Saman Terhadap Chandra Muzaffar

7 March 2008

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Berikutan adalah teks penuh saman DSAI terhadap Chandra Muzaffar

DI DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR

DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA

(BAHAGIAN SIVIL)

GUAMAN SIVIL NO:

ANTARA

DATO’ SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM …PLAINTIF

DAN

CHANDRA MUZAFFAR @ CHANDRASEGARAN PILLAI …DEFENDAN

PERNYATAAN TUNTUTAN

1. Plaintif pada masa yang material merupakan penasihat kepada Parti Keadilan Rakyat Malaysia. Plaintif juga merupakan antara lain, ‘Visiting Diplomat’ di Council of Foreign Relations, New York.

2. Plaintif merupakan seorang ahli politik kebangsaan dan antarabangsa, memegang jawatan dan portfolio-portfolio di dalam Kabinet Malaysia sejak awal tahun 1980, antaranya, Timbalan Menteri di Pejabat Perdana Menteri pada tahun 1982; Menteri di Kementerian Belia, Sukan dan Budaya pada tahun 1983; Kementerian Pertanian pada tahun 1986, Kementerian Pelajaran, Kementerian Kewangan pada tahun 1991; dan Timbalan Perdana Menteri dari tahun 1993 sehingga 2.9.1998. Di pertengahan tahun 1997 Plaintif ialah pemangku Perdana Menteri selama 2 ½ bulan. Plaintif juga memegang jawatan di pertubuhan antarabangsa termasuk UNESCO and IMF. Plaintif juga merupakan Timbalan Presiden UMNO, antara lain-lain jawatan yang dipegang oleh Plaintif di dalam UMNO sejak Plaintif menyertai UMNO dan juga merupakan Ahli Parlimen Permatang Pauh.

3. Defendan pada masa yang material merupakan Presiden International Movement For A Just World [JUST] yang beralamat penyampaian di…

4. Pada 3 Mac 2008, di satu forum yang dianjurkan oleh Star Publication Berhad yang dikenali sebagai Malaysia Decides 2008 (selepas ini dikenali sebagai ‘Forum tersebut’) yang telah diadakan di Menara Star di Petaling Jaya, ketika bercakap mengenai dan/atau berkenaan dan/atau berhubungkait dengan kelakuan Plaintif selaku Timbalan Perdana Menteri Malaysia, telah antara lainnya, secara salah dan secara jahat bercakap mengenai dan/atau menyebarkan atau membuat komen berunsur fitnah/libel yang telah menyebabkan untuk diterbitkan dan/atau telah diterbitkan pada 5 Mac 2008 di dalam media berita tempatan dan antarabangsa, antara lain, suratkhabar The Star dan New Straits Times, kata-kata berikut mengenai dan berkenaan Plaintif (selepas ini dikenali sebagai ‘Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut’):-

i) Di dalam suratkhabar the Star di bawah tajuk “Disaster if Anwar is PM”:

a) If Dato seri Anwar Ibrahim becomes Prime Minister, it will be an “unmitigated disaster” for Malaysia, a former Parti Keadilan Nasional … … deputy president said at a forum yesterday …

b) Dr. Chandra said that Anwar, in dealing with the Kampung Jawa clash between the Hindus and Indian Muslims in Penang, had said then that “he would make sure the temple bells would not ring in the country anymore”

ii) Di dalam suratkhabar New Straits Times di bawah tajuk “Chandra breaks silence on Anwar”:

a) Asked why he was breaking his silence now. Chandra said it appeared that people were being decived by Anwar. “It is something for which I am prepared to go on record now so that people will not be deceived”, he said…

b) He said many people did not remember the role Anwar played in resolving the Kampung Jawa clash between the Hiindus and Indian Muslims in Penang. “He said he would make sure the temple bells would not ring in the country anymore if his dictum was not accepted”, Chandra said.

5. Forum tersebut telah dihadiri oleh beberapa jurnalis yang mewakili beberapa organisasi media, tempatan dan antarabangsa, termasuk media elektronik, yang mana telah menerbitkan dan mengedarkan Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut kepada semua di Malaysia dan selanjutnya telah menerbitkan semula di Malaysia dan di seluruh dunia.

