Shankar (right) speaks with Wee (third right) and wife Datin Donna Drury Wee (third left) at the court lobby.
KUCHING (Aug 25): Pending assemblywoman Violet Yong told the High Court here yesterday that lawyer Michael Kong did not verify with her the information contained in his Facebook posting made on July 21, 2020.
Questioned by the plaintiff’s lawyer Shankar Ram in the defamation suit filed by entrepreneur Datuk Richard Wee against Kong, she agreed that there is no specific guideline to be followed by the Sarawak Democratic Action Party (DAP) committee in regards to publishing a public statement.
According to Yong, Sarawak DAP members do not have to attend committee meetings for verification of facts.
Yong also agreed with Shankar that there is no specific guideline to be followed by the Sarawak DAP committee to publish a public statement.
Shankar: Is it common practice that Sarawak DAP committee members like the defendant do not have to make any verification of facts before publishing any public statement, even if the said statement will tarnish a person’s reputation?
Yong: They do not have to come to Sarawak DAP committee meeting for verification of facts.
Shankar: I put it to you that you have admitted that the defendant has not verified the facts of the defendant’s Facebook posting on July 21, 2020 with you.
Yong: Yes, correct.
On July 21, 2020, Kong posted a statement on his Facebook page which contained an alleged defamatory element against Wee, who is the plaintiff in this case.
Wee is seeking general damages, exemplary damages for libel and malicious falsehood, and an injunction to restrain the defendant from publishing, causing to be published, circulating, and distributing the said post.
The Pending assemblywoman also informed the court that it was within her knowledge that any non-political organisation or non-governmental organisation (NGO) should not be involved in politics.
She insisted that Wee has to stay neutral when expressing his political views.
Shankar: You agree with me that there is no rule, regulation or legislation that the plaintiff cannot express his political feedback and observation?
Yong: In his capacity as the president of the Sarawak Federation of Chinese Association (SFCA), he has to stay neutral as I believe it is stated quite clearly in the Societies Act that all associations registered under the Act should not meddle in matters concerning politics.
She however agreed that she did not lodge any police report or file a report with the Registrar of Societies in Kuching, that the plaintiff was wrong in making his comments or statements in a Borneo Post Online article dated July 20, 2020.
Meanwhile, judge Dr Alwi Abdul Wahab yesterday disallowed a new document tendered by the defendant’s counsel Chong Chieng Jen.
Chong, who is Stampin MP and Padungan assemblyman, had called on a new witness, namely the reporter who wrote an article titled ‘Wong: GPS-led state government rejected PH’s coalition for granting of 20 pct oil royalty’ which involved the seventh witness of this case, former Padungan assemblyman Wong King Wei.
According to Chong, Wong clearly denied any knowledge of the conditions attached to Pakatan Harapan’s proposal of 20 per cent oil royalty, but in the article based on an interview with Wong reported on Sept 30, 2019, Wong clearly stated otherwise when testifying earlier in court.
The judge however said the only person who can explain is Wong himself who cannot be recalled to the stand.
He added the new document was produced at the late stage and it would be unfair for the plaintiff if it was allowed.
“I disallow. The parties cannot be caught by surprise by the new document,” said the judge.
Assisting Shankar are lawyers Yu Ying Ying and Russell Lim, while Chong is assisted by lawyer Sim Kiat Leng.
The hearing continues today.
from Borneo Post Online https://ift.tt/lJ1A4o0
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment