Kuching High Court orders DAP’s Michael Kong to pay RM250,000 in defamation suit filed by Chinese federation president

Wee (fourth right) and Datin Dona Wee (third right) with Counsel Shankar Ram (second right).

KUCHING, Jan 26: In the defamation suit brought by Sarawak Federation of Chinese Associations president Dato Richard Wee against DAP’s Michael Kong for a Facebook post on July 21, 2020, the Kuching High Court ruled today that Kong must pay a total of RM250,000.

High Court Judge Dato Haji Alwi Hj Abdul Wahab ordered Kong to permanently remove the alleged Facebook post within 7 days.

The court specified damages, including RM150,000 for general and aggravated damages, RM50,000 for malicious falsehood damages, and RM50,000 for costs.

An interest rate of 5 per cent on the damages from the date of the Facebook post was also imposed.

Justice Alwi clarified that there is no evidence showing that Wee gained projects through ties with the State government or Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) elites.

The acquisition of Layang-Layang Aerospace Sdn Bhd’s services, according to the judge, was based on the company’s strength and capability, not a close tie with the State government.

Justice Alwi agreed that the words in Kong’s Facebook post were not accurate and not fair comment, noting that they were recklessly made without proof of public interest.

The court found the statements damaging and designed to mock and ridicule Wee, lacking verification from reliable sources.

Assessing defamation damages, the court acknowledged Wee’s influence in the Chinese community, holding positions in the Sarawak Federation of Chinese Associations and the Federation of Chinese Associations Malaysia.

Kong’s counsel, Chong Chieng Jen, stated that the possibility of an appeal would be discussed with the legal team and the defendant after the court’s decision.

Wee was represented by Counsel Shakar Ram, Yu Ying Ying, and Russel Lim, while Kong was represented by Counsel Chong Siew Chiang, Chong Chieng Jen, and Sim Kiat Leng.

The plaintiff presented 14 witnesses, while the defendant called 4 witnesses during the case. — DayakDaily