ACT 1957 - Defamation

LECTURER

DR. NISAR MOHAMMAD BIN AHMAD

LECTURER OF FACULTY OF SYARIAH AND LAW

MEMBERS

AHMAD FIRDAUS BIN AZMAN

1171090

MUHAMMAD ADAM LUQMAN BIN MAZLAN

1171241

ASYRAFUL AQWA BIN WIRA

1171085

MUHAMMAD ZAFRI BIN HUSSAINI

1171149

Definition

Of Defamation

• A defamatory is a statement which disparages a person in his office, profession, calling, trade or business.

• Defamation is the publication of a statement which reflects on a person’s reputation and tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally, or makes them shun (reject) or avoid that person.

Defamation

The Defamation Act 1957 (Act 286) came into force in peninsular Malaysia on 1 July 1957 and on 6 May 1965 for Sabah and Sarawak. It is the act of governing the defamation laws in Malaysia.

Federal Constitution:

• Article 10 (1) (a) - freedom of expression, human rights of Malaysians.
• Article 10 (2) (3) (4) explains the limits of freedom of expression.

Enacted to suppress abuse of speech and libel liberty:

• Defamation: Lies about others and disseminated to third parties.
• The charge under section based on the penal code from 499, 500, 501, 502 or Defamation Act 1957.

Defamation

Act 1957

The Penal Code

www.defamation.com/libelandslander

Defamation can be in TWO forms

• SLANDER

• LIBEL

It is a permanent form which is mostly addressed to the eyes. It is a tort (civil wrong) as a crime in certain circumstances. It does not need any proves. E.g.: books, newspapers, drawing, paintings, cartoons, films, statues, signs, effigies and other visual image.

It is not a permanent form. It is addressed to the ears. Based on English Law it is not a crime but in Malaysia truely it is a crime under section 499 of the Penal Code. Any special damages need a prove EXCEPT:

- Slander of women (S.4)

- Slander affecting official, professional/business reputation (S.5)

- Slander of title (S. 6).

Slenderisacrime

gossipisfun

Sponsored

No caption. Let picture talking

Example

1.2K 12 comments 31 shares 374K views

1,795 likes

Magazine of Tueday: Edward and Kate

Write a comment...

It is defamatory if proven:

A statement is a defamatory statement which is:

• TENDS TO LOWER a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally.
• Causes a person to be SHUNNED or AVOIDED or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule.
• Conveys an imputation on a person DISPARAGING or INJURIOUS to his office, profession, calling, trade or business.
• There are two methods of interpreting THE WORDS in an allegedly defamatory statement by their natural and ordinary meaning or by innuendo.

Imputation: A charge or claim that someone has done something undesirable, an accusation.

Innuendo

Innuendo is used to describe words which have special meaning only to persons who have knowledge of some special background or facts.

Example of the statement:

“Abu recently purchased a luxurious bungalow worth RM10 million”

Steps To Determine Whether a Defamation Clause Can Be Made:

Is there a Defamation Statement ?

Is The Statement Referring To The Claimant ?

Is It Revealed Or To Third Party Knowledge ?

Who Sue ????

@

Defamation is a personal fault

@

The right to sue resides with the defamed

@

In case of death? Not relatives

@

In case of political group ?

Only the one who’s been defamed

@

Companies or corporations

CASE NUMBER 1 IN MALAYSIA

• 29 June 2008, Tabloid Warta Perdana newspaper published the article "Ifa Raziah Free Allergy, Take Artist Drinking 'Power Nest' ".
• Ifa denies giving permission and issued the statement.
• Therefore, she demanded reputation damages to the RM50, 000 defendant as well as other appropriate costs.
• The plaintiff suffered losses, the defendant could profit after the article was published.
• Promotion is done at Johor Radio fm.
• The court found that the plaintiff had succeeded in submitting the argument and winning the case.

ANALYSIS FROM CASE 1

Refers to three aspects to prove the defamation:

(a) Words must be defamatory.

(b) The words refer to the plaintiff.

(c) Words are published.

CASE NUMBER 2 IN MALAYSIA

• On December 1, 2004, Sharifah Aini was charged by the Petaling Jaya Magistrate's Court for allegedly defaming Siti Nurhaliza.
• She was charged with committing the act at his residence on 24 August 2004.
• Email by "Asmah and The Gang" writes that:

a) Halau bini orang yang mengandung tujuh bulan memang perangai binatang tak bertimbang rasa.

b) Muka kau tu dipinjamkan hantu yang menyamar jadi cantik nak cover senduk penyek.

c) Reporter please go selidik cerita CT dan Ayi cekak pinggang minta duit cash sebelum show di IB.

d) CT menyelinap kat bilik hotel jumpa Ramli M.S, pergi Singapore to be with Ramli.

e) Tanya Kris Dayanti pasai botox dan bomoh nak buat CT cantik dan semua orang tunduk sayang pada CT.

ANALYSIS FROM CASE 2

• Defendants are not sued.
• Sharifah Aini was released on bail after RM4000.
• The court has no solid evidence to accuse Sharifah Aini of defamation.
• The charge under Section 500: whether a fine or imprisonment for two years.

CASE NUMBER 3 IN MALAYSIA

The Magistrate's Court here today ordered Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli to be charged with defaming Tabung Haji (TH) on his Facebook page 2 years ago.

Rafizi allegedly committed the offense at the Tabung Haji building in Jalan Tun Razak on February 18, 2016.

The charge was amended after he complained it was unclear.

ANALYSIS FROM CASE 3

1

The PKR vice-president was convicted and sentenced to a 30-month jail sentence by the Shah Alam Sessions Court under the Banking and Financial Institutions Act (Bafia).

2

Rafizi was charged under allegations of criminal defamation under Section 500 of the Penal Code last year.

3

The charge under Section 500: whether a fine or imprisonment for two years.

Short video of Defamation Law at other country

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3IjIAkM7i4

If you're a victim:

Suggestion:

• Immediately file a complaint to PDRM.

• Immediately file a complaint to the communication commission.

• There should be a special committee to manage this matter under the legal unit.

• Establish special forces for social media crime violators.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the existing Defamation Act 1957 in Malaysia has successfully protected our rights as citizens in terms of maintaining good reputation and reputation among the public. Compensation and penalties imposed may result in fear of spreading defamation indiscriminately. As a responsible citizen, we must always act reasonably and ensure the validity of any news before distributing it. Nor should we spread hatred over someone by spreading false facts to society. The Defamation Act 1957 governing the defamation case in Malaysia is an effective and successful act in its implementation.

Let's Play A Game

Thank You !

+

https://create.kahoot.it/share/defamation-law-in-malaysia-act-1957/cb472e56-5f5a-4f91-9aa1-34e5852fa374