July 15, 2000	atimes.com

Media/Information Technology Libel award chills Malaysia's journalists By Anil Netto The decision by Malaysia's highest court to uphold a 7 million ringgit (US$1.8 million) libel award to a business tycoon over articles in a local magazine has sent a chill down the spines of Malaysia's already timid journalists. But it also puts the state of the judiciary in sharp focus. Chief Justice Eusoff Chin dismissed with costs the appeals by a journalist, an editor, and a magazine publisher against the award to tycoon Vincent Tan. He described the award as reasonable and based on established principles. In October 1994, the High Court awarded 10 million ringgit in damages against journalist M G G Pillai (2 million), editor Hassan Hamzah (3 million), publisher Media Printext (2 million), printer Ling Wah Press (1 million) and three other individuals (2 million) for defaming Tan in four Malaysian Industry magazine articles. The Federal Court heard the appeal by Pillai, Hassan and Media Printext in January 1998. It then withheld judgment for 30 months, to Pillai's consternation. ''Low and cheap awards will only send a wrong signal and will become a license to libel the respondent and other people with impunity,'' said the Chief Justice in his long-awaited judgment. The High Court decision in 1994 triggered a slew of multimillion libel suits. Many of them sought damages rivalling or surpassing those sought in the West. On July 10, for instance, Transport Minister Ling Liong Sik filed a 200 million ringgit defamation suit against the lawyer of a businessman. Ling alleged that the lawyer had damaged his reputation by circulating a notice of demand on behalf of his client seeking the return of 152 million ringgit that was allegedly owed by Ling. The Chief Justice himself has been at the center of controversy after group photographs of him, Tan's lawyer V K Lingam, and family members on holiday in New Zealand surfaced on the Internet. A cabinet minister in charge of legal affairs, Rais Yatim, said Eusoff's conduct in socializing with Lingam was ''improper''. The Chief Justice responded, claiming he had bumped into Lingam while on holiday and produced bills to show that he had paid for the holiday himself. But fresh reports, travel itineraries, and scanned air-ticket counterfoils emerged in an Internet newspaper, fuelling public perception that the duo had travelled together. The Malaysian Bar Council then tried to hold an Extraordinary General Meeting on June 23 to debate whether to call for a tribunal of inquiry to probe Eusoff's conduct. But a lawyer successfully obtained a court injunction to block the meeting. Weeks earlier, four prominent international bodies had issued a report titled ''Malaysia 2000: Justice in Jeopardy'', expressing deep concern about the system of administration of justice in Malaysia. Public confidence in the judiciary, according to an Internet poll, appears to have fallen since former Lord President Salleh Abas and two other judges in the highest court were sacked in 1988 just before the hearing of a politically sensitive case. For Pillai, a veteran freelance journalist with a wide following, the 2 million ringgit in damages awarded against him is a heavy blow. Apart from this, a figure of 1 million ringgit has been mentioned as legal costs payable to the winning party. In his 40-odd years as a journalist, he said he had not earned anywhere near the amount of damages and costs awarded against him. But when contacted, Pillai was unrepentant and in fiery mood. ''The implications of this judgment on journalism, already parlous in this country, and journalists, are horrendous,'' says Pillai. ''It reduces them to being public relations officers'' to the high and mighty and, he adds, it will now be harder for journalists to probe the often unhealthy nexus between politics and business. For Chief Justice Eusoff, the chilling effect of large damages on freedom of speech is ''nothing compared to the great pain and suffering that the libel inflicted [on] the respondent, due to the venomous accusations made by the appellants''. Apart from libel suits, Malaysian journalists have to contend with a host of other laws as well. Under the Printing Presses and Publications Act, all newspapers and magazines have to apply for a fresh publishing permit annually. The minister's decision to grant, refuse or revoke a permit is absolute and cannot be challenged in court. This law encourages self-censorship among editors afraid of losing their newspaper permits. In recent months, several independent publications have not had their applications for fresh annual permits approved. Earlier this year, the Home Ministry also slashed the publication of the popular opposition Islamic party newspaper, Harakah, from twice weekly to once a fortnight. Other laws that restrict the freedom of the media are the Sedition Act, the Internal Security Act, and the Official Secrets Act. All these have ''quite successfully instilled a psychological condition of fear among journalists, especially senior editors'', said columnist James Wong Wing On in a recent commentary for an Internet publication. The penalties can be staggering as Pillai, an institution in himself, has found. ''And so a journalist at the fag end of his career ends up a bankrupt for standing up for his trade,'' he reflects. But he is not about to go down quietly, as his latest riposte - a biting commentary he wrote after the Chief Justice's judgment - testifies. ''There is still some life left in this bandicoot,'' he wrote. Still exploring his options, Pillai says the battle has only just begun.

Front |China | Southeast Asia | Japan | Koreas | India/Pakistan | Central Asia/Russia | Oceania Business Briefs | Global Economy | Asian Crisis | Media/IT |Editorials | Letters | Search/Archive

back to the top ©2000 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd. Asia Times Online is designed and produced by Multimedia Asia Co., Ltd.