Most towns have one: a Facebook group where residents post about the smell from a factory, a landfill that keeps growing or a developer’s unfinished road. When the company named in those posts objects, two questions come first. Read in context by an ordinary reasonable reader, are the words defamatory at all? And can the company prove who actually published them?
Those were the questions on which a gold-mining company lost, at all three levels, against a village activist in Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd v Hue Shieh Lee, decided by the Federal Court on 13 February 2019. In 2021 the same company won, in the same court, against the news portal that had carried the residents’ campaign. Read together, the two results are a useful guide for residents, for the businesses they criticise and for whoever runs the group.
The Bukit Koman dispute
Raub Australian Gold Mining (RAGM) operated a gold mine at Bukit Koman, Raub, Pahang, using a cyanide-based process. Residents campaigned against the operation, citing health and environmental concerns. Hue Shieh Lee was a resident and a leader of the residents’ anti-cyanide committee.
In 2012 two online news portals, Malaysiakini and Free Malaysia Today, carried articles and videos reporting statements attributed to her. One concerned the results of a health survey among residents; the other concerned the company’s hiring of local people. RAGM sued her personally for libel and for malicious falsehood — a separate claim for false statements made maliciously, which ordinarily requires proof of actual financial loss (special damage), subject to the exceptions in section 6 of the Defamation Act 1957.
The High Court dismissed the claim on 17 May 2016, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the company’s appeal on 21 October 2016. On 16 October 2017 the Federal Court granted leave to appeal on two questions: whether Malaysian law applies a subjective notion of societal values in deciding if words are defamatory, and what criteria govern the free-speech rights of activists.
How a court decides whether words are defamatory
A plaintiff must show three things: the words are defamatory, they refer to the plaintiff, and they were published to a third party (Ayob bin Saud v TS Sambanthamurthi). Meaning is approached in two stages. The first, a question of law, is whether the words are capable of bearing the meaning complained of. The second, a question of fact, is whether they do bear it. The yardstick throughout is the ordinary reasonable reader (Chok Foo Choo @ Chok Kee Lian v The China Press Bhd).
The Federal Court’s answer
A five-judge bench, in a judgment delivered by Ramly Ali FCJ, dismissed the appeal and ordered RAGM to pay RM60,000 in costs. The concurrent findings of the two courts below stood.
On the first statement, the finding was that, read in context, it reported what the survey had found and expressed residents’ concern; it did not expose the company to hatred, ridicule or contempt. On the second, the words complained of were the reporter’s account of what had been said. The company did not call the reporter as a witness, so it failed to prove that the defendant had published those words. The malicious falsehood claim failed because special damage was not proved.
The appeal was disposed of on those findings; readers who need the court’s treatment of the two leave questions should consult the full judgment. The Court of Appeal’s judgment in the same case is often cited for its observations on the social value of activism and accountability.
Same mine, different defendant, different result
On 2 July 2021 the Federal Court decided Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Ors v Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd. By a 3–2 majority it upheld a RM200,000 award against the company behind Malaysiakini and three of its editorial staff over three articles and two videos about the same controversy; with costs, the total was reported as RM550,000. The majority found that the publications were not neutral and that adequate verification had not been attempted. The minority would have restored the High Court’s dismissal of the claim.
So the resident who voiced the concerns was not liable, while the portal that amplified them was. The difference lay in what each publication actually conveyed, in proof of who said what, and in the defences relied on. What decided the resident’s case was not any special rule for activists but the ordinary rules on meaning and proof of publication.
What residents, businesses and group admins can take from it
- Residents and campaigners: say what you know and how you know it — who ran the survey, how many people answered, what they reported. Express concern and call for an investigation rather than asserting as fact that a company has poisoned or harmed anyone.
- Keep a copy of your own statement. If a reporter or another poster paraphrases you in harsher terms, the claimant must prove that you published those words.
- Business owners: a company can sue for defamation, but a claim against a local resident is hard to win and costly — RM60,000 in costs at the Federal Court alone here. A published reply and the release of data are often better tools.
- Pages and portals that repackage a community campaign carry their own responsibility: present it neutrally, attempt verification, and give the company a genuine chance to respond.
- Group admins: the same principles govern posts about factories, developers, landfills and farms in local groups. Encourage members to stick to first-hand facts, and remove fabricated claims once they are pointed out.
Status
Both Federal Court decisions are final.
Authorities and sources
- Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd v Hue Shieh Lee [2019] 3 MLJ 720; [2019] 2 MLRA 345
- Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Ors v Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd [2021] 5 MLRA 37
- Ayob bin Saud v TS Sambanthamurthi [1989] 1 MLJ 315
- Chok Foo Choo @ Chok Kee Lian v The China Press Bhd [1999] 1 MLJ 371
- Defamation Act 1957, section 6 (malicious falsehood)
- Free Malaysia Today, 13 February 2019 and 2 July 2021; Malay Mail, 2 July 2021; Environmental Law Alliance (ELAW) case summary; Judiciary of Malaysia, press summary of the minority judgment in Mkini Dotcom (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