- 2 days ago
- #considerthis
A billion-ringgit lawsuit by a corporation against multiple media organisations and individuals has drawn sharp condemnation from human rights groups, who warn it bears the hallmarks of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation or SLAPP. Critics say such lawsuits are not about seeking legal remedy but about silencing public scrutiny. So where is the line between protecting reputation and suppressing public interest reporting? On this episode of #ConsiderThis Melisa Idris speaks with human rights lawyer Edmund Bon, Representative of Malaysia to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:10hello and good evening i'm melissa idris welcome to consider this this is the show where we want
00:15you to consider and then reconsider what you know of the news of the day a billion ringgit lawsuit
00:20by a corporation against multiple media organizations and individuals has drawn sharp
00:26criticism or condemnation from human rights organizations who warn it bears the hallmarks of
00:33a strategic lawsuit against public participation better known as slap now critics say such lawsuits
00:41are not about seeking legal remedy but about silencing public scrutiny so tonight on the show
00:48we want to explore where is that line between protecting reputation and suppressing public
00:55interest reporting and where and does malaysia's legal framework do enough to prevent the court
01:01from being used as a tool of intimidation joining me on the line now is human rights lawyer edmund
01:08bond he is the representative of malaysia to the asean intergovernmental organization on human rights
01:14of which malaysia was the chair for 2025 edmund um thank you so much for joining me on the show
01:20you
01:20have long been an advocate um of strengthening protections against the use of slap now maybe
01:28you can begin our conversation by uh explaining how slap cases are typically orchestrated in malaysia
01:34how should we understand um the types of legal tools that are most commonly used here so slap cases is
01:42relatively new as a term but generally it's been cases relating to deformation so where for example
01:50residents complain about pollution the orang asli complain about the reveal rivers being polluted by
01:58factories we have freedom of speech issues corruption issues where there are complaints made researchers
02:06academics ngos raising those complaints in the public domain against certain individuals or organizations
02:12the organizations will then go to court one through a civil means to seek an injunction or file a court
02:20case
02:20for defamation so that's a form of a slap suit in a sense that they want to say that whatever
02:27has been
02:27raised is untrue and false and more interestingly is to seek an injunction an early injunction so an early
02:37injunction means uh we they will go to court and say to the court this is very important please stop
02:43all
02:44publication in the meantime the court case goes on and as we know court cases may go on for two
02:50years
02:50three years and if the injunction is given then no one can speak about the issue no one can speak
02:56about
02:57corruption no one can speak about the polluted river no one can speak about what has happened to the
03:01orang asli so that's a form of slap slap slap it's a form of um i'm trying to silence dissent
03:09try to silence
03:11people raising their voices right because slap also has the criminal side so we have seen the criminal
03:19machinery being used police reports being lodged raids being done and investigation started over
03:27certain allegations so slap comes in these two forms okay edmund you mentioned the defamation a bit
03:36earlier talk to me about the difference between genuine protection against defamation versus um the
03:46elements of slap how do we determine whether there are elements of slap within a litigation or within a case
03:53so freedom of expression in human rights is not unrestricted we have to accept that there are some
03:59restrictions and the restrictions are very narrow so if you incite race religious hatred seek people
04:06calling for people to die those things is they are not free speech they are not protected speech
04:13but the federal court has said recently that genuine political discourse genuine political critique of the
04:21government of issues that uh of interest to the public corruption for example these are protected
04:28speech therefore government authorities businesses who are affected by by this speech should actually use
04:35their voices to rebut those speeches but trying to use the courts use the judicial machinery to silence voices
04:46would be quite unwarranted of course there are some type of uh defamatory statements that are completely false
04:54completely misleading and they are entitled to protect their reputation but in terms of balancing those
05:00interests a lot of times our courts have said we need to protect free speech now your question is very
05:06interesting
05:06because slap is recent recent and there are some developments around the world and california in thailand in the
05:14philippines in indonesia for example where there's some new legislation to try and have a better balance
05:21and a fine line we don't have that in malaysia at the moment so i cannot answer the question to
05:27because it
05:28goes by case by case basis there are some statements that obviously are defamatory but there are some statements
05:34that if there is evidence there is of corruption then the issue needs to be investigated the issue should not
05:42be to take it to court and then stop the whistleblowers or stop those that are raising their voices
05:47because we know in a democracy we we need to have protected speech that is uh free and fair right
05:55in in the
05:56case of malaysia who tends to initiate these lawsuits i am curious you know is this um government's
06:04sanctioned is it sanctioned is it where where are slap cases coming from typically typically from
06:11businesses one where residents complain about a polluted river for example and when it goes viral
06:20now there's a lot of social media channels the company and business will then say okay i think this
06:27is going too far let's go to court but second of all government government machinery we have seen
06:32politicians we have seen state agencies we have seen both federal and state governments we have seen
06:38local governments we have seen commissions filing court suits so a slap suit can be generally anyone
06:48started by anyone but generally around the world not only in malaysia the plaintiff is always somebody
06:55in a greater position of power and that's where we need to remember in a democracy the democracy
07:02is trying to balance that power and free speech allows the weaker segments of society those like the
07:08residents the orang asli those who only have voices the general public the only voices we are the the
07:16weaker segments of society government machinery businesses big corporations have a lot of resources
07:23they are wealthy so they go to court and when they go to court they are it's it's david and
07:29goliath
