BACHELOR OF MASS COMMUNICATION (HONS) IN BROADCASTING

MC243

MEDIA LAW, REGULATION AND ETHICS

(COM540)

DEFAMATION ACT 1957

PREPARED BY:

DINI ARISYA BT ROSLAN 2019462032

PREPARED FOR:

MISS ELIZA EZZAUDDIN HUSSEIN

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 DEFENITION OF LAW

The law influences all parts of our lives. It's controlled our activities from the
support to the grave and its impact stretches out from our introduction to the world
to death. We live in a general public that has created rules for observing the
activities of its individuals. There are laws the apply to working conditions, laws
which direct relaxation interests, and laws which control individual relationship.
What is a “law” and how does it differ from other types of rules? The law set of
rules that govern the state government and regulate relations between the state and
citizens, as well as between citizens and others. Because we as a human have many
“rules”. The rules of a particular sport, such as the off-side rules in football are
designed to bring order to a particular activity. Another type of rules may be a social
agreement for example, not mentioning the death. In this case, the “rules” reflect
what the community considers appropriate. In any case, these provisions are
expected to be finalized by the courts.

1.2 DEFINTION OF MEDIA LAW

The Law on the Media isn't one lawful structure, however other lawful and
moral measures that influence crafted by the media. Various standards apply to
various sorts of media. Yet, there are all inclusive guidelines that all writers must
pursue when doing work. Just as per the lawful and moral guideline of the calling,
which are commonly known by the writer. They should satisfy the essential
elements of guaranteeing open enthusiasm for a popularity-based society.

1.3 THE OBJECTIVE OF PAPER

Objective of this paper is to discuss about the issues that related to Defamation
Act 1957. The content of this paper provides knowledge of the Malaysian
government and the media so that citizen can speak.
2.0 LAW

2.1 DEFINITON OF DEFAMATION ACT 1957

Defamation is an offence relating to reputation. The Constitution has guaranteed the

right to speech. This right is important, but unfortunately it is being mistreated. Everyone
thinks that he/she is free to speak anything, anywhere and in any way. Some of these
statements constitute criminal defamation and some civil defamation. Defamation laws are
formally written by the government to protect individuals or groups from harm due to
inaccurate statements. But the law should not deprive people freedom of expression. People
can still speak freely if they do not harm to others by making defamation statement.
Defamation is defined as a statement that reduces the position of the public to be hated,
insults or abuses anyone. Defamation may affect his/her reputation in business, trade or
profession.
Apart from settlement in court, a defamation case is normally settled amicably outside
the court. Section 7(1) of the Defamation Law states: “A person suspected of publishing
someone’s slanderous word can make a correction proposal if he or she claims that the
word was published innocently of another person.”
An offence which is deemed defamatory can be classified into two like libel and
slander. Libel is basically a libellous statement expressed in permanent forms such as
photographs, fonts, symbols and prints. However, slander performs slanderous tricks using
words and gestures: -

2.1.1 LIBEL
Libel can be considered as serious injuries because they are permanent.
The scriptures from books, magazines or newspaper will be stored for a long
time, and as long as they exist, the reputation of those who being framed or
written will be damaged.
In Malaysia, the possibility of analysis law can't be tended to in
detachment without making a cross reference to the law of criticism. The law of
insulting in Malaysia is essentially established on the English point of reference-
based law norms except for to the degree that it has been changed by the
Malaysian Defamation Act 1957 (Talib, 2010). Criticism is essential, which
infers that an infuriated gathering not show any damages. In a manner of
speaking, an insulted gathering who brings slander action doesn't have to show
that he has persevered through any disaster or harm as a result of the
appropriated statement. This is in light of the fact that the law acknowledges
that when a person's shame is assaulted, some mischief must result. In order to
show a derogatory enunciation on the reason that it is hostile, the irritated party
must develop the segment of this tort, which are immediately the words are
decrying, the words suggest the insulted party, and in end the words have been
disseminated (Talib, 2010; Rogers, 2010; Evans, Chia, Mathiavaranam, 2008;
Carey, 1996). Taking a gander at the primary component, it would do the trick
to take note of that what is required with respect to the offended party is to build
up that the announcement/word that structures the topic of his complaint is
slanderous. With regards to the subsequent component, the offended party must
demonstrate that the announcements/words were distributed of and concerning
him. At the end of the day, the announcements/words must refer to him. It will
be no safeguard that the offended party isn't mentioned by name on the off
chance that he would be equipped for being recognized by the sensible
individual. Once more, the words/articulations utilized might be taken to allude
to the offended party where he is referenced by name, regardless of whether the
plaintiff didn't plan to allude to the offended party. Thus, reference to the
offended party is clearly settled if the offended parties name is obviously
expressed, independent of whether the litigant has the expectation to stigmatize
the offended party or something else.

2.1.2 SLANDER

Slanderous defamation that addresses at least one individual that

addresses at least one individual to turns some announcement. Criticism is a
common claim and might be the reason for a claim. Harm from defamation
might be constrained to genuine (extraordinary) harm, except for purposeful.
This is on the grounds that such harm is generally hard to decide and hard to
demonstrate. Certain charges, for example, false allegation of a wrongdoing, a
horrible sickness or a failure to carry out their responsibility are viewed as
abuse. Since the dangers and nastiness are self-evident, when in doubt lead to a
 general and what's more, even criminal recovery of bad behaviour. Verbally
communicated words utilized on TV or radio are viewed as criticism (composed
slandering) and not criticize on the hypothesis that telecom contacts an
enormous group of spectators as much as though not more than print media.

