Defamation has become a massive industry in Malaysia, where the ambiguous defamation laws are weaponized by lawyers for their clients to silence critics. Lawyers are only too eager to run up hours and big bills to intimidate writers, journalists, activists, and news portals that are critical of their clients, who are operating within the public domain. This in effect is silencing open and frank public discussion over issues of public interest.
Lawyers use the defamation laws to intimidate critics, prevent online and print news portals discussing issues related to their clients, and in many cases shutting down discussions and exposes about matters of corruption relating to their clients. Some clients are even acting as ‘proxies’ to cover politicians’ corruption.
Some lawyers are also trying to extort cash payments from those accused of defaming their clients, outside the court system. This in some cases almost amounts to ‘ransom’ and ‘blackmail’ tactics.
Lawyers are making moot and frivolous claims on people making legitimate criticisms of their clients. Lawyers are using defamation as a means to censor people.
Below, I have started compiling a list of lawyers who are questionable in their sense of ethics, and ‘moral compasses’ in using the defamation laws in bad faith of the spirit of the law. These lawyers prefer billing than advising their clients the grounds for defamation are weak, or even non-existent. They prefer to abuse the law for profits.
If you have any other names of lawyers who are abusing the defamation laws, please add their names in the comments. I will maintain this list of shame.
· Kanesh Sundrum & Co. Advocates and Solicitors – Brickfields
· Lim Chuah & Associates – Shah Alam
· Pierre Mookiah & Associates – Shah Alam
· Zul Rafique & Partners - Kuala Lumpur
Lawyers have now become the biggest impediment to uncovering corruption in Malaysia today.
Subscribe Below:
When I gave my opinion about Dato Ambiga's impeccable ethics I drew that conclusion from my own personal experience with her on a number of matters and legal or otherwise over a number of years. Nothing caused me to question her actions. In fact I admire her bravery on many occasions taking an unpopular but on a principled stance .A person's reputation is important and only clear evidence supporting facts should be advanced should you wish to attack a person's integrity. Your bias is based on " I thought the old trans get " development " money. What personal knowledge do you have of this". Perhaps like the rest of us we are bombarded everyday by propaganda and accept without question.
I know Dato Ambiga who heads Sreenevasan law firm who I believe has impeccable ethics. I am surprised her name is mentioned. I would be interested to see the substantiation of your allegations if any and also to be fair to good law firms