PUTRAJAYA (Feb 10): The appellate court has reserved its judgement in PAS politician Dr Siti Mastura Muhammad's appeal in her defamation suit where she claimed that senior DAP leaders had familial ties to Malayan Communist Party (CMP) leader, the late Chin Peng.

A three-member panel led by Court of Appeal (COA) judge Datuk Ahmad Kamal Shahid said that there were issues raised in the appeal hearing, which lasted more than an hour on Tuesday (Feb 10), that the panel would need a bit of time to mull over.

The bench which also included COA judges Datin Evrol Mariette Peters and Datuk Seri Latifah Mohd Tahar, also heard arguments for the DAP leaders' cross-appeal, seeking a higher quantum than the RM750,000 in damages awarded by the High Court.

Appealing Penang High Court's decision in Dec 2024

Siti Mastura, the Kepala Batas parliamentarian, is appealing the Penang High Court's decision in Dec 2024, where she lost the defamation suit brought against her by DAP stalwart Tan Sri Lim Kit Siang, party advisor Lim Guan Eng and Seputeh parliamentarian Teresa Kok over her statements made in a speech in Nov 2023 in the run-up to the Kemaman by-elections.

She made the statements in a closed-door address to members of the party election machinery that was later published on TikTok and picked up by the press.

Kit Siang and Guan Eng sued the PAS leader over her comments that the father and son were blood relatives of the controversial CMP figure.

She also alleged that the duo had family ties to Singapore's former minister mentor, the late Lee Kuan Yew.

In her statements, however, she had referred to the ex-city-state leader as "Lim Kuan Yew" instead of his actual name. A mistake she admitted to making in the course of the trial.

Kok sued over Siti Mastura's comments that she was a cousin of Guan Eng’s wife, Betty Chew.

All three politicians have emphatically dismissed the allegations and have so testified during the case's trial.

The DAP leaders reportedly filed three separate lawsuits against the PAS leader but the suits were later consolidated.

Siti Mastura was ordered to pay Kit Siang RM300,000, RM250,000 to Guan Eng and RM200,000 to Kok. Additionally, the court ordered RM25,000 in costs to be paid to each of the plaintiffs.

She paid the sums in January last year, pending the appeal. 

The panel has set February 24 for case management to determine a decision date.

During Tuesday's hearing, Siti Mastura's counsel Yusfarizal Yusoff argued that his client's reference to Chin Peng was only limited to the communist political ideology and not the violent insurgency that led to the pre-independence Emergency.

"She only drew parallels to issues of equality and anti-colonialism. It stops there. She did not refer to the Communist's guerrilla warfare. There was no mention of a militant [approach]. The court should not take it too far [as to draw such conclusions],” he argued.

However, Judge Ahmad Kamal interjected saying that such comments resonate differently with different sects of the public and that they can't read Siti Mastura's mind to gauge the breadth or limits of her reference.

Ahmad Kamal also asked the lawyer what the benefit was of even bringing Chin Peng up in an event addressing the party's election machinery.

To this Yusfarizal answered that there was no evidence in the court proceedings to provide insight into that question. However, he added that it was normal to attack the advisory's political ideology in circumstances of an election.

Judge Peters then questioned the need to refer to Chin Peng specifically. She said if Siti Mastura wanted to address political ideology and issues of equality and social justice, she could have easily just mentioned communism.

Yusfarizal argued that the trial judge had taken the impugned words out of context and "stretched it too far".

The lawyer from Messrs Yusfarizal Aziz & Zaid also added that as the remarks were made in a closed-door meeting, his client herself never intended them to be circulated outside the meeting.

He said that the damages awarded were excessive and asked for the COA to reduce it to RM75,000 for each plaintiff.

The DAP leaders' counsel Datuk N Sankara Nair countered that Chin Peng was a euphemism for the insurgency, akin to an "auto suggestion" and evokes references to the bloody moment in the nation's history.

"In a closed-door meeting, there was no reason to [bring up] Chin Peng, what more [make a link] that they were cousins. Why was it necessary?

"If you don't agree with the policy, go ahead and criticise. If you don't agree with the political stance, go ahead and criticise. But why was there a need to bring up Chin Peng?" the lawyer from S N Nair and Partners argued.

He added that Kit Siang had previously faced similar allegations before in 2017 but did not take action then.

Sankara argued that their counterclaim for higher damages was to ensure that such false and misleading allegations were not repeated in the future.