate under
defamation act if the used words are damaging womens good name among the public.
For instance, in the case of Luk Kai Lam v Sim Ai Keng, the respondent called the
appellant as a prostitute and said that the appellant charged RM50 to entertain men at any one
time. These allegations were made in presence of a third party. The court held that since the
words impugned the appellant's chastity, special damage need not be proven. Slander was
established7. This case proves that in Malaysia the words that might spoil a womens reputation
can be investigated under the Defamation Act.
The other exception to the slander is in relation to a persons professional or business
reputation. Section 5 of Malaysian Defamation Act 1957 states in an action for slander of
calculated to criticize the plaintiff in any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or
carried on by him at the time of the publication is shall not be necessary to allege or prove
special damage whether or not the words are spoken of the plaintiff in the way of his office,
profession, calling, trade or business8. It says that there is no special need to any profession,
trade or business to prove the statement as defamation statement. The plaintiff can be charged
under Defamation Act.
The exception to the slander is proven in the case of John Tan Chor-Yong v Lee Chay
Tian. The case of John Tan Chor-Yong v Lee Chay Tian, P who was a advocated and solicitor
claimed that the D words to the P's friends and clients to the effect that he, the P, was owing him,
the D, several months rent were defamatory as the words were calculate to disparage him in his
office. Applying section 5 of the Defamation Act in favour of the P and so holding that the P's

6&7Laws of Malaysia Act 286, Defamation act 1957, Section 3, Pg 6, Percetakan Nasional

Malaysia Berhad, Kuala Lumpur, 1 April 2006.

7&8 Defamation (Part 2), 22 October 2009.

case was actionable per se without proof or special damage 9. The case shows that there is still
some exception to the Slander Defamation cases.
The third exception of Slander is in relation to title, slander of goods and malicious
falsehoods. Section 6 of Malaysian Defamation Act 1957, in any action for slander of title,
slander of goods or other malicious falsehood, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove special
damage. For instance, in the case of Borneo Post Sdn Bhd v Sarawak Press Sdn Bhd, it was
held that in action for slander of goods under section 6, the P must prove that the statement was
published maliciously. The same requirement applies in action for slander of title the alleged
statement must disparage the goods. The case above is strongly in favor to the exception of
Slander.

2.2 Elements of Defamation

There are several elements need to be followed to prove the defamation. The satisfactions of
following the elements are necessary to confirm the defamation. The first element of defamation
is the words must be defamatory. This means the words that plaintiff says as being defamatory
can be complained. The plaintiff can claim the damages if the words are proven as defamatory.
The words which are defamatory but rough and hurtful cannot be considered as defamation case.
The second element is words complained must refer to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must
prove that the words used to complain are referred clearly to the plaintiff. Moreover the
defendants mind is also not relevant. The statement is also can be consider as defamation as if it
refers to another person who has the same description, name, address and place. In short, it is
easy to prove the defamation if the plaintiff is mentioned by name.
The third element is malicious publication. Publication means the words are published
to other person than the defendant itself or third party. Moreover, the communication between
husband and wife about the third party is cannot be defamation and cannot considered as
publication. However, a communication between the third party and the spouses is considered as
publication.
9

The case of Senah v Milah is best meeting the basic elements of defamation. The case
of Senah v Milah says the defendant had thrown out word like Milah's victory was due to her
close relationship with one of the judges. The statement is defamatory because Senahs words
cause Minah reputations to become down among society. Next the defendant has referred her
words he plaintiff by mention plaintiff name in his statement to the press. Thirdly, the defendant
had committed defamatory words to the plaintiff by gives a statement to the press Milah's
victory was due to her close relationship with one of the judges and published Senah's statement
in its front page. In this case, the defendant (Senah) had fulfilled element of defamatory and
plaintiff (Milah) had suffered a bad reputation. To conclude, Milah can claim for defamation
(libel) as all the three elements of the defamation has been fulfilled10.
2.3 Sedition Act 1948
Sedition Act 1948 is a restraining law. This mean the sedition law will guide the people
on what should be done and what should not been done. Seditious are actions that build
unhealthy feeling and create incite hatred towards a ruler or against any government. As per the
defamation Act, the Sedition Act is also applies to any act, speech, words, or publications.
Publication is any ideas and information that been written or printed. Anyway sedition is same as
defamation. Libel is published defamation and slander is spoken false statement of defamation.

2.4 Communication and Multimedia Acts

Defamation law in Malaysia is applying them to internet and protects the nations.
Defamation laws apply to all media, including online media and that they are meant to protect
not just individuals but also corporations from being maligned by false allegations 11. Section 233

10Zulamirul Aiman Bin Zulkifli, Tort of Defamation, May 21, 2013.

