Defaming Khalid, defending human rights

Kua Kia Soong

If you have never occupied a position of responsibility, you would probably never run the risk of being defamed. The leader of Pakatan Rakyat knows what it is like to be defamed as an alleged sodomist and he has taken at least one defamation suit against those who have defamed him through the press. I have been defamed as the former Principal of New Era College when the directors of the college alleged that some monies were missing when in fact, they were not and I have initiated defamation suits over the liars who defamed me to achieve their private agenda.

Now, the fledgling Menteri Besar of Selangor, Khalid Ibrahim has likewise initiated a defamation suit against those who have alleged in the press that he was involved in various cases of impropriety. He has engaged the legal services of well-known human rights lawyer Edmund Bon to be his advocate in this case. Edmund Bon in turn has been denounced by some human rights activists for taking up Khalid’s case as his defending lawyer.

The key issue here, for all human rights defenders, is that of determining the appropriate balance between the right to freedom of expression and the need to protect one’s reputation.  Individuals have the right to protect their reputations against “injury” by suing persons or media deemed to have: lowered the esteem in which the individual is held within the community or which have exposed that individual to public ridicule or hatred. They should know better since SUARAM with a few other NGOs recently sued the New Straits Times for defaming us as “foreign agents” and the case would have gone to court if the NST had not published their “mother of all editorial apologies”.

As a legal advocate, Edmund Bon is legally obliged to accept the brief if approached to do so by Khalid. In this case, both Khalid and his accusers too have human rights. It is up to the courts to decide whether there is substance in Khalid’s complaint and simultaneously, whether there is substance in the allegations against him. We would expect Edmund Bon to perform to his professional best in presenting his client’s case – questioning the motives of lawyers in representing their clients have nothing whatsoever to do with human rights.

Justice in the Justice Party

As an aggrieved party member who feels he has been unjustly sacked by his party, Khalid is also entitled to appeal against PKR for wrongful dismissal with the Registrar of Society (ROS) in the same way other party or society members have done before him. In the past, this has included parties within the Pakatan Rakyat. If those who uphold human rights have a position that we should have nothing whatsoever to do with the ROS, then why are PR parties registered with the ROS? Should we then boycott ALL institutions in the Malaysian Civil Service including the police and the courts?

Defamation laws protect people from untrue, damaging statements. They provide important recourse for people whose careers, reputations, finances and/or health have been damaged by such harmful statements.

Monitor the issues, never mind the politics

As informed “progressive” advocates & representatives of civil society, one might expect our “fair-minded” attention would stay focused on the principles involved in the Menteri Besar fracas, without fear or favour. By taking such a neutral position of fairness, we would then logically demand that the “dossier on Khalid’s improprieties” be opened for our examination to see if these allegations have any credibility or not.

In contrast, it is astonishing to observe that while the alleged improprieties are considered serious enough to insist that Khalid vacates the MB seat, they do not render him ineligible for the post of Selangor State Economic adviser, as proposed by other PKR leaders, such as Tian Chua, if he agreed to step down.

Why were these alleged improprieties not considered serious enough for anybody in PKR to make a police report or MACC report? And what exactly are Khalid’s transgressions? Maybe some of our NGOs are privy to some intelligence which is not available to others. But if innuendoes, insinuations and unsupported allegations can count for reasons to suspend a leader, then all leaders of all organisations – NGOs included – had better watch their backs from now on.