6. Defendan telah menyebut Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut ketika mempunyai pengetahuan dan/atau dengan niat bahawa Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut atau inti patinya akan diterbitkan di dalam media tempatan dan antarabangsa, melalui media elektronik dan bercetak dan ianya juga telah diterbitkan semula di Malaysia dan di mana-mana sahaja dan/atau secara tersirat membenarkan ulangannya. Selanjutnya dan/atau secara alternatif, penerbitan semula tersebut merupakan akibat semulajadi dan kebarangkalian daripada penerbitan asal oleh Defendan.

7. Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut merupakan fitnah dan/atau libel terhadap Plaintif dan di dalam maksud semula jadi dan biasa, bermaksud dan difahami bahawa, antara lain,

i) Plaintif telah mempromosikan atau sedang mempromosikan dan mengapi-apikan kebencian kaum di kalangan kaum-kaum di Malaysia;

ii) Plaintif telah mempromosikan atau sedang mempromosikan dan mengapi-apikan kebencian agama di kalangan kaum-kaum di Malaysia;

iii) Plaintif telah melakukan kesalahan-kesalahan jenayah dan termasuk kesalahan menghasut;

iv) Plaintif ialah seorang yang tidak patriotik dan seorang yang perkauman dan/atau ‘bigot’ dan tidak bermoral;

v) Plaintif ialah seorang yang suka memperdaya, memperdayakan dan tidak jujur;

vi) Plaintif telah melakukan aktiviti-aktiviti yang bercanggah dengan Islam;

vii) Plaintif tidak layak untuk memegang kedudukan politik atau apa-apa kedudukan;

viii) Plaintif merupakan seorang yang cenderung kepada jenayah; dan

ix) Plaintif ialah seorang yang berbahaya kepada masyarakat Malaysia.

8. Secara innuendo, Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut merupakan fitnah dan/atau libel terhadap Plaintif bermaksud dan difahami bahawa, antara lain,:-

i) Plaintif telah mempromosikan atau sedang mempromosikan dan mengapi-apikan kebencian kaum di kalangan kaum-kaum di Malaysia;

ii) Plaintif telah mempromosikan atau sedang mempromosikan dan mengapi-apikan kebencian agama di kalangan kaum-kaum di Malaysia;

iii) Plaintif telah melakukan kesalahan-kesalahan jenayah dan termasuk kesalahan menghasut;

iv) Plaintif ialah seorang yang tidak patriotik dan seorang yang perkauman dan/atau ‘bigot’ dan tidak bermoral;

v) Plaintif ialah seorang yang suka memperdaya, memperdayakan dan tidak jujur;

vi) Plaintif telah melakukan aktiviti-aktiviti yang bercanggah dengan Islam;

vii) Plaintif tidak layak untuk memegang kedudukan politik atau apa-apa kedudukan;

viii) Plaintif merupakan seorang yang cenderung kepada jenayah; dan

ix) Plaintif ialah seorang yang berbahaya kepada masyarakat Malaysia.

9. Defendan telah menyebarkan Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut dengan niat dan tujuan untuk memperkecilkan Plaintif di dalam kapasiti persendirian dan rasmi, termasuk kapasiti Plaintif sebagai bekas Menteri Kewangan dan bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri Malaysia.

10. Tindakan Defendan tesebut adalah dan telah didorong oleh niat jahat yang nyata dan/atau tersirat dan telah dibuat niat jahat.

11. Oleh kerana penerbitan Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut oleh Defendan dan selanjutnya penerbitan semula seperti di atas, Plaintif telah mengalami kerugian di dalam karakter, kredit dan reputasi di dalam negeri dan antarabangsa dan telah menjadi skandal umum, kebencian ramai dan penghinaan dan Plaintif telah mengalami distress yang berpatutan, kebimbangan dan malu, yang mana Plaintif berhak kepada gantirugi teruk.

12. Plaintif akan bergantung kepada fakta-fakta berikut sebagai memburukkan lagi fitnah tersebut:-

i) Takat penerbitan Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut atau intipatinya telah terdapat di, antara lain, suratkhabar The Star, New Straits Times dan di mana-mana sahaja, termasuk di dalam internet;

ii) Defendan telah mengetahui dan/atau sepatutnya mengetahui dan/atau berniat bahawa Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut atau intipatinya akan diterbitkan di berbagai-bagai ‘wire service’, agensi-agensi berita, suratkhabar-suratkhabar, dan penerbitan semula di dalam negeri dan antarabangsa di dalam lain-lain suratkhabar dan majalah dan media, termasuk media elektronik, dan/atau membenarkan di dalam pengulangan tersebut; dan

iii) Defendan telah engganuntuk meminta maaf dan berterusan untuk berdegil.

13. Plaintif akan bergantung kepada fakta-fakta berikut sebagai memburukkan lagi fitnah tersebut:-

i) Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut secara sendirinya membuktikan keadaan yang begitu serius dan merosakkan dan secara melulu dibuat oleh Defendan;

ii) Defendan telah berucap dan telah menyebabkan Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut diterbitkan dan diterbitkan semula seperti yang diplidkan di atas walaupun Defendan mempunyai pengetahuan spesifik bahawa Plaintif telah menafikan sekeras-kerasnya perkara yang sama pada masa lalu;

iii) Defendan telah berucap dan telah menyebabkan penerbitan dan penerbitan semula Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut dengan niat yang nyata untuk merosakkan reputasi Plaintif dan kedudukan, secara politik untuk melindungi kepentingan politik masa lalu Defendan dan kedudukan masa lalu sebagai Timbalan Presiden Parti Keadilan Rakyat, tanpa terlebih dahulu membuat pertanyaan yang betul dan efektif mengenai kebenaran dan ketepatan Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut;

iv) Defendan telah berucap dan telah menyebabkan penerbitan Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut setelah mengetahui bahawa Defendan berbuat demikian untuk mendapatkan kelebihan melalui penerbitan tersebut dan penerbitan semula Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut.

14. Defendan tidak mempunyai apa-apa asas fakta di dalam penegasan Defendan bahawa Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut adalah sememangnya diucapkan oleh Plaintif dan pada mana-mana keadaan ataupun Defendan hadir secara sendiri dan/atau telah mendengar secara sendiri Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut berkenaan dengan insiden “Kampung Jawa”. Plaintif oleh itu dan menegaskan bahawa Defendan telah bergantung kepada cakap dengar yang tidak boleh dipercayai. Plaintif selanjut akan bergantung kepada fakta ini untuk menyokong tuntutan untuk gantirugi melampau dan teladan.

15. Plaintif menafikan membuat apa-apa kenyataan seperti yang dikatakan oleh Defendan dan meletakkan Defendan ke atas beban bukti yang kukuh.

16. Plaintif melalui peguamcaranya Tetuan S N Nair & Partners di dalam surat bertarikh 4 Mac 2008 menuntut daripada Defendan supaya menarik balik, meminta maaf dan gantirugi tetapi Defendan menerusi surat jawapannya bertarikh 5 Mac 2008, telah enggan untuk melakukannya tetapi telah mengaku mengucapkan Kata-kata menyinggung tersebut.

17. Kecuali dihalang oleh Mahkamah yang mulia ini, Defendan berniat untuk meneruskan dan akan selanjutnya menerbitkan kata-kata menyinggung tersebut atau perkataan fitnah yang sama terhadap Plaintif.

18. OLEH YANG DEMIKIAN, Plaintif memohon relif-relif berikut terhadap Defendan;

(a) Gantirugi pampasan sebanyak RM10,000,000-00;

(b) Gantirugi Teruk (‘Aggravated Damages’);

(c) Gantirugi Teladan (Exemplary Damages’);

(d) Injunksi untuk menahan Defendan sama ada menerusi Defendan sendiri, agen dan/atau pekerja dan/atau sesiapapun daripada melafazkan, bercakap atau menerbitkan kata-kata menyinggung tersebut atau kata-kata yang mempunyai kesan terhadap Plaintif atau perkataan yang sama memfitnah Plaintif;

(e) Faedah sebanyak 8% ke atas jumlah penghakiman dari tarikh pemfailan saman sehingga penyelesaian penuh;

(f) Kos; dan

(g) Apa-apa relif yang Mahkamah anggap perlu dan suaimanfaat.

