PDA

View Full Version : Courts Bar Tirade on Malaysian Web Site



SunwayKid
20-01-2006, 11:10 AM
Despite the overwhelming support for Greenbug threads, he has chose to leave. Whilst our mod has his rationale for his comments, I believe there are differences between the case below and Greenbug's threads. What say you?


KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia A court told a disgruntled car owner he cannot chronicle the alleged defects of his Malaysian-made Perodua and his tirade against the car maker on a personal Web site.

In the first case of its kind in Malaysia, the Appeals Court on Tuesday upheld a High Court order against Richard Fong Khee Choong.

The High Court had ordered Fong on Sept. 17, 2003 to dismantle a personal Web site he had set up in October 2002 after purchasing an allegedly defective Kelisa car from Perodua.

The Appeals Court judges said they agreed with the High Court that the allegations in Fong's Web site, which contained one article about his grievances, "attacked the reputation and integrity of the company."

Fong had purchased a Perodua Kelisa car in August 2002 and contacted the company by email with several allegations about defects in the vehicle. He subsequently set up the Web site, alleging corruption in the company.

In response, Perodua sued him for defamation, and obtained an interim order from the High Court to have the Web site shut pending a resolution of the defamation suit.

The company, the second national car company after Proton, said Fong's allegations implied that Perodua practiced deception and fraud for its own interest instead of the customer's needs.

It also claimed that Fong's allegations meant that the car maker was betraying the public trust and was involved in a conspiracy to cheat the people.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/tech/D8F73P780.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc

Teeque
20-01-2006, 05:24 PM
Read more on this story in this blog here (http://paultan.org/archives/2006/01/18/perodua-sues-disgruntled-kelisa-owner/)

Yes, there is a huge difference between this fellow and Greenbug's thread and a few others' website highlighting defective vehicles. This Richard Fong slandered P2 alleging corruption without documentry proof and facts. Greenbug's complaints are all valid and well documented, no slandering involved. So were a couple other similar in nature websites highlighting Proton Gen2, Nissan, Naza Kia, Renault etc. Their beef was that the manufacturers never made good on their promises and subsequent compensation/solution. They never alleged corruption on their part. This is the key difference.

SunwayKid
20-01-2006, 06:26 PM
Part of the judgement - you will need to form your own conclusions on what can or cannot be said if you want to avoid being sued.


Judge Datuk Gopal Sri Ram said a purchaser who had bought a defective car could persuade the public to refrain from buying that brand of vehicle.

The judge said the buyer was protected from a defamation suit because he had proof of being in possession of a defective vehicle.

"But he cannot impute anything which attacks the integrity and reputation of the vehicle manufacturer."

Sitting with Sri Ram were Datuk Azmel Maamor and Datuk Mohd Noor Abdulllah. Their decision was unanimous.

jand
20-01-2006, 07:58 PM
does that imply nobody can talk negatively of any products they buy in public even with documented proof? You can complain to the company in your private communication with them but no disclosure to 3rd parties?

now, wouldn't that put Screenshots in hot soup too?
it seems that summary was a little too general and vague on a lot of points.

in what form can we complain/vent/rant/puke about bad products?

slander: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slander
libel: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=libel

from there you can deduce the keyword to be untruths, unsubstantiated claims.
seems like the judge missed that out in his statement unless, it's a given that one should not mouth on something one knows nothing of and without proof.

so many loose ends, that statement... sigh. our country's going to the taliban

Teeque
21-01-2006, 01:59 AM
Fong had purchased a Perodua Kelisa car in August 2002 and contacted the company by email with several allegations about defects in the vehicle. He subsequently set up the Web site, alleging corruption in the company.

The Star did not report the whole story abt the case. It seems that Fong had alleged that P2 had bribed their way to obtain the ISO certification in which he had no documented proof. This is defamation and the Appeal Judge took exception to this fact. The judgement does not deny Fong to go public on defects of the car.

SunwayKid
22-01-2006, 10:08 PM
As the link to the original site is no longer there, we will never know what Fong wrote. I suspect it was just a sarcastic remark on how P2 got their ISO certification. Just like so many of us use this icon :rolleyes: when we made sarcastic remarks in this forum.

bobkee
22-01-2006, 11:00 PM
I understand the site was actually password protected and only meant to be accessible to certain people. This makes the judgement even more worrying.