By Murray Hunter
THERE has been a rapid expansion of defamation actions taking place all around the world.
Malaysia has not been any different with many lawyers encouraging this and specialising in defamation, even though most of them amount to being frivolous SLAPP actions aimed at damaging the health and bankrupting critics.
A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) action is a lawsuit filed primarily to intimidate, silence, or burden critics, including activists, journalists, or citizens with legal costs and harassment, rather than to genuinely seek justice or resolve a legitimate dispute.
Of late, this includes actions outside the sphere, such as arranging for a critic’s arrest, and destroying their public persona through the media.
SLAPP actions are very profitable to lawyers because they become prolonged through the court system, distressing respondents, where their punishment becomes the legal process of the SLAPP action itself.
This drains the respondent both emotionally and financially, which is often the prime objective of the party taking out the SLAPP action.
One recent case involved a developer who demolished an iconic state building under contract, where the land just became idle. The primary objective was to carry out a new development; however, once the iconic building was demolished, there was just silence from all parties involved.
An environmental activist was taken to task through a SLAPP action, became very sick, and was forced to “bow down” in humiliation towards the contractor and apologise for asking pertinent questions of public interest about the project.
This legal process had nothing to do with the truth, just to humiliate a person who asked questions on a very opaque public matter.
The company claimed their reputation was damaged because they had to answer questions to stakeholders, taking up their valuable time and money.
There are many cases similar to the one described above, and courts, due to the imbalanced power and money of complainants versus respondents, usually find in favour of the complainants.
These proceedings have nothing to do with truth and justice.
SLAPP actions don’t bring justice; they just point towards the inequity of the current justice system.
Citizens who care about their communities become the victims.
The real winners are the lawyers who net in excess of RM250,000 in such actions, which is very profitable work.
The writer has also observed that many cases are really just theatrical scenes, decided where results have been agreed upon before the hearing actually commences in the court.
This story has been consistently told to the writer by several victims, which in itself should be alarming.
Independent mediation centres are another way
Certainly, defendants want to settle such disagreements and correct anything they may have got wrong.
On the plaintiff side, if the organisation or person is really sincere in finding a quick and equitable solution to their annoyance and grievances, they would want a way that this can be achieved quickly and at minimal cost, so that a good settlement is achieved.
It's always good to have an independent look and evaluation of what a complainant perceives as defamation and aggrievement. This is when an independent, non-biased mediation centre can play a major role in settling defamation cases.
Mediation centres may assist in stemming the growth of the SLAPP industry that lawyers are thriving on.
Mediation centres cost around RM6,000 per day, whereas a court case could cost ten times that.
A mediation session is different to a court action, which would directly lead to finding some agreeable settlement between the parties.
Defamation actions are orientated towards the aim of receiving a monetary solution. Today we are seeing many politicians using defamation laws to gain big monetary awards to improve their wealth.
Some defamation payouts are 20 times higher than what a family might receive on the death of the breadwinner in the family. Reputation today is worth more than a life.
In contrast, mediation aims towards achieving a mutually agreed-upon result which actually fixes the perceived problem.
The legal profession would be strongly against such an idea, due to the potential fees they would lose.
The profession would be inclined to block such potential strategies for a solution to a defamation case for this reason.
Logically, an organisation that perceives aggrievement should favour mediation as a solution, if that is their real objective. However, many organisations that take out SLAPP actions do so for other reasons, such as being vindictive towards anyone who questions what they are doing.
A mediation solution would save hundreds of thousands of Ringgit spent on lawyers, yet they still throw away financial prudence to attack a person through the legal system, which their money can buy.
Any hesitancy on the part of these corporations could be perceived as that organisation having other objectives, such as silencing critics using the SLAPP strategy. The ethics and sincerity of corporations are on the line here.
Independent mediation is a way toward moderating the growth of SLAPP actions in Malaysia.
This would create a much healthier society regarding free speech versus defamation in Malaysia, allowing more open public participation. – August 14, 2026