11Bar Council president Yeo Yang Poh, Experts: Defamation laws apply to internet; protects

all, not just individual, Petaling Jaya, Jan 23, 2007.

of the MCMC Act is about improper use of network facilities or network service, etc 12. Section
233 (2) is the initiates transmission. Any comment, request, suggestion or other communication
which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse,
threaten or harass another person can be charged under this section13. The nation is also can be
sued under the MCMC Act, so that they should be wise in using the communication media to
convey information.
The law of defamation is used to protect people either low level or higher level to protect.
The principle aim of the law of defamation is the protection of individual's reputation. In short,
in civil cases of defamation, when a private person sues another private person for defamation,
the Defamation Act 1957 is can be used. Moreover, in criminal cases of defamation, when the
state prosecutes a private person for defamation, Section 499 to Section 502 of the Penal Code is
applicable.

3.0 CASE STUDY

When Langkawi Member of Parliament Datuk Nawawi Ahmad posted photographs of
the late Karpal Singhs bloodied body on his Facebook page, few would disagree that he
committed an act of gross impropriety. Not only was it a great disrespect to the Bukit Gelugor
MPs family, Nawawi also crossed a line of decency. But was what he did criminal?

12 & 10MCMC Laws that Regulate the Contents in Your Blog or Website, October 27, 2009.

13

Dato' Ir. Haji Nawawi Ahmad is a Malaysian politician. He is the member of the
Parliament of Malaysia for the seat of Langkawi, Kedah. Whereas Karpal Singh s/o Ram Singh
was a Malaysian lawyer and politician. He was the Member of Parliament for the constituency of
Bukit Gelugor in the state of Penang since 2004. On 17 April 2014, Karpal Singh died in a car
accident on the North-South Expressway near Gua Tempurung. The case of Langkawi Member
of Parliament Datuk Nawawi Ahmad v Karpal Singh is a case of Datuk Nawawi Ahmad posted
Karpal Singh death photo in his personal Facebook account and insult the late Karpal Singh with
disrespect words.
This case can be discussed under Malaysian Defamation Act 1957. Defamation is the
publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking
members of society. Under laws of Malaysia Act 286, words include pictures, visual images,
gestures and other methods of signifying meaning is defamation14. Langkawi Member of
Parliament Datuk Nawawi Ahmad used unhealthy or disrespected words in his statement. The
words are spoiling Karpal Singh reputation among society.
14Laws of Malaysia. Act 286, Defamation Act 1957.

The case is also can be referred to defamation law because it has followed the basic
elements of defamation. The word that Langkawi Member of Parliament Datuk Nawawi Ahmad
used in his Facebook account post is a defamatory statement. The creation of an Islamic state
will only be over my dead body - Karpal Singh 15. The statement is a defamatory word. There is
also plaintiff and the statement shows it is maliciously published. The elements are strongly
contributing evidence to the case and plaintiff can sue defendant under the defamation law.
As the case is falls under Laws of Malaysia Act 286, it is more specifically can be
discussed under Libel Defamation Law. Libel defamation is more accurate to handle the case
because the case and the elements are in the permanent form. This means the images and words
that expressed by Langkawi Member of Parliament Datuk Nawawi Ahmad is showing there are
strong evidence to the case discuss under the Libel Defamation Act.
The case is also can be discuss under section 7 Unintentional Defamation Act. Section 7
(1) says a person who has published words alleged to be defamatory of another person may, if
he claims that the words were published by him innocently in relation to that other person, make
an offer of amends under this section16. In a press report Langkawi Member of Parliament
Datuk Nawawi Ahmad says that the post of statement regarding the dead of Karpal Singh was
without thinking of the consequences. He also remarked he had deleted the post after an hour
when strongly condemned on the social networking17. Even Langkawi Member of Parliament
Datuk Nawawi Ahmad argue that he post the statement without thinking of the consequences but
still wrong under the law.

15Amin Iskandar, Langkawi BN MP pokes fun at Karpal Singhs remains, The Malaysian

Insider, 17 April 2014.

16Laws of Malaysia, Act 286. Defamation Act 1957.

17Boo Su-Lyn, UMNO MP admits to Facebook photos of Karpal in death, 19 April 2014, The

Malay Mail Online.

