Lawyer Guok Ngek Seong said a reasonable person would have also concluded that Lim, who held the ministerial post between May 2018 and February 2020, had abused his power when revoking the exemption.
“It insinuated that the plaintiff (Lim) was anti-Malay and anti-Muslim by targeting Yayasan Albukhary which has been assisting the Malay and the Muslim society,” Guok said.
It further implied that Lim was a vindictive person and had acted in bad faith by intentionally sabotaging the foundation, he said in submissions before judicial commissioner Roz Mawar Rozain today.
Roz Mawar is presiding over the trial of a libel suit filed by Lim against Muhyiddin on March 27 last year. Lim is seeking an apology from Muhyiddin, the retraction of three allegedly defamatory statements, damages and legal costs.
Lim alleges that Muhyiddin had on March 9 wrongly accused him of being involved in the government’s decision to revoke a tax exemption previously given to Yayasan Albukhary.
The statement was allegedly made shortly after Muhyiddin was released from arrest by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.
The second statement, made in a media release on March 11, alleged that Lim had imposed a tax on the foundation and a 45% penalty on tax payable for preceding years.
Lim also accused Muhyiddin of telling the media after delivering his winding-up speech at Bersatu’s annual general assembly on March 12 that since the Inland Revenue Board was under Lim’s purview at the time, any instructions to cancel the foundation’s tax exempt status must have come from him.
Guok pointed out that the defendant did not dispute the publication or the fact that all three statements referred to Lim.
He said the remaining two statements were also defamatory of Lim, and that Muhyiddin’s defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege were not sustainable.
“While the defendant is at liberty to exercise his freedom of speech and expression, it is submitted that the constitutional right is no licence to issue defamatory and untrue statements,” he said.
He said Muhyiddin did not seek verification from Lim before publishing the statements.
“The statements were released over seven days and the first statement was made after Muhyiddin’s release from a MACC investigation,” said Guok, who was assisted by Phyllia Lim.
He said Muhyiddin had sought to shift focus on Lim for political mileage.
Guok called for the court to send a strong message to refrain potential defendants from making defamatory remarks by awarding RM300,000 in damages to Lim for each of Muhyiddin’s libellous statements.
In reply, Muhyiddin’s lawyer, Chetan Jethwani, said the impugned statements were not defamatory, and any damage caused to Lim’s reputation was the result of Lim’s own conduct.
“It is the plaintiff’s statement of the meaning and its widespread publication that has lent a negative perception to the situation,” he said.
He said Muhyiddin’s first press statement was to explain why the defendant was called to the MACC headquarters and what his position was about the investigation.
“At no point in time did the defendant make any remark which was capable of suggesting any of the meaning ascribed by the plaintiff,” said Chetan, who was assisted by Ivy Shu.
He said the second statement was a clarification issued in response to Lim’s post on Twitter (now X), while the third was in reply to a question posed by a reporter.
Lim had claimed that Muhyiddin’s statements amounted to dog-whistling or coded language on race and religion, Chetan said. However, the lawyer said Lim had failed to plead this in his statement of claim.
Chetan said Muhyiddin was entitled to rely on the defence of fair comment and qualified privilege to defeat the suit.
“Should the court find the defendant liable, the damages should be minimal as there was no serious damage to the plaintiff’s reputation,” he said.
Roz Mawar will deliver her ruling on Nov 8.