Sue them, says AG

‘Take politicians hiding behind ‘ MISQUOTED’ card to court’

PETALING JAYA: Politicians who allege they have been misquoted by the media when there is sufficient evidence to prove otherwise should be taken to court, said Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali.

“You have the legal remedy. Sue them! Once in a while you have to teach them a lesson,” he told editors and media practitioners during a luncheon talk with them yesterday.

“When it is clearly recorded proving what the journalist has written is indeed true, but he denies it, then take him to court. Use the available l egal remedies,” he added.

Apandi was responding to a question by the-Sun’s Special and Investigative Reports editor and columnist R. Nadeswaran, who had asked whether action should be taken against politicians who often claim they are “misquoted”.

“No journalist worth his salt will

want to publish false news. Often we are on the receiving end. After all the statements, they (politicians) say they were misquoted, that the remarks were taken out of context. Shouldn’t the guy who made the false statement against the journalist be charged?”

Nadeswaran, who writes the column Citizen Nades, said often journalists had been accused of publishing false news when there were recordings and transcripts that would prove otherwise.

Apandi said while not all ministers behaved that way, he had observed one or two doing this. “So, pick up this one or two and sue them!” He reminded media practitioners of the immense impact the media, especially social media, had and that everyone should practise responsible journalism.

“With the development of the media as well as social media, an event or news can travel worldwide seconds after it happens.

“It is undeniable that the media plays a vital role in delivering news and information to the public. The media has the extraordinary power to shape the thinking of society,” he said.

He quoted Winston Churchill and reminded the media industry, “where there is great power, there is great responsibility, and where there is no power, there, I think, will be no responsibility”.

“The media fraternity has to be responsible in its role as the ‘pen is mightier than the sword’.

“False news circulated widely will cause losses, disturbances as well as disrupt harmony, which could be irreparable.

“Although there can be a correction done, often the damage cannot be undone. As such, each and every word and phrase has to be precise and accurate.

“This has to be understood by all media practitioners, whether traditional or new media,” Apandi said.

FOR a man who has occupied the hot seat for the past eight months, Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali was candid in his tête-àtête with journalists yesterday. Having delivered a legalistic 70-minute talk on the law and the media, he pulled no punches in the Q& A session that followed.

He took all the questions without the customary “no comments” and treated the audience with his open and frank views. As he had ended his talk to media practitioners with a call to verify the facts before writing or publishing, it was time to ask him about the messengers getting shot.

No journalist worth his salt, I remarked, wants to deliberately make false claims or reports. “Often politicians accuse us of false reporting and misquoting or taking their utterances out of context. When the transcript or the recordings prove them wrong, they have little to say. What recourse do we have when such false statements are made against us? Shouldn’t they be charged for making false accusations?” I asked.

“Sue them,” thundered Apandi. “You have a legal remedy. You got to teach them a lesson … I, too, don’t like people who lie when the evidence is clear, as their spoken words were tape recorded.”

Taking politicians or even ministers to court is not a normal thing as not all of them like to claim to have been misquoted.

“Only a few, one or two, so you pick up one or two, sue them,” he said.

Journalists have to fight if they are wrongly accused. Take up a test case, he said, and perhaps then such claims will stop.

This writer had in past columns raised the relevance of laws related to sub judice. The argument that I had put forward was that since the jury system has been abolished its continued existence is of no consequence. Our written works, I had argued could not influence anyone sitting on the Bench. They are learned men of wisdom who would make their judgments only on evidence before them – not a journalist’s commentary.

So, I posed the question. To my surprise, Apandi said that judges are also human and there were possibilities that they could be influenced. “We can’t take for granted that judges can’t be influenced; there have been instances where judges have been influenced.”

(Readers may remember that in September last year, the issue of influencing the judges was brought up at the sentencing of former Selangor mentri besar Dr Mohd Khir Toyo.

His counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah brought to the attention of the Federal Court two articles published in theSun which he claimed “was calculated to appear before the decision, probably to prejudice and cause irreparable damage to the proceedings.”

However, the panel said that they were not affected by any reports on the case and had decided purely on the evidence and the facts.)

Even the atmosphere in court, Apandi said, could influence the outcome in a trial. He said that judges sometimes feared the stares from supporters of accused persons.

“Not only by writing. Even the presence of people in a courtroom instils fear in a judge. People stare at the judge. The element of fear is there,” he said.

Although judges are expected to give decisions without fear or favour, sometimes they are confronted by supporters of the accused and Apandi emphasised that judges are also human.

Some judges, he said, had indicated that they felt the fear. “To avoid that it is better to maintain this sub judice rule,” he said.

So, should journalists be flattered when told that their written or spoken words can influence judges? That would be certainly a wrong assumption. We make our findings to the court of public opinion which is powerless when crimes are committed.

Judges must ignore our musings and make their call on the evidence presented in court.

R. Nadeswaran holds the firm belief that judges should not and cannot be influenced by any party and in any proceeding. Comments: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com