Today, Aliran affirms that none of the above has changed.

Rationale For Amendment

In recent times, Aliran has had occasion to express our abhorrence of the 'mega awards' made by the Courts in Malaysia in conjunction with various suits for alleged defamation. Together with other concerned organisations and individuals, Aliran maintains that the 'mega awards' severely limit the exercise of the freedom of speech which is protected by Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

In particular Aliran holds that when Courts permit plaintiffs to plead exorbitant sums for damages, and make 'mega awards' against defendants, the Courts in effect strongly discourage open debates on matters of public concern, undermine the practice of professionally conducted investigative journalism, and threaten those who care and dare to speak against abuses, malpractices and injustices.

Typically it has been rich and powerful claimants, having the means to engage expensive legal services, who have claimed damages amounting to tens and hundreds of millions of ringgit. With the Courts having evidently made no attempt to curb plaintiffs'abuse of the principle of awards, one plaintiff has even recently made a claim exceeding a billion ringgit.

While some cases may have little to do with public matters and interest, they, as well as cases that do, have the invidious effect of removing controversial issues and questions from public scrutiny and critical comment.

It is public knowledge that Court decisions have contributed to this unfortunate state of affairs by upholding virtually limitless claims as a way of compensating for alleged damage to individual reputations.

Responsibility Of The Courts

Thus, the Courts have practically permitted individual and selfish interests to prevail over the public good. It is as though the Courts are unaware that their decisions have effectively disregarded public concern over the increasing curtailment of the freedom of expression.

Such Court decisions must now be regarded as appalling in their consequences for Malaysian society in the light of the Chief Justice's statement that there are no rules to support litigation which quantifies claims for damages.

While we generally welcome the Chief Justice's clarification on the issue of the quantification of damages, we consider that it is now incumbent upon the Chief Justice to make clear immediately how he, his fellow judges and the judicial system intend to rectify the present situation.

In this matter, as in other matters related to the judiciary, public confidence in the judiciary, which is sadly at its ebb - as even the Chief Justice has publicly conceded - can only be restored when the judicial system actively, earnestly and transparently corrects its own errors.

Aliran holds that it is outrageous for any individual to claim that his or her reputation is worth tens and hundreds of millions of ringgit, particularly when the alleged damage to the reputation arises out of a comment on matters of public importance.

If indeed a litigant's reputation is deemed to have been damaged, can the individual be permitted the liberty of determining the extent of the claims and damages required to restore his or her reputation? Moreover, should a litigant be allowed to pursue self-determined claims that have the express or effective purpose of bankrupting defendants who speak in the public interest?

In any case, shouldn't the quantification of claims and damages be treated as a matter of judicial discretion that is exercised by impartial judges taking into account all relevant factors?

In The Public Interest

Let us categorically affirm that the public interest and public good should never be regarded as the least important of those 'relevant factors'.

Under present circumstances, and bearing the public interest and public good foremost in our considerations, Aliran has decided to delete the quantum of RM70 million we sought in the suit we originally filed against Abdul Murad.

We leave the issue of the quantum of the damages we seek against Abdul Murad to the discretion of the Court in the hope that the Court will be able and willing to assess accurately and fairly the damage inflicted upon the reputation of our organisation.

Our reputation, stated with all humility, is the unsullied reputation of an established, voluntary and non-profit organisation which has enjoyed nearly a quarter of a century of indisputable national and international standing in the struggle for justice and freedom.

In taking this step, Aliran challenges all parties who are involved in defamation suits, including the Courts, litigants and legal counsel, to take a momentous step - not only towards achieving justice in the determination of such suits, but equally towards upholding the rights to freedom of speech, fair comment, justifiable criticism and legitimate dissent.

Aliran Executive Committee
3 April 2001