The restriction freedom of expression found in defamation act 1957.

Defamation occurs when a person

expresses words that may lower the other p-erson’s reputation in the eyes of public. Libel – permanent
form – visible to the eye, book,email,pic

Slander – temporary form – spoken or made by the body movements.

The law of defamation functions as a restriction on a person’s right to freedom of speech. The law of
defamation has its roots In the common law which existed before the enactment of the constitution in
1965. As such court must take article 162 of constitution into consideration when deciding whether the
common law tort of defamation offends the fundamental liberty of freedom of speech and expression.
The articles provides that all existing laws shall be continue in force after the commencement of the
constitution subject to “modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to
the tort of defamation arises when there is a publication which has a tendency to lower the
person’s reputation or to cause him to be shunned or avoided by reasonable persons in society,
thereby adversely affecting his reputation. bring them into conformity with the constitution

Article 149(1) – made it clear that any provision that had been designed to stop or prevent any
defamation act whether inside or outside of Malaysia is valid, even though the provision is inconsistent
with any provision of articles 5,9,10,13

Most of the provisions under defamation act 1957 restrict citizen of Malaysia from doing anything or
expresses words that may lower another person’s reputation in the eyes of the public.

-s.4 defamation act 1957 -

s.5

s.6

case ; datuk seri anwar bin Ibrahim v

bidasari is liable for the tort of defamation to Puteri

the tort of defamation protects interests in reputation. An average person considers the injury
to reputation more serious than bodily injury or property damage.

the defamation was the type of libel whereby is made out through the publication of
defamatory words. a plaintiff is not allowed to distort the law of libel by claiming that the
defendant had omitted to publish words or additional words about the plaintiff’s
circumstances.
Bloggers may be transparent, or they may choose to keep their identities anonymous in order to protect
themselves.
in order to prove defamation, the plaintiff must establish the elements of this tort, which are
the words are defamatory, the words refer to the plaintiff, and that the words have been
published

the statement that forms the subject matter of his complaint is defamatory. as a general
rule, this requirement is satisfied when the words have the tendency to lower the
estimation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking members of society generally, so
that the plaintiff is exposed to hatred, avoided, shunned or ridiculed.

the words must refer to him. words refer to the plaintiff directly, whether by name or
description, the requirement must be satisfied.this simply means that persons who possess
it is not necessary that the public at large or the whole world should understand the words
to be referring to and defamatory of the plaintiff. it is sufficient that those who know the
plaintiff believe that he is the person referred to - case abdul khalid v parti islam se malayia
& ors 2002 1 MLJ 160

There are 10 exceptions complete with real-life examples in Section 499 of the Penal Code.

The penalty for defamation? It’s ruled by Section 500 to be up to 2 years in prison, a fine, or both.

Note that the fine amount is not stated; this means that it is theoretically unlimited.

While that’s penalty for criminal defamation, there’s also compensation to be paid if you get sued for

defamation. Each case of defamation is unique to its facts and generally, the more serious the

defamation and the more high-profile the person involved, the higher the compensation will be. For

example, tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan was awarded RM7 million against journalists in one case as a

high-profile business owner who would suffer major loss if his reputation was wrongly stained.
Article 10 – Freedom of expression European Convention on Human Rights
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and
to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of
frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or
cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such
formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic
society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of
disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of
others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority
and impartiality of the judiciary.

Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental liberties provided in part ii of Federal Constitution.
Under article 10 – 10(a) …..

Guaranteed the freedom of expression in Malaysia, however this article is subject to certain restrictions. It
shows that this article is merely contains the freedom of expression of the citizen since there are many
limitation provided. The freedom of expression in Malaysia is not absolute. A person cannot simply speak
out whatever he or she wants because his right to speech is subject to certain restrictions.

This article shows not merely contains the right of the citizen but more on the obligation of the citizen since
there are many limitations provided.

The restriction freedom of expression under FC can be seen In PP v Ooi Kee Siak & Ors . held that the
speeches taken as a whole went beyond the limits of freedom of expression. It accused the government of
gross partiality in favour of one group and this was calculated to inspire feelings of ill will and hostility
among the different races in Malaysia and touched on the sensitive issue of the special rights of the Malays.
The speech was therefore expressive of a seditious tendency and the accused must be found guilty.

Section 499 of the Penal Code makes it a crime to defame another person:

“Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs, or by visible

representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to
harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation
and shall also be liable to fine of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, to defame that person.”

Bidasari is liable for the tort of defamation to Puteri

Defamation is defined as an allegation that may lower the standing of a person in the eyes of the general
public and cause the person to be hated, insulted or ridiculed
The tort of defamation protects interests in reputation. An average person considers the injury to
reputation more serious than bodily injury or property damage.
The tort of defamation arises when there is a publication which has a tendency to lower the
person’s reputation or to cause him to be shunned or avoided by reasonable persons in society,
thereby adversely affecting his reputation.
To prove the existence of defamation, there are three elements to be established
the words are defamatory of her. The implication of the words in the anonymous NowPost
account is that “someone got banyak bodyguards. Her cosmetic products are poison. Diamonds
are plastic just like her face. Such behaviour is not normal and not befitting someone’s personality
in the public. It connotes the type of person mentioned in the post as a fraud and liar. the word
therefore defamatory of Puteri in its natural and ordinary meaning.

