Not an iota of malice

PETALING JAYA: There was not an iota of evidence nor any allegation made against theSun and its former editors that they had acted with malice, when writing and publishing an article about Perkasa five years ago, the High Court ruled.
On the contrary, theSun and its editors had shown that they had acted responsibly and fairly, in line with their duty to inform the public ... without deliberately disregarding the truth," Judicial Commissioner M. Gunalan said in his 28-page written judgement released last week.
Gunalan had on May 18, 2015, dismissed a libel suit filed by Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali with RM50,000 in costs, over an article on Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Malaysia (Perkasa) on March 17, 2010.
Ibrahim had on April 29, 2010 filed the suit against Sun Media Corporation Sdn Bhd, which publishes theSun and its former managing editor, Chong Cheng Hai, and then deputy editor, Terence Fernandez.
The article titled "Sultan keeps Perkasa guessing on invitation" was about whether the Sultan of Selangor would grace Perkasa's inaugural annual general meeting on March 27, 2010.
"It is beyond doubt and cannot be disputed that the subject matter of the article concerned a grave matter of public interest and importance," Gunalan said in his written judgement.
He held that theSun and its editors were not shown to have acted with malice malice towards Ibrahim or "mala fide" (bad intention) in reporting the matter, particularly with regards to the stand of the Sultan, in relation to Perkasa's activities.
Gunalan stressed that the onus was on the plaintiff to sufficiently plead particulars of malice and prove that the defendants were actuated by express malice in the publication of the impugned article.
"It is incumbent on the plaintiff to plead and prove malice," he said, noting also that in fact, it had surfaced that Ibrahim himself was contacted for his views on the matter but declined to comment or offer any clarification.
"In the instant case, not an iota of evidence was tendered nor allegation made against the defendants that they were actuated by malice, in the writing and publication of the impugned article," he said.
He added that the impugned article was referring to Perkasa, a society registered under the Societies Act, and should not be equated to Ibrahim.
Gunalan pointed out that "nowhere in the article" was it implied that Ibrahim was a liar who had misled the membership of Perkasa as regards the Sultan of Selangor's attendance at its inaugural AGM or that Ibrahim was a politician given to deception.
"The article has to be read as a whole in the context of its natural and ordinary meaning and not by innuendo which has not been properly pleaded," he added.
"The plaintiff had manifestly failed to discharge the burden of proving that the impugned article bears the meanings as alleged whereas the burden to establish this fact is wholly on the plaintiff," Gunalan added.
As such, he ruled that on a balance of probabilities, Ibrahim had failed to prove his claim for libel against theSun and its editors.
Ibrahim had, in his suit, claimed that his reputation in the political sphere, among the business community, family members, friends and public at large, had been severely tarnished, jeopardised and caused him to suffer serious humiliation, as a result of the publication of the article.
He had sought for a mandatory injunction to restrain theSun from further publishing the said defamatory words about him and in any other publication under the control of the defendants.
He had also sought an order to get theSun to publish a retraction of the words and an apology, as well as general and exemplary damages.