The issue is whether Ahmad can take legal actions against Berita Tepat due to the

defamatory words that lower his reputation in the eyes of the society and the possible defences that
could be raised by Berita Tepat.

The Defamation Act 1957 does not define defamation but we can obtain the defamation
definition based on the common law cases of Sim v Stretch. Lord Atkin said in the case that
defamation is a statement untrue which injures the reputation of another by exposing him to
hatred, contempt or ridicule or which tends to lower him in the esteem of right thinking members
of society or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person.

Libel is defamatory statements or representation in permanent form such as picture,

statues, statements in newspapers, signs, television broadcasts and statement made on radio. It is
actionable per se. As example of case of libel is Yousoupoff v MGM where the court held that the
plaintiff was entitled to damages because the defamatory statement contained in the film made by
the defendant is libel. In Ahmad case, the defamatory words of “Raja Arak bertukar Bilal Rockers”
falls under libel as the statement is considered in permanent form when it were already published in
the newspaper.

As to published libel under defamation, there are 3 elements to be fulfilled.

Firstly, the words must be defamatory. To prove this element, it must be seen that the
words must tend to lower plaintiff’s reputation in estimation of right minded person. Mohamad
Azmi J in case of Syed Husin Ali v Sharikat Perchetakan Utusan Melayu Bhd said that “to be
defamatory, an imputation need have no actual effect on a person’s reputation, the law looks only
to its tendency”. This explains the court attitude where it looks at the tendency of the response of
the reasonable man towards the words. Where the words is deemed to be defamatory if the words
have tendency to cause a reasonable man to look down upon the plaintiff. Next, in the case of Ummi
Hafilda Ali v Karangkraf, the plaintiff sued the defendant for publishing an article

To apply this in case of Ahmad, after the article with title “Raja Arak bertukar Bilal Rockers”
was published on the front page of the newspaper, he has been ignored by the committee of the
mosque. The committee of the mosque is considered as a reasonable man who then look down on
Ahmad and has been ignoring him shows that Ahmad’s reputation is lowered by the article.

The words may be defamatory in two ways which by its natural and ordinary meaning, by innuendo
or by the juxtaposition. However, within the contact of this case, the words may be defamatory by
its natural and ordinary meaning if they impute that the plaintiff is dishonourable or of discreditable
conduct or motive or lacks integrity. To prove that the words are defamatory in their natural and
ordinary meaning, there is no need for the plaintiff to prove any special knowledge on the part of
those to whom the words have been published. The approach is to consider what meaning of the
words would convey to ordinary reasonable persons using their general knowledge and common
sense. Applying to Ahmad situation, the used of Raja Arak carries the general meaning of a bad and
drunk guy from the view of common sense. Thus, the defamatory words use is interpreted by its
natural and ordinary meaning.

The next element to prove defamatory of libel is the statement must have referred to the
plaintiff. There is a test whether an ordinary reader would reasonably come to the conclusion based
on the statement as a whole that it referred to the plaintiff. The ordinary reader must be able to
immediately identify the person being addressed and if through the language used by defendant
people would think that it refers to the plaintiff, the defendant is liable even though he did not
intend to refer to plaintiff. In the case of Morghan v Odham Press, regarding the case of the no
named person defamation. The court found that the defendant liable as a substantial group of
people who knew the plaintiff understood that the statement made regarding the kidnapping
referred to him, even though the plaintiff was never referred to by name. In this case, Daud who
wrote the article about Ahmad did not only use the title of “Raja Arak bertukar Bilal Rockers” but
also write further on Ahmad’s journey of life transition. The details about Ahmad’s life has proven
that the article is intended to refer to him.

The last element to publish libel under defamation is the defamatory statement must be
published to a third party. The publication here means that the defamatory statement is known to
some other person besides the person whom it is written. As decided by the court in Theaker v
Richardson that there is publication where the defendant knew or ought to have foreseen that the
statement would come to the attention of the third party. Applying to Ahmad case, it is proven that
the statement has come to the knowledge of the third party when Ahmad received whatsapp
message from Daud informing him the increase sales of Berita Tepat as Ahmad’s story was published
in the front page of the newspaper. This shows that the reader of newspaper already know and have
interest in Ahmad story that is written the articles.

In conclusion, the three element of defamation is already fulfilled and Ahmad can take legal
action for libel against Berita Tepat.

However, there is a possible defences that Berita Tepat may raise which is the unintentional
defamation. Unintentional defamation is where defendant unintentionally and innocently publishes
defamatory material of another person under three circumstances. However in this situation, the
defendant may raise this defence under the first circumstance where the publisher did not intend to
refer to the plaintiff and did not know of any circumstances whereby they might have been
understood to do so. In addition, this defence must be followed by an offer of amends under
Section 7 of Defamation Act where the defendant must give a sufficient apology to the aggrieved
party and offer to correct the words complained of. Defendant must also as well as to take
reasonable steps in notifying the third party that the words distributed were defamatory.

*for law, put everything even though not related, and repeat the related law in application

*must include at least 1 Malaysian’s case in every element