PUTRAJAYA, April 24 — The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal by Kepala Batas MP Siti Mastura Muhammad against the Penang High Court's decision ordering her to pay damages, including costs, totalling RM825,000 for defaming three DAP leaders by linking them to the Communist Party of Malaya's leader Chin Peng.
A three-member bench led by Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid, sitting with Datin Paduka Evrol Mariette Peters and Datuk Seri Latifah Mohd Tahar, dismissed the appeal after finding that it was without merit.
Delivering the unanimous decision, Justice Kamal said the appellate court affirmed the entirety of the High Court’s judgment delivered on December 4, 2024, including the award of global damages and costs totalling RM825,000.
However, on January 23, 2025, Siti Mastura settled the payment of RM830,034.75 in damages and legal costs (including interest) to DAP veteran Tan Sri Lim Kit Siang, DAP advisor Lim Guan Eng, and Seputeh MP Teresa Kok Suh Sim.
Justice Kamal, who delivered today’s decision via Zoom, also said the court found no merit in the plaintiff’s cross-appeal (DAP leaders).
“The High Court's judgment on liability and its assessment of damages was correct, well-reasoned, and based on a proper evaluation of the facts and the law. Both the appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed. We make no order as to costs,” he said.
On December 4, 2024, Penang High Court Judge Datuk Quay Chew Soon ordered Siti Mastura to pay RM300,000, RM250,000 and RM200,000, respectively, to Kit Siang, Guan Eng, and Kok. The judge also ordered Siti Mastura to pay RM25,000 in costs to each of the trio.
When reading out his broad judgment, Justice Kamal said the court was of the view that Siti Mastura’s challenge against the finding of defamation failed.
“The words complained of referred to the plaintiffs and were published to a third party. We agree entirely with the High Court’s analysis of the natural and ordinary meaning of the impugned words, that the defendant’s speech did not merely amount to political criticism. Instead, she made allegations linking the plaintiffs to Chin Peng.
“In the context of Malaysian society, to label a person or imply that they are affiliated with a banned Communist Party, or are enemies of the state or a threat to national security and the Federal Constitution, is undeniably defamatory. Such statements go to the very heart of a person’s loyalty, integrity, and reputation,” he said.
Justice Kamal remarked that the defendant (Siti Mastura) relied on the defence of qualified privilege on the premise that she is a Malaysian politician and, as a Malaysian politician, speaking during an election campaign, she had a social and moral duty to inform her party about the ideologies and backgrounds of political opponents.
The court found that the defendant's invocation of qualified privilege is unsustainable as it failed to meet the essential requirements, particularly the element of an honest belief in the truth of the publication.
It also found that the defendant did not take appropriate steps to verify the accuracy of the statements before publication, particularly by failing to seek the plaintiff's side of the story.
"This omission signifies a lack of care and diligence, precluding any honest belief in the publication's truth and nullifying the defence of qualified privilege.
"We are of the view that the defendant cannot rely on qualified privilege as a valid defence, given the reckless failure to verify the truth of the statements. We are of the view that the High Court judge had properly evaluated the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege before deciding that the defendant failed to prove any of them," he said.
Similarly, the court found no error in the High Court’s finding on malice, noting that the defendant neither apologised nor retracted her statements despite being given the opportunity.
“She made absolutely no attempt to contact them to verify her outrageous claims before publishing them to an audience. This failure, as the High Court found, is a clear demonstration of a wilful disregard for the truth, which is the very essence of malice,” Justice Kamal said.
The suits, filed separately by the three plaintiffs on November 27, 2023, stemmed from remarks made by Siti Mastura during the political talk while campaigning for the Kemaman by-election.
The plaintiffs alleged that she had made defamatory claims linking them to the Communist Party of Malaya and its leader Chin Peng, as well as Singapore’s founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew. The statements, made during a political talk on November 4, 2023, also accused them of supporting, practising, and spreading communist ideology and philosophy in the country.
The three politicians stressed that the allegations were baseless, false, and ill-intentioned, deliberately associating them with the Communist Party and Chin Peng.
At today’s proceedings, Siti Mastura was represented by lawyers Yusfarizal Yussoff and Mohd Faizi Che Abu, while Kit Siang, Guan Eng, and Kok were represented by lawyer Datuk Sankara Nair.
