KUCHING: The Democratic Action Party (DAP) Sarawak has wrongly portrayed the Court of Appeal’s ruling against Stampin MP Chong Chieng Jen in a defamation case as an attack on free speech, says Kota Sentosa assemblyman Wilfred Yap.
Rejecting DAP Sarawak’s characterisation of the appellate court’s decision in the long-running “RM11 billion black hole” defamation case, Yap said the ruling concerned accountability for defamatory statements rather than an attempt to silence political dissent.
He said DAP Sarawak’s response to the Court of Appeal’s decision “attempts to recast a defamation case into a struggle over democracy and freedom of speech”.
“That narrative ignores the central issue decided by the courts,” he said in a statement today (Jul 4).
Yesterday (July 3), the Court of Appeal dismissed Chong’s appeal, allowed the plaintiffs’ cross-appeal and increased the damages awarded by the High Court.
Yap stressed that the case was never about denying the opposition the right to scrutinise government policies, expenditure and decisions.
“No one disputes that transparency, accountability and good governance are essential pillars of a democratic society. Equally, no one disputes that Members of the State Legislative Assembly have every right—and indeed a duty—to question government policies, expenditure and decisions,” he said.
He added that such questions can and should be raised in the august House, through the Public Accounts Committee, and through other lawful democratic processes.
“However, this case was never about denying the opposition the right to ask questions,” he said.
Yap noted that the courts had found the allegations published to be defamatory after proceedings spanning 13 years.
“It was about the publication of defamatory allegations that the courts, after hearing the evidence over a period of 13 years, found to be unlawful. The High Court reached that conclusion, and the Court of Appeal has now affirmed it, even increasing the damages awarded.
“The judgments demonstrate that the issue before the courts was not political criticism, but whether serious allegations had crossed the legal boundary into defamation,” he said.
Yap said DAP Sarawak’s attempt to portray the ruling as an attack on freedom of speech was “misplaced”.
“Freedom of speech is a cherished constitutional liberty, but it has never been an absolute right. With that freedom comes the responsibility to ensure that allegations, especially those capable of damaging reputations and eroding public confidence, are supported by facts and evidence,” he said.
He also rejected suggestions that the case arose because there was no effective opposition in Sarawak, noting that DAP Sarawak held 12 seats in the State Legislative Assembly when the suit was filed in 2013.
“The existence of this lawsuit did not prevent DAP from continuing to perform its role as the Opposition,” he said.
Yap maintained that the courts had not ruled that questions on public expenditure could not be asked.
“The courts did not rule that such questions could not be asked. They ruled on the defamatory nature of the published statements,” he said.
He added that DAP Sarawak remained entitled to pursue an appeal to the Federal Court if it believed there were important legal questions to be determined.
“That is the essence of the rule of law,” he said.
Yap said that while a mature democracy requires robust scrutiny of those in power, it also requires responsible public discourse.
“One cannot come at the expense of the other,” he said.