Bertarikh pada haribulan 2008

Peguamcara Plaintif

TRANSLATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR

IN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA

(CIVIL DIVISION)

CIVIL SUIT NO.____________ _________

BETWEEN

DATO’ SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM PLAINTIFF

AND

CHANDRA MUZAFFAR @ CHANDRASEGARAN PILLAI DEFENDANT

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

1. The Plaintiff at all material time is the advisor to Parti Keadilan Rakyat Malaysia. He is also, inter alia, Visiting Diplomat at the Council of Foreign Relations, New York.

2. The Plaintiff is a politician of national and international reputation, having held high public office and various portfolios in the Malaysian Cabinet since the early 1980’s, amongst others, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister Department in 1982; Youth, Sport and Culture Minister in 1983; Agriculture Minister in 1986, Education Minister, Minister of Finance in 1991; and Deputy Prime Minister from 1993 until 2.9.1998. In the middle of 1997 he was acting Prime Minister for 2 ½ months. The Plaintiff also held various positions of standing in international organizations including UNESCO and IMF. The Plaintiff has also been UMNO Deputy President, among other posts held by him in UMNO since he joined the party and was Member of Parliament for Permatang Pauh.

3. The Defendant at all material time is the President of JUST World Trust with an address for service at…

4. On or about 4th March 2008, at a forum organized by the Star Publications Berhad known as Malaysia Decides 2008 (hereinafter known as “the Forum”) held at Menara Star in Petaling Jaya, when speaking about and or in respect and or in connection with the Plaintiff’s conduct as Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, the Defendant had inter alia, falsely and maliciously spoke about and or uttered or made defamatory/libelous comments which caused to be published and or which was published on 5th March 2008 in the national and international news media, inter alia, the Star newspaper and in the New Straits Times newspaper, the following words of and concerning the Plaintiff hereinafter collectively known as (“the offending words” ) as enumerated below, viz:

i) In the Star : Under the caption “Disaster if Anwar is PM” : the following words:

a) If Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim becomes Prime Minister, it will be an “unmitigated disaster” for Malaysia, a former Parti Keadilan Nasional …… deputy president said at a forum yesterday…

b) Dr. Chandra said that Anwar, in dealing with the Kampung Jawa clash between the Hindus and Indian Muslims in Penang, had said then that “he would make sure the temple bells would not ring in the country anymore”

ii) In the New Straits Times : Under the caption “Chandra breaks silence on Anwar” the following words:

a) Asked why he was breaking his silence now. Chandra said it appeared that people were being deceived by Anwar. “It is something for which I am prepared to go on record now so that people will not be deceived”, he said…

b) He said many people did not remember the role Anwar played in resolving the Kampung Jawa clash between the Hindus and Indian Musims in Penang. “He said he would make sure the temple bells would not ring in the country anymore if his dictum was not accepted,” Chandra said.

5. The forum was well attended by numerous journalists representing several media organizations, both local and international, including the electronic media, which then published and disseminated the offending words to all in Malaysia and further republished both in Malaysia and to the world at large.

6. The Defendant spoke or uttered the offending words in the knowledge and/or with the intention that the offending words or their gist would be published in the local and international media, both electronic and the print media and that it was will republished in the Malaysia and elsewhere and / or implicitly authorized their repetition. Further and/or alternatively, the republication was a natural and probable consequence of the original publication by the Defendant.

7. The offending words were and are defamatory and or libelous of the Plaintiff and in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to, inter alia, mean that:

i) The Plaintiff promoted or was promoting and incited or was inciting racial hatred amongst the races in Malaysia;

ii) The Plaintiff promoted or was promoting and incited or was inciting religious hatred amongst the races in Malaysia;

iii) the Plaintiff has committed criminal offences and including the offence of sedition;

iv) The Plaintiff is unpatriotic and a racist and or a bigot and has no morals;

v) The Plaintiff is habitually deceptive, deceitful and dishonest;

vi) the Plaintiff was engaged in activities contrary to Islam;

vii) the Plaintiff was unfit to hold political, or any office;

viii) the Plaintiff was a person of criminal tendencies; and

ix) that the Plaintiff was dangerous to Malaysian society

8. By innuendo, the offending words were and are defamatory and or libelous of the Plaintiff and were meant and were understood to, inter alia, mean that:

i) The Plaintiff promoted or was promoting and incited or was inciting racial hatred amongst the races in Malaysia;

ii) The Plaintiff promoted or was promoting and incited or was inciting religious hatred amongst the races in Malaysia;

iii) the Plaintiff has committed criminal offences and including the offence of sedition;

iv) The Plaintiff is unpatriotic and a racist and or a bigot and has no morals;

v) The Plaintiff is habitually deceptive, deceitful and dishonest;

vi) the Plaintiff was engaged in activities contrary to Islam;

vii) the Plaintiff was unfit to hold political, or any office;

viii) the Plaintiff was a person of criminal tendencies; and

ix) that the Plaintiff was dangerous to Malaysian society

9. The Defendant uttered the offending words with the intention and calculated to disparage the Plaintiff in both his private and official capacities, including his then capacities as former Minister of Finance and former Deputy Prime Minster of Malaysia.

10. The Defendant’s act is and was actuated by express and or implied malice and done in bad faith.

11. By reason of the publication of the offending words by the Defendant and its subsequent republication as set forth hereinbefore, the Plaintiff’s has been gravely injured in his character, credit and reputation both nationally and internationally and has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt and the Plaintiff has suffered considerable distress, anxiety and embarrassment, entitling him to aggravated damages.

12. The Plaintiff will rely on the following facts and matters as aggravating the defamation:

i) The extent of the publication of the offending words or their gist appeared in, inter alia: The Star newspaper, the New Straits Times and elsewhere, including on the internet;

ii) The Defendant knew and/or ought to have known and/or intended that the offending words or their gist would be published in various wire services, news agencies, newspapers, and republished nationally and internationally in other newspapers and magazines and media, including the electronic media, and/or authorised their repetition; and

iii) The Defendant has refused to apologise and continues to be defiant.

13. The Plaintiff will rely upon the following facts and matters in support of his claim for exemplary damages: –

i) the offending words were self-evidently of the most serious and damaging nature and recklessly made by the Defendant;

ii) the Defendant spoke and caused the said words to be published and republished as adverted to hereinbefore despite specific knowledge that the Plaintiff had vehemently denied same to him in the past;

iii) the Defendant spoke and caused to be published and republished the offending words with the express intention of damaging the Plaintiff’s reputation and standing, politically in order to safeguard the Defendant’s own past political interest and past position as Deputy President of the Justice Party, without first making effective and proper queries into the truth and veracity of the offending words;

iv) the Defendant spoke and caused to be published the offending words having calculated that he stood to gain an advantage by the publication and republication of the offending words.

14. The Defendant has no factual basis in his contention that the purported offending words were actually uttered by the Plaintiff at all or at any purported occasion nor was the Defendant personally present and or heard the purported offending words personally, regarding the alleged “Kampung Jawa” incident. The Plaintiff thus and shall contend that the Defendant had relied on unworthy hearsay. The Plaintiff shall further rely on this to further substantiate his claims for aggravated and exemplary damages.

15. The Defendant denies making such statements as alleged by the Defendant and puts the Defendant to strict proof.

16. The Plaintiff through his solicitors M/s S N Nair & Partners by a letter dated 4th March 2008 demanded from the Defendant a retraction, apology and damages but the Defendant by his letter in reply dated 5th March 2008, refused to the do the same but admitted uttering the offending words.

17. Unless restrained by this Honourable Court, the Defendant intends to continue and will further publish the offending or similar words defamatory of the Plaintiff.

18. WHEREFORE , the Plaintiff prays for the following reliefs against the Defendant.

(a) Compensatory Damages of RM10,000,000-00;

(b) Aggravated Damages;

(c) Exemplary Damages;

(d) An injunction to restrain the Defendant whether by himself, his agents and/or servants or otherwise howsoever from further uttering, speaking or publishing the offending words or words to the like effect of or concerning the Plaintiff or similar words defamatory of the Plaintiff;

(e) Interest of 8 percent on the adjudged sums for date of filing till realization:

(f) Costs on a solicitor client basis; and

(g) Any further or other relief deemed fit and proper by this Honourable Court.

Dated this day of March 2008

————————————

Solicitors for the Plaintiff

Pendapat Anda

Switch to our mobile site