KUALA LUMPUR (Dec 12): Tony Pua and Yeo Bee Yin are both appealing the Shah Alam High Court's decision last month that ordered them to pay a total of RM350,000 to former MCA secretary-general Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun for defamation.
Yeo, a former science, technology, environment and climate change minister, was ordered to pay RM150,000. Yeo is also currently the Puchong MP. Pua, a former MP of Damansara, was ordered to pay RM200,000.
The filing of their respective notices of appeal was confirmed by their counsel Syahredzan Johan when contacted by theedgemarkets.com. “Yes we have filed the notices,” said Syahredzan, who is also the Bangi MP.
Pua, who is also DAP's national publicity secretary, has indicated in a Facebook post that he would, together with his DAP colleague Yeo, appeal the High Court’s decision. In the meantime, the duo had sought public donations to pay the sum ordered by the court.
As of Friday (Dec 9), Pua said on Facebook that they had managed to collect RM128,700 worth of donations.
Pua and Yeo alleged that MCA, through Chew, bought land in Kampung Cempaka in 2007 at below the market price. Yeo further alleged in a Facebook post and video that the said land was used for dragon fruit farming, but it had been proven otherwise.
They made the statements in 2017. Chew filed the defamation suit in March 2018.
On Nov 30, judge Datuk Roslan Abu Bakar ruled that Chew had been defamed by Yeo and Pua.
Roslan found Chew, a former Petaling Jaya MP, was never a member of the district land committee that approved the alienation of the said land to MCA, and that by their natural and ordinary meaning, the complained words suggested that she as an MP and MCA member had used her position and influence on the committee to acquire the land, which was deemed untrue.
The complaint about Chew, formerly an ex-deputy women, family and community development minister, also meant she was accused by the duo of abuse of power and that she had placed herself in a position of conflict of interests, and that she lacked integrity and engaged in dishonest practice in authorising the transactions, which had exposed her to hatred and ridicule.
“The court is satisfied that Chew has successfully proven her case based on the impugned statements. Further, I found that both Pua and Yeo never verified with the relevant authorities or documents whether Chew was actually a member of the district land committee (to alienate the land).
“Thus, the defendants have failed to establish the truth of their statements. As such, the defence of justification must fail. For the defence of fair comment and qualified privilege, I agree and believe that those statements were on a matter of public interest,” the judge added in his decision.