On 3 July 2026 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Sarawak DAP politician Chong Chieng Jen and doubled, to RM300,000, the damages payable to the State Government of Sarawak for defamation. The dispute, which began with party pamphlets in 2013, earlier produced the first of three Federal Court rulings on a basic question: who may sue for defamation in Malaysia?
In short: a federal or state government can sue. A minister or other public officer can sue as an individual, even where the words attack official conduct. A political party cannot.
A state government as plaintiff: the Sarawak case
Chong, then a Member of Parliament and state assemblyman, made an allegation about the handling of a very large sum of state funds. Published accounts say it circulated through party pamphlets, a Chinese-language daily and an online news portal. The State Government and the State Financial Authority sued.
In 2014 the High Court struck out the suit, applying the English decision in Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers (1993), under which a government body cannot sue for defamation. The Court of Appeal reversed that ruling in 2016, and on 26 September 2018 the Federal Court, in Chong Chieng Jen v Government of State of Sarawak & Anor, agreed with the Court of Appeal.
The reasoning turned on statute: section 3 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 gives the Federal and State Governments the right to bring civil proceedings, and the court held that this includes a defamation claim. With written law on the point, there was no room to import the English rule through section 3 of the Civil Law Act 1956, which governs the reception of English common law.
At trial, on 30 August 2022, the High Court at Kuching found for the State, found malice, awarded RM150,000 in damages and RM50,000 in costs, and granted an injunction. The 2026 appeal decision raised the damages to RM300,000 and added RM150,000 in costs; the Borneo Post put the total payable at RM500,000.
A chief minister suing in a personal capacity
The second ruling, Lim Guan Eng v Ruslan bin Kassim, came on 26 February 2021. Lim Guan Eng, then Chief Minister of Penang, sued over an accusation about his conduct in office, made in a statement issued on 1 October 2011 by the information chief of Perkasa, posted on its website and reported by newspapers the next day. On 26 March 2015 the High Court awarded RM150,000 against Perkasa, Ibrahim Ali and Ruslan Kassim; the newspaper defendants, against whom separate awards were made, settled in March 2019.
The question was whether, after Chong Chieng Jen, a government official may sue in an official capacity. By a 2–1 majority the Federal Court held that a public officer who sues as an individual keeps the ordinary citizen’s right to protect their reputation, whether the words concern private or official conduct. The RM150,000 award was reinstated. The dissenting judge considered that the claim had been brought in an official capacity without complying with the Government Proceedings Act 1956 and was defective.
A political party cannot sue
On 4 March 2021 a seven-judge Federal Court bench decided Lim Lip Eng v Ong Ka Chuan (as public officer of the Malaysian Chinese Association). The MCA had claimed RM100 million from a DAP Member of Parliament over remarks about Chinese-school allocations at a press conference in Parliament on 15 March 2017. The court held unanimously that a political party, although it can sue and be sued through a public officer under section 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966, cannot maintain an action for defamation. The suit was struck out.
Analysis: three answers, one practical message
Malaysia has parted company with the English position on the strength of a statute. Some lawyers have argued that letting governments sue risks discouraging legitimate criticism. Another view is that the right to sue is only a starting point: a government plaintiff must still prove its case, and the ordinary defences remain open.
The party ruling narrows the field less than it may seem: individual politicians remain free to sue in their own names, and the Lim Guan Eng majority confirms that it makes no difference that the attack is on official conduct. This article does not address the position of statutory bodies or government-linked companies. The Sarawak litigation also shows the long tail: pamphlets from 2013, still in court in 2026, the sum payable having risen from RM200,000 to RM500,000.
Takeaways for social-media users, business owners and group admins
- Criticise policies and performance freely. Stating as fact, without proof, that public money was stolen or that a named official is corrupt is different; both a government and the individual office-holder may sue.
- Writing about a party rather than a person offers little protection if readers can tell which leader is meant.
- Business owners posting about dealings with government departments or officials should keep to facts they can document.
- Election season is the high-risk period for forwarded messages. Section 14 of the Defamation Act 1957 limits privilege at elections.
- Admins of WhatsApp and Facebook groups: set a rule against unverified allegations about named individuals, and remove such posts promptly once notified. Whether an admin is liable merely for being an admin has not been settled by the appellate courts, but in our view the risk rises once an admin knows and does nothing.
Status as at 19 September 2026
Lim Guan Eng and Lim Lip Eng are final decisions of the apex court. In the Sarawak case, press reports on 3 July 2026 said Chong was considering seeking leave to appeal to the Federal Court. Whether an application has been filed or decided is not confirmed, so the Court of Appeal’s orders should not be assumed to be final.
Authorities and sources
- Chong Chieng Jen v Government of State of Sarawak & Anor [2019] 3 MLJ 300; [2019] 1 CLJ 329; [2019] 1 MLRA 515
- Lim Guan Eng v Ruslan bin Kassim and another appeal [2021] 2 MLJ 541; [2021] 3 MLRA 207
- Lim Lip Eng v Ong Ka Chuan (as public officer of the Malaysian Chinese Association) [2022] 5 CLJ 847
- Government Proceedings Act 1956, section 3; Civil Law Act 1956, section 3; Societies Act 1966, section 9(c); Defamation Act 1957, section 14
- Judiciary of Malaysia: press summary (minority judgment), Lim Guan Eng, 2021; speech on defamation issues, 29 September 2023
- Malay Mail, 26 September 2018 and 3 July 2026; The Borneo Post, 26 February 2021, 30 August 2022 and 3 July 2026; The Star, 26 February 2021; The Vibes, 4 March 2021
This article is general legal information only and is current as at 19 September 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Court decisions may be appealed and the law may change; please seek advice on your own circumstances. — Chris & Partners, Advocates & Solicitors