Kayveas ordered to pay CTOS RM170,000 after losing defamation suit

KUALA LUMPUR: Former deputy minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri M. Kayveas was ordered on Tuesday to pay RM170,000 to private company Credit Tip Off Sdn Bhd (CTOS) and three others after losing a defamation suit in the High Court here. High Court judge Justice Rosilah Yop awarded CTOS and three other plaintiffs RM120,000 in general damages and exemplary damages of RM50,000. "In awarding these exemplary damages, I take into account that the defendant, in his position as a deputy minister given a mandate by citizens, cannot simply make statements without taking their truth into account, which could cause the Plaintiffs to suffer embarassment," Justice Rosilah said in her grounds of judgement. The judge also ordered Kayveas to pay cost and to pay interest at 4% per year from Jun 25, 2007 to the present and interest at 8% after that until payment was complete. In September 2007, CTOS together with CTOS Data Systems Sdn Bhd, CTOS-EMR Sdn Bhd and CTOS Business Systems Sdn Bhd had filed the suit against Kayveas for alleged defamatory statements made by him about the companies, which were reported in local newspapers between June 25 2007 and July 15 2007. In her grounds of judgement, Justice Rosilah said Kayveas had made statements with the tendency to cause a reasonable man to have a negative opinion of the plaintiffs, and lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of the public. According to her, the statements, in their ordinary and natural meaning, imputed that the plaintiff's business activities jeopardised the safety of the nation, the plaintiffs carried out illegal business, and had carried out their role as information brokers dishonestly. among other things. She rejected Kayveas's defence of fair comment. "From the evidence presented, I find the statements which defamed the Plaintiffs were not in the public interest, but were made and published by the Defendant out of malice masked as public interest." Justice Rosilah said in her grounds of judgment. "For those reasons, the defence of fair comment does not stand." She also did not accept Kayveas's alternate defence of qualified privilege. Source: The Star