- Meeran Lebbaik Maullim & Anor v J Mohamed Ismail Mrican and The Straits Printing
Works (1926) 2 MC 85

second elements in regards the words refer to the plaintiff means that the words used are such
as would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the plaintiff to believe that he was the person
referred to and the words would lead reasonable people who know him / her, to the conclusion
that the words refer to Puteri Gunung Ledang. Is is not required for the public at large to
understand that the words refer to the Puteri Gunung Ledang, it is sufficient that people who
know Puteri Gunung Ledang believed that she was the person referred to. Puteri Gunung Ledang
is a businesswoman whose company is well-known for its line of cosmetics, jewellery and
packaged food products, people who know her can definitely come to the conclusion that she is
the person referred to. The intention of the defendant (Bidasari) is irrelevant as long as the words
were understood to refer to the plaintiff ( Puteri Gunung Ledang). Therefore, the words
mentioned in the post by Bidasari towards Puteri is real and even if it is without her name, some
people can even say that this is referred to Puteri and in fact give their own comments about
Puteri Gunung Ledang. This shows that Bidasari is liable for the tort of defamation against Puteri
Gunung Ledang.
Bloggers may be transparent, or they may choose to keep their identities anonymous in order to protect
themselves. this is because in this present case, Bidasari did not specifically mentioned her name in the
social media which clearly proves that she wants to protect herselves from revealing. Where the words
refer to the plaintiff directly, whether by name or description, this requirement will be satisfied as the
reference by description would include reference through a caricature of her. - Datuk Syed Kechik bin
Syed Mohamed v Datuk Yeh Pao Tzu & Ors (1977) 1 MLJ 56
in addition to the second element, words may also refer to the plaintiff through external or extrinsic facts
which means that persons who possess these external facts of the plaintiff, combined with the words may
reasonably be led to believe that the statement refers to him. - there are three factors to be establish
unlike in thhe case of Eastwood v Holmes, it was held that if a man wrote that all lawyers were thieves,
no particular lawyer could sue UNLESS there was something to point to the particular individual lawyer.
applying to the fact of the case, whereby Bidasari mentioned on Puteri Gunung Ledang that her cosmetics
products are poison and diamonds are plastic indicating that Bidasari specifically mentioning about her
even if there are several number of businesswoman.

cases referred to :
- David Syme v Canavan (1918) 25 CLR 234
- Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd (1971) 1 WLR 1239 Per Lord Guest at 121 (org yang x
bernama )
- Abdul Khalid v Parti Se Malaysia & Ors (2002) 1 MLJ 160
- Hulton & Co v Jones (1910) AC 20
- Institute of Commercial Management United Kingdom v New Straits Times Press (M)
Bhd (1993) 1 MLJ 408
- Sandison v Malayan Times Ltd & Ors (1964) MLJ 332

For a defamation action to stand, the defamatory statement must have been “published” or
conveyed to at least one other person other than the person being defamed. If someone told you to your
face that you were a liar and a thief, that is not defamation because no one else heard it. However, if it
was said in front of another person, or a group of people, then there could be a cause for
defamation.therefore it simply means that publication is the dissemination of the defamatory words or
material to a third party, other than the plaintiff. this clearly stated that if the words or printed
material are not heard or seen by third parties, and only the plaintiff hears or sees them,
publication does not arise. As for the well-known businesswoman , the word ‘her cosmetic
products are poison. Diamonds are plastic, just like her face’ is defamatory of Puteri Gunung
Ledang, as in its natural and ordinary meaning, which means that Puteri Gunung Ledang is a
fraud and cannot be trusted at all. There is a direct reference to Puteri Gunung Ledang as it was
clearly understood that it meant her. Publication would be satisfied in this matter as Bidasari
has written on the anonymous NowPost. Puteri can therefore be succeed in the claim in regards
to defamation did by Bidasari as a revenge to Puteri Gunung Ledang.
- Dr Jenni Ibrahim v S Pakianathan (1986) 2 MLJ 154

Bidasari is liable for the tort of defamation to Puteri

Defamation is the action of damaging the good reputation of someone either by slander or libel. The tort
of defamation protects interests in reputation. An average person considers the injury to
reputation more serious than bodily injury or property damage.
The tort of defamation arises when there is a publication which has a tendency to lower the
person’s reputation or to cause him to be shunned or avoided by reasonable persons in society,
thereby adversely affecting his reputation.
To prove the existence of defamation, there are three elements to be established
the words are defamatory of her. The implication of the words in the anonymous NowPost
account is that “someone got banyak bodyguards. Her cosmetic products are poison. Diamonds
are plastic just like her face. Such behaviour is not normal and not befitting someone’s personality
in the public. It connotes