07:30uh because they are strong they have lawyers they have a lot of money they can go for litigation for
07:36years
07:36on end uh the weaker power is the one that only has free speech to to raise issues of our
07:45human rights
07:45concerns yeah and i think also in the malaysian case with um so many state-owned enterprises glcs glics i
07:54think
07:54that also as another dimension of this power imbalance that you refer to um i also wanted to ask you
08:01about
08:02how slap relates to business and human rights because as the malaysian rep to aicha you also
08:09were um had the national baseline assessment on business and human rights i'm curious to know how do we
08:17think about business related slabs um and how that's recognized as a human rights issue as a need to
08:25protect it for um democratic safeguards yeah so it's not a new phenomenon only in malaysia i want to say
08:32that the malaysian government has taken very bold steps in the national baseline assessment and then now
08:38in the national action plan for business and human rights to 2030 to actually develop a anti-slab law or
08:45anti-slab legislation that's one of the targets in the national action plan and civil society is
08:51assisting the government i think it's important to try and strengthen the court procedures try and
08:57strengthen elements of what the court can look at when there's a striking out application so for example
09:03if there's a defamation case uh what happens some somewhere else outside our jurisdiction the defendant
09:10the resident or the orang asli can actually or orang asal can actually file a striking out application and
09:16say oh no this defamation case is not genuinely to protect reputation but actually is to silence us it's actually
09:24to get an injunction to silence us and the court can look into some elements of it
09:28uh at the moment the courts look into a little bit of it uh through the lens of defamation but
09:35through the lens of slap uh we have not yet developed that kind of uh weaponry and i think we
09:41need to amend our rules and our law for that but it takes time because um the debate is still
09:47not clear cut uh what type of elements do we need to look at right well based on your your
09:53work and your observations from other countries what do other countries do that make it possible to
09:58for an anti-slap law what does that type of legislation look like and the other thing i'm curious about
10:05is how do how does the how does the court system respond to that are judges equipped to identify and
10:14dismiss slap cases early these early injunctions or does the law need to change first
10:20so i speak to uh in about other jurisdictions the other jurisdictions yes the the courts are empowered to strike
10:28it out
10:28and what they actually look at is how genuine the defamation claim is they will look at the claim on
10:34the face of it
10:35for example is that if it's an investigative journalistic article uh there are resources named or there are no sources
10:42named but there is some sort of a justification for it
10:46and instead of investigating the claim uh the slap claim is is brought so the judge might say i'm just
10:53uh paraphrasing might say
10:55oh this doesn't look like a genuine claim the article looks yeah there are some um sensationalism but there is
11:02some
11:02evidence there uh so yeah i think your claim would look like a slap claim and i would strike it
11:08out
11:08but some if it's a 50 50 thing then uh sometimes the injunction the pre-trial injunction that will take
11:14two or three years is not given but the court case then proceeds the important thing is the pre-trial
11:19injunction the pre-trial injunction is normally used by uh courts uh sorry by businesses in the malaysian courts
11:28before the trial as i mentioned if the trial goes on for two years and the injunction is provided
11:32or given nobody can speak about the case for two years and that's really really serious because
11:38that's the target of slappers slappers one to get the injunction so that nobody speaks about the case
11:45nobody brings up the case for the next two years three years by that time everybody would have forgotten
11:51about the case when the case actually comes up to trial and that's why you see in malaysia a lot
11:56of
11:56many cases and to the credit of the courts as well as mediators a lot of cases by the time
12:01they come up
12:02the statement is really stale uh and the plaintiff and defendant would normally mediate and settle
12:07the matter because you know unless you are really in it for the money uh there's there's no point going
12:13on right so you said anti-slap laws take a long time uh may take a long time to materialize
12:20in
12:20malaysia that how do we uh how can we protect um public participation in the meantime are there tools at
12:30our
12:30disposal yes uh the malaysian courts have already said i i mentioned the the hedi kwas case uh where
12:38where our our firm represented her it's it's very clear that the federal court have said no section 233
12:45you cannot use section 2233 simply as it used to be 233 can only be used in a very limited
12:53circumstance
12:53issues of um what is now known as the 3r but for genuine political discourse genuine political critique
13:01uh you cannot use it so that means that we need to continue supporting our flourishing civil society
13:08malaysia is very lucky because we have civil society from all backgrounds uh right up right down to the grass
13:15roots uh up to suhakam i think that civil society participation needs to be supported again we have seen a
13:22lot of uh
13:23independent media as well where there are issues that are coming up we need to support those who
13:28are raising these issues right admin um before i wrap up i just want to circle back forgive me for
13:34circling back to the beginning of our conversation where you said um there are two types of defamation
13:40and then there's a criminal side with police reports can you elaborate very quickly about that i'm
13:45curious to know how slap is used or what elements of slap in um using police reports section 233 is
13:51used
13:52criminal defamation is used sedition is used these are forms of these are laws that are still in
13:59malaysia that are used by uh slappers uh including government those those who are in state to stop
14:07people from speaking up so those are criminal elements not so much using the courts as yet but using our
14:15law
14:15enforcement so using for example the police the macc um which whichever commission or agencies that are
14:22involved to investigate and uh harass those that are raising the issues i'm not saying and i want to be
14:29very clear i'm not here to talk about any particular case i'm not here to be on anyone's side if
14:36you're
14:36asking me about how slap works and how it's seen around the world and how it's seen in malaysia
14:41these are the basic elements definitely edmund thank you so much for being on the show with me today
14:47human rights lawyer edmund bonder he's the malaysia representative to aisha we're going to take
14:52a quick break but we'll be back with more onslapped stay tuned to consider this
14:57you
Comments