1.

0 INTRODUCTION
The Defamation Act 1957 (act 286) effective in West Malaysia on 1 July 1957 and on 6 May
1965 for the states of Sabah and Sarawak. It is an act that governs and discusses matters
related to defamation law in Malaysia. According to the Oxford Dictionary, A Concise
Dictionary of Law, Second Edition. Defamation is the publication of statements in oral or
written form that are temporary or permanent that can affect or degrade a person in society.
Slander is a statement that causes the person being slandered to be prone to hatred, shame or
humiliation. Defamation can also be defined as something that damages a person's dignity in
any of his positions, professions or business or damages a person's credibility.

There are two types of tort laws involving defamation issues in Malaysia. This law is
divided into two forms of action, namely criminal claims and civil lawsuits. Criminal charges
are provided under Section 499 - Section 502 of the Penal Code with a penalty in the form of
imprisonment or a fine upon conviction. Criminal defamation can also be prosecuted under
the Sedition Act 1948. For example, incitement occurs in the form of publications that cause
hatred or create chaos against government or government. If convicted under the Sedition Act
1948, a person can be fined not more than RM5000.00 and/or jailed for up to 3 years for the
first offense and jailed not exceeding 5 years for the next offense. While civil defamation or
tort law that explains the action on behalf of those who commit civil defamation can be taken
action under the defamation act 1957. The remedy provided by the court for this civil claim is
compensation or damages. Actions can be initiated in a private capacity.

The Defamation Act 1957 defines its role as regulating defamation claims under civil
law. The Defamation Act 1957 is divided into two categories, namely libel and slander. The
first category is libel which explains defamatory statements in a permanent form. Libel means
that the student or the person being slandered does not need to prove the loss/illegal suffered
due to the defamatory statement. The second type of slander is slander. Slander is defined as
a defamatory statement in a form that is not permanent or only temporary .. for example,
through voice recordings, words, and so on. slander is ‘actionable per se’. claims can only be
made if the claimant (the claimant) manages to show special losses except in certain cases or
circumstances.

The purpose of this writing based on certain journals involving the Defamation Act
1957 is to see how this act is applied in resolving or discussing issues related to defamation
cases found in Malaysia
2.0 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
This study on the Defamation Act 1957 was conducted based on observations on several
selected journals based on issues involving the defamation act 1957.

2.1 Case 1: Saidatul Hanum Binti Sazali vs Lina Waty Binti Assim
According to (Zulqarnain bin Hassan, 2020) the case that has been studied is about the
defamation act 1957 which is in Saidatul Hanum Binti Sazali vs Lina Waty Binti Assim in
this case the plaintiff claimed himself to have been defamed by the defendant stating “the
plaintiff sells bundle goods and not the original.

 DESCRIPTION OF CASE
In this case it is clear from the descriptions, photographs and document presented that it
comprehensively refers to self plaintiff. It is clear that the name SP1 has been mentioned
repeatedly in his writing through social sites such as ‘facebook and instagram’ made by
defendant. During the trial, the witnesses in the plaintiff's case were his staff Nur Neha
Najihah binti Mohammad [SP2] and her social media friend Nadia binti Robian Martin [SP3].
SD1 did not call any other witnesses. This is evidence provided by SP1.

 PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT

The case studied was used as the plaintiff of Saidatul Hanum Binti Sazali opponents
defended Lina Waty Binti Assim

 COURT PROCEEDINGS

In this case, the court ruled that the words were defamatory because it was sudden but
sensible. the words are defamatory when through that word the public will look askance at
the plaintiff. moreover, the statement is not defamatory but becomes defamatory as a result of
the implications or references to a particular thing or facts known to the recipient of the
broadcast of the words. this can be further explained by looking at two examples, namely, the
actual innuendo arises when there are special facts or known by the recipient of the broadcast
of the words causing it to be slanderous. this can be referenced based on the case of Saidatul
Hanum Binti Sazali vs Lina Waty Binti Assim where the plaintiff is a trader while the
defendant has made defamation contained in social media such as Facebook and Instagram.
In addition, there is also a picture showing an item sold under the name of the plaintiff. in this
case, the defendant had made a statement that read, "I have been deceived by this dealer by
giving me a non-original bundle bag". thus, such a statement implies that a plaintiff is a
person who commits fraud online. In this case, the plaintiff filed an allegation under section 6
of the defamation act 1957 on slander against title i.e. the provision stated is in any action
because slander against the title, slander for goods or another malicious forgery, is
unnecessary to say or prove special loss, if the words on which the action is based are
calculated to cause loss of money to the plaintiff and published in writing or other fixed form
or/if the word is considered to cause loss of money to the plaintiff in respect of any position,
profession, occupation, trades or businesses held or conducted by him at the time of
publication.

 COURT SOLUTION

After considering the pleadings, evidence, and arguments of both parties, on the balance of
probabilities, the Sessions Court, Kuala Lumpur has found that the plaintiff has successfully
proved his case and the defendant failed to prove counterclaim. After considering the facts
and factors as a whole, the Court allowed general damages of RM40, 000. 00. The Court
dismissed special damages of RM20, 000.00 as it was not proven. Also, severe and
exemplary damages were rejected as there was no evidence that SP1's injuries and reputation
were as severe and severe as the loss of livelihood or hospitalization due to mental and
emotional stress. The court also allowed claims on injunctions, deletion, and benefits. Finally,
the Court allowed the cost to the plaintiff RM15 000.00 for his claim and RM12, 000.00 for a
counterclaim. Under session 5 of the Defamation Act 1957 on slander affecting reputations,
professionals, and businesses. This states in action because slander in respect of words
deemed insulting to the plaintiff in any position, profession, occupation, trade, and business
held or conducted by him at the time of publication, it is not necessary to say or prove special
loss whether or not the words- the spoken word concerning the plaintiff becomes a barrier in
position and so on.