Anwar Muhyiddin Shouldn T Have Inflamed Voter Sentiments

---

 


Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim contended that Muhyiddin Yassin, as former prime minister, should have known better not to issue statements that can inflame voter sentiments.
In his reply to Muhyiddin’s defence against his defamation suit, Pakatan Harapan chairperson Anwar claimed this is even more so when the Perikatan Nasional chairperson made a statement during an election campaign at Padang Serai in the run-up to the 15th general election late last year.
The Tambun MP alleged that Muhyiddin’s statement was malicious as the latter should have known that the former in Parliament years ago had rebutted the allegations of him (Anwar) receiving RM15 million for serving as Selangor’s economic adviser.
“The plaintiff avers that as a veteran politician and former prime minister, the defendant ought to have known that it is undesirable to make public statements that have a tendency to inflame and promote feelings of ill-will, discontent or hostility between persons and candidates, to induce any elector or voter before, during and after an election, more so when such statements are defamatory and malicious in nature.
“Nonetheless, the defendant had proceeded to make the same (impugned slanderous and/or libellous words) via his speeches in an election campaign which are clearly indisputably a contravention of the Election Offences Act 1954,” Anwar contended in the reply sighted by Malaysiakini.
The PKR president pointed out it was not difficult for the Bersatu president to access the publicly available parliamentary Hansard record before making the allegation.
No legal duty
Anwar contended that Muhyiddin has no legal duty to issue allegedly false and malicious statements in the Padang Serai constituency which is not even the latter’s parliamentary constituency of Pagoh.
The plaintiff also noted that while the defendant may enjoy the freedom of speech per Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, the former contended this fundamental right is qualified and still subject to various restraints such as the Defamation Act 1957.
In his statement of defence filed at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur on Jan 17, Muhyiddin claimed among others that Anwar as prime minister should not be offended by legitimate criticism and queries during political speeches.
Anwar filed his reply on Feb 16.
Back on Dec 20 last year, Anwar filed a defamation action against Muhyiddin over the latter’s statement purportedly made during the PN grand finale ceramah on Dec 5.
Through the defamation suit, Anwar rubbished the allegation as slanderous, false and disparaging against him, as well as made with malice.
Through the civil action, the plaintiff seeks general, compensatory, aggravated and exemplary damages and an injunction to restrain the defendant from further uttering or publishing the allegation, among other reliefs.
On Dec 7 last year, the Selangor Menteri Besar’s office refuted Muhyiddin’s claims, adding that Anwar was only paid a symbolic RM1 per month during the advisory stint.
Anwar is represented by lawyer Sankara Nair, while the law firm Chetan Jethwani & Company is acting for Muhyiddin. - Mkini

---