UUM lecturer loses attempt to delay paying RM400,000 defamation damages to Hannah Yeoh
KUALA LUMPUR (Aug 28): Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) lecturer Dr Kamarul Zaman Yusoff failed to obtain a stay from the High Court on Thursday to delay payment of RM400,000 in damages for defaming Youth and Sports Minister Hannah Yeoh.
Judicial Commissioner Avinder Singh Gill Ranjit Singh dismissed Kamarul Zaman’s application for a stay and ordered the academician to pay RM2,500 costs.
Yeoh filed bankruptcy proceedings against the lecturer in August. Case management is fixed for Oct 15 at the High Court.
Kamarul Zaman was ordered to pay RM400,000 in a May 30 ruling by judge Datuk Aliza Sulaiman, which found him guilty of defamation over two Facebook posts from May 10 to 17, 2017. He claimed Yeoh was trying to spread Christianity using her political position.
The lecturer cited Yeoh’s autobiography, Becoming Hannah: A Personal Journey, as evidence of her purported Christian agenda, alleging that she sought to turn Malaysia into a Christian nation.
The decision on the stay was confirmed by Yeoh’s lawyer, Sangeet Kaur Deo, when contacted by The Edge.
Kamarul Azam was represented by Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz.
Aliza in her decision, in finding Kamarul Zaman had defamed the minister, held that the court was satisfied that Yeoh had discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities in establishing that the first and second posts were defamatory of her.
"He (the defendant) suggests the plaintiff (Hannah) is a threat to Islam and used her position to 'Christianise' the country.
"In a multiracial and multi-religious country where the issue of religion is, of course, very sensitive, this would surely expose the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule and contempt," she said.
The judge further noted that the defendant had pleaded the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege, but she found that none had been successfully established.
"Even if the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege were established, the plaintiff had pleaded particulars of malice in the reply to the defence, and in my view has proven on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was actuated by malice," said the judge.
Aliza further held that if the defendant genuinely believed the plaintiff had committed an offence, lodging a police report would have been sufficient. Instead, the defendant chose to publish his comments on Facebook.
The content is a snapshot from Publisher. Refer to the original content for accurate info. Contact us for any changes.
Comments