There is another incident that occurred prior to Nawawis post. On 7 April 2014, a 25year-old man was arrested for posting an image of Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor superimposed on
a dead body, which he tagged Pray4Rosmah. The man was investigated under Section 233 of
the Communications and Multimedia Act and Section 505(b) of the Penal Code. The police said
they took up the case on the basis of reports lodged that claimed the doctored image of Rosmah
was a threat to public order, as well as insensitive to the plight of MH370 passengers and
family.

There are two parties involved in this case. The suspect is Syed Ahmad Saifullah Hashim,
25 year old and defendant is Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor. The case was says that the 25 years old,
Syed Ahmad Saifullah Hashim has posted the head of the Prime Minister's wife had been
superimposed unto an image of a mangled human body, allegedly that of a plane crash victim 18.
There were two reports regarding the "Pray4Rosmah" posting on April 4 and April 6 was filled at
the Sentul District Police Headquarters and Putrajaya District Police Headquarters. Due to the
18Gho Chee Yuan, Doctored pictures of Rosmah posted on the net: 25-year-old detained,

Petaling Jaya, 6 April 2014, The Malaysia Insider.

10

report the 25 years old boy was remanded for three days under Section 117 of Criminal
Procedure Code. The case was also investigated under section 233 of Communication and
Multimedia Acts and section 505(b) of Penal Code.
Section 233 of Communication and Multimedia Acts is improper use of network facilities
or network service. Section 233(1) is a person who (a) by means of any network facilities or
network service or applications service knowingly (i) makes, creates or solicits; and (ii) initiates
the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion or other communication which is obscene,
indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass
another person. When a person is commits an offence under section 233(3) a person who
commits an offence under this section shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty
thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both and shall also
be liable to a further fine of one thousand ringgit for every day during which the offence is
continued after conviction19. The 25 year old Syed Ahmad Saifullah Hashim was investigated
under this section.
Section 505 (b) of Penal Code is statements conducing to public mischief. Section 505
(b) whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumors or report with intent to cause,
or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby
any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public
tranquility20. The statement that Syed Ahmad Saifullah Hashim posted in Facebook regarding
Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor is create rumors and create fear situation to the public. So that, the 25
years old boy is investigated under this section.

4.0 RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTION

19

Laws of Malaysia, Act 588, Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, Section 233.
20

Laws of Malaysia, Act 574, Penal Code, Section 505.

11

Langkawi Member of Parliament Datuk Nawawi Ahmad v Karpal Singh and 25 years
old boy v Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor is the case that moving in the same path. That means
Datuk Nawawi Ahmad v Karpal Singh case has the similarity has the other case. The case can
be conducted or investigated by comparing to the case of 25 years old boy v Datin Seri Rosmah
Mansor. The case is said similar because Datuk Nawawi Ahmad has the similar intention as the
25 years old boy to spoil the reputation of a person in public.
Next, even Datuk Nawawi Ahmad says he had post the statement in Facebook without
thinking of the consequences but from the point of law it is still not fair and spoiling the
reputation of Karpal Singh. Karpal Singh is the famous lawyer and well known as the Tiger of
Jelutong. The statement that posted by Datuk Nawawi Ahmad in his Facebook is should be
investigated. Datuk Nawawi Ahmad claims that the Facebook account is private but in fact the
Facebook account is not a private but public media. Datuk Nawawi Ahmad can be investigated
under section 7, Act 286, Malaysian Defamation Act 1957. Section 7(1) is a person published
words alleged to be defamatory of another person and he claims that the words were published
by him innocently in relation to that other person is still wrong under the eyes of law in
Malaysia.
Datuk Nawawi Ahmad v Karpal Singh is also can be investigated under Libel
defamation. Malaysian Defamation Act 1957 is used to investigate the case of Datuk Nawawi
Ahmad v Karpal Singh. Datuk Nawawi Ahmad can be investigated under the Libel defamation
law because the statement he posted in Facebook is an evidence of the case. This case can be
investigated under Libel defamation that shows the permanent motivation of spoiling or downing
Karpal Singh reputation. So that, Datuk Nawawi Ahmad is should investigate under Defamation
Act.
The case is also may investigate under section 233 Communications and Multimedia Act
1998. Section 233 (2) is stating any comment, request, suggestion or other communication
which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse,
threaten or harass another person can be charged under this section21. Datuk Nawawi Ahmad
should be investigated under the Communications and Multimedia Act for using the
communication media wrongly to convey information. This means, Datuk Nawawi Ahmad used
21

