By Murray Hunter
IN Malaysia today, the courts regularly hand down defamation awards reaching RM500,000 or more, sometimes far higher in high-profile cases against defendants, including in matters that critics label Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs).
These sums compensate for injury to reputation, hurt feelings, or annoyance caused by words spoken or written.
Contrast that with the Kota Bharu High Court’s recent decision: a mother whose 12-year-old son died after falling through the rotten floor of a school bus was awarded just RM17,573.
After six years of waiting, the court found the bus driver, owner, headmaster, education authorities and others liable.
Claims for aggravated and exemplary damages were rejected.
The figure reflects the strict limits under the Civil Law Act 1956, which prioritises quantifiable loss of dependency and a modest fixed sum for bereavement, leaving little room when the deceased is a child with no earnings.
The disparity is striking. A life extinguished by negligence is valued at a fraction, often 20 to 50 times less than the harm of defamatory statements.
Reputation, it seems, commands far greater judicial protection than the irreversible loss of a human being.
This is not merely inconsistent; it borders on the farcical.
A death is infinitely more serious than temporary embarrassment or bruised pride. When courts treat words as costing hundreds of thousands of ringgit while a child’s life is quantified in five figures, the system’s sense of proportion is called into question.
It is time for recalibration. Damages must better reflect the true gravity of loss of life. Reforms to the Civil Law Act’s restrictive framework for fatal accident claims, clearer limits or scrutiny on excessive defamation awards (especially potential SLAPPs), and a conscious judicial reordering of values are needed.
Until then, the message remains troubling: in Malaysian courts, a person’s reputation can be worth far more than a person’s death. – August 11, 2026
.jpg)