2.2 THINGS CAN BE DEEMED DEFAMATORY

To prove that an individual has been criticized, affirmation must be

submitted to the court that a particular creation contains blaming and the
investigation is away for him. In like manner, he should show that the phase has
been spilled to various individuals. In this stand-out conditions, maligning is a
case that isn't authentic. In the event that the sentenced can show to the court
that what he has made really occurred or isn't examination, by then he can be
cleared. Alongside settlement in court, a criticism case is usually settled
charmingly outside the court. This the three things can be viewed as harsh: -

• The words must be slanderous in nature

• The abusive must alluded to somebody

• It must have third individual or other individual

3.0 CONTENT (ILAC)

3.0 ISSUE
Basically, these issues involved between 3 big names in Malaysia which is The
New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd (NSTP), Utusan Malaysia and Finance Minister,
Lim Guan Eng. It’s happened when NSTP and Utusan Malaysia libel Guan Eng on
newspaper as “Singapore operator”
Lim Guan Eng sued both of the companies under defamation case by suing the
companies and he need an explanation from both sides.
Court of Appeal President sat with Federal Court judges struck out Lim's leave
to progress counter to the overarching press social occasions.
The same things happen back then during 2012, where Perkasa also libel
defamed Lim Guan Eng by saying he was risking national security by revealing the
country’s favoured bits of knowledge to Singapore
Americk Singh, Lim’s laywer asked to bring back the cases and relate it to these
cases also.

So, in March 2015, High Court judge Nor Bee (by Court of Appeal judge) found
Perkasa guilt for maligning. She mentioned they need to pay RM150,000 when all
that being said are bothered damages, and NSTP to pay RM200,000 and Utusan
Melayu to pay RM200,000 with everything considered as upset harms.
3.1 LAW
The Act that involved in the case of Lim Guan Eng, NSTP and Utusan Melayu
is Defamation Act 1957. The reason this case happened was when NSTP and
Utusun Melayu published a statement that said “Singapore agent” towards Lim
Guan Eng.
Lim Guan Eng feel ashamed by the statement and sued them (NSTP and Utusun
Melayu) under this act so that they will pay back what they already done to the Lim
Guan Eng damage reputation.
Beside that, Perkasa also involved with the same situation when they published
a statement on their site that referred Lim Guan Eng imperilling national security
by uncovering the nation's privileged insights to Singapore.

3.2 APPLICATION

Three of them will be punished under Section 7(1) for libel defamations.

The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd (NSTP) and Utusan Melayu (M) Sdn
Bhd have agreed to pay all totalling RM400,000 to Lim Guan Eng as granted by the
High Court in a slander claim recorded.

Lim's lawyer today told that High Court give amount of each publishing
companies need to pay is RM200,000 because of the fault statement made by them
that harms Lim’s reputation.

Other than that, Ruslan who worked with Perkasa as an editor also need to pay
back at Lim Guan Eng for the libel defamation that has been done by them. As much
as RM150,000.
3.3 CONCLUSION

In March 2015, by then High Court judge Nor Bee Ariffin (directly Court of Appeal
judge) discovered Perkasa editor in risk for criticizing. She referenced them to pay
RM150,000 when all is said to be done and infuriated harms, and Syed Nazri and NSTP
to pay RM200,000, and Abdul Aziz and Utusan Melayu to pay RM200,000 with
everything considered as upset harms.

Close to that, on 2012 Lim Guan Eng around then was Penang Chief Minister filled
a claim towards seven respondents. This is identified with Perkasa where it was
composed by Ruslan and Ibrahim, the editor. Judge requested them to pay back in light
of the criticism labelling being finished by them.

Toward the day's end, every one of them consented to pay the measure of cash they
have to provide for Lim Guan Eng on the grounds that they as of now hamulate his
reputation by composing that sort of article.
REFERENCES

Carey, P. (1996). Media law. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Chin, P. A. (2019, March 5). NSTP, Utusan to pay Guan Eng RM400k in damages for
defamation. Retrieved from The Edge Markets:
https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/nstp-utusan-pay-guan-eng-rm400k-damages-
defamation

Evans, K., Chia, D., & Mathiavaranam, R. (2008). Evans on defamation in Singapore and
Malaysia. (3rd ed.). LexisNexis

Kwai, M. W. (2018, November 29). The Basics of Defamation Law in Malaysia. Retrieved
from MahWengKwai & Associates Advocates And Solicitors:
https://mahwengkwai.com/the-basics-of-defamation-law-in-malaysia/

Rogers, W. V. H. (2010). Winfield & Jolowicz on tort. (18th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

SuperUser. (2015, August 11). Defamation Act 1957. Retrieved from UUM Press:
http://uumpress.uum.edu.my/index.php/bookstore/act/93-defamation-act-1957

Talib, N. (2010). Law of torts in Malaysia. (3rd ed.). Petaling Jaya: Sweet & Maxwell Asia.