Laws of Malaysia, Act 588, Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, Section 233.
12

the social media to convey message regarding the great Karpal Singh death body photo and using
words that spoiling the reputation in Facebook.
In part of that, Datuk Nawawi Ahmad may also can be fined up to RM 50,000 or
imprisoned for up to one year or both, with an additional fine of RM 1,000 for every day the
offence continues after conviction of guilty. Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia
Act is stating the offences that can be charged under Datuk Nawawi Ahmad. The other example
of a case that related to Datuk Nawawi Ahmad case is five person v Sultan Perak. In this case,
in year 2009, five persons were charged under Section 233 of the Communications and
Multimedia Act for posting comments deemed insulting to the Sultan of Perak following the
2008 general election, and were each fined RM10,000.
The law in Malaysia should be in favor to nation to pretend them. Even

Defamation

Act 1957 is used to pretend a persons reputation from being insulted but there are still some
errors to be pay consideration. Everyone must free to use the law and everyone must be treated
same from the point of Defamation law. Other than that, the Communication and Multimedia
Acts should prevent the community in using the social media without hurting the other person.
The Act should be stronger and heavy toward irresponsible community from overstepping the
rules and condemning others. Datuk Nawawi Ahmad should be investigates as per the 25 years
old boy. This is because even Datuk Nawawi Ahmad is a politician and in a good position but the
way he spoiled Karpal Singh reputation among community is similar to the other case. So that,
this case is also need to investigate to avoid defamation in future.

5.0 CONCLUSION
A persons reputation among society is important to thrive in this global. Everyone must
protect themselves from criticize by third party. There are rule and regulation in our country to
defend our self being. So that everyone must spend their quality time knowing the Malaysian
laws to prevent either inside or outside the border. The case study is describing how a person can
13

defend themselves among society. Either politician or a normal person is still can defend their
reputation from the point of law. In Malaysia the communities are free to use the law.
Defamation law can be used for civil and criminal defamation as well. To protect reputation
among population everyone must use the law.
Moreover the social media is also a platform for a person to convey or share information
among society. The social websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Blogs and Instagram are faster in
spreading the information among society than newspapers. So that, each of the users are must
know their limits in spreading the messages using the social media. Everyone can be investigate
under the Communication and Multimedia Acts when use it wrongly. When posting information
in Facebook everyone should always remember that the social media is not a private platform
and can be viewed by almost everyone in the world.
Malaysians are very active using internet to get and spread the messages among society.
In Malaysia the defamation on the Internet is a problem. The growth of internet usage sometimes
leads to unnecessary matters to occur. There can be many scenarios happens in the same situation
but lead to different judgment. The Communication and Multimedia Acts should be interrelated
with Defamation Laws to prevent the nation from being liability. The case of Datuk Nawawi
Ahmad v Karpal Singh and Syed Ahmad Saifullah Hashim, 25 year old v Datin Seri Rosmah
Mansor can be an example of different judgment.
In law, there is nothing wrong if a person voice his or her opinion to pretend and express
point of view. In nature it is not a wrong with websites if providing people the opportunity to
voice their opinion. But the important point should be remembered is not to go beyond the limits.
Everyone should know how to use the websites well from criticizing others. The nation is also
should never go beyond the limit and step into real problems.

6.0 REFERENCES
1) (22 October 2009). Defamation (Part 2) .
2) Detta, L. M. (2009). Business Law, Pg 253-254. Oxward University Press.

14

3) Iskandar, A. (17 April 2014). Langkawi BN MP pokes fun at Karpal Singhs remains. The
Malaysian Insider.
4) Jones, M. A. (Blackstone, 2000 ). Textbook on Torts. In Torts (p. 655).
5) (1 April 2006). Laws of Malaysia Act 286, Defamation act 1957, Section 3. Percetakan
Nasional Malaysia Berhad, Kuala Lumpur.
6) Laws of Malaysia, Act 286. Defamation Act 1957.
7) Laws of Malaysia, Act 574, Penal Code, Section 505.
8) Laws of Malaysia, Act 588, Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, Section 233.
9) ( October 27, 2009). MCMC Laws that Regulate the Contents in Your Blog or Website.
10) Poh, B. C. (Jan 23, 2007). Experts: Defamation laws apply to internet; protects all, not just
individual,. Petaling Jaya.
11) Su-Lyn, B. (19 April 2014). UMNO MP admits to Facebook photos of Karpal in death. The
Malay Mail Online.
12) Talib. (2010). Law of torts in Malaysia, (3rd Ed.) . Sweet & Maxwell Asia, Petaling Jaya .
13) Yuan, G. C. (6 April 2014). Doctored pictures of Rosmah posted on the net: 25-year-old
detained. Petaling Jaya : The Malaysia Insider.
14) Zulkifli, Z. A. (May 21, 2013). Tort of Defamation.

15