Associated Press via Yahoo News reports that the Malaysian Appeals Court upheld a High Court order against Richard Fong Khee Choong to take down a personal website he set up in October 2002 about his Perodua Kelisa.
Perodua sued Richard Fong for defamation and the court ordered Fong to shut down the website pending resolution of the defamation suit.
Does this mean we can’t complain about our cars anymore without having to fear lawsuits from the car manufacturers? This is outrageous. It makes me wonder, I could be next just in case any car manufacturer with deep pockets decides it doesn’t like my site. What constitutes defamation in this context?
I’ll end this blog post with a quote from United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Update: More details. It was not just bashing the Kelisa. Richard apparently posted on a Geocities website a statement accusing Perodua of bribery to get ISO 9000 certification from the United Kingdom Vehicle Certification Agency.
Read more about the case at Yahoo News.
Looking to sell your car? Sell it with Carro.
at least this proves that not only proton have defects…
c'mon…i know there's alot of defects on cars…keep em coming…naza anyone?
Don't know much about the case mentioned … my only comment is WTF ! Now this may set some sort of precedence for our BELOVED proton to start thinking :p hmmm.. , who should we sue first , the 2TM or Paul Tan ???
Sleep tight Paul ha ha ha.
Don't worry , I am behind you …… way behind.
This sucks. Why not Perodua sue Jeremy Clarkson rather than attack a powerless individual???
Stevarac: I have sent you an email, please talk to me there and not comment here on the issue you've raised.
Actually if you guys read the full story, it wasn't about complaining about the car's defects that resulted in the suit.
Maybe the extraxted statement below might give a better idea what it was all about :-
"They said the natural and ordinary meaning of the statements imputed that the plaintiffs had obtained an ISO 9000 certification by bribing the United
Kingdom Vehicle Certification Agency."
Nope , there is no mail from you Paul.
Might be slow.
nitrog: where can we get the "full story" ?
In fact the judge said he could complain about the defective vehicle since he owned one :-
"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 it was this that wasn't right (referring to the bribing allegation):-
"But he cannot impute anything which attacks the integrity and reputation
of the vehicle manufacturer."
Paul, I read it from a thread in Autoworld (under Latest News).
The title is "you can be sued for defaming car makers".
i tink we should all read the whole website n thn judge….maybe the way he complained was abusive….its like if he makes a fake petition with 1ooo signatures saying the kelisa r crap n dont buy thm,thn ya its defamation,otherwise,every product has to be critisized in order we customers get a beter deal next time…
yup, read it in Autoworld forum, perhaps u could get the news and post it up here…
it clearly says that the buyer has the right to persuade other buyers not to buy a certain brand of car, since he has proof to have owned such defective car.
however, perhaps he had gone too far in accusing P2 to gave gained its certification thru bribing, which he has no proof, and this is blatant accuse. thus this gave right to P2 to sue him.
if the bribery indeed happened as he had accused and he has proof of it, then it may have been a different story altogether!
Aik, that case ignore my comment above because earlier there was no update regarding the bribery.
same goes to soemone who owns a lemon proton, he may bash and "persuade the public", and Proton cant sue him for defamation (i wonder if Proton dares to… pun intended) however, if that guy go and accuse that Proton got it's TUV cert thru bribing but not having proof of it, then, he asked for it…
This is indeed a serious issue if perceived wrongly. No doubt that all cars have their shortcomings. Kenneth is able to state the defects on his Perodua Kelisa to anyone who would want to read about it.
I guess in his blind rage he just went berserk and stated claims that Perodua bribed the United Kingdom Vehicle Certification Agency in order to attain the ISO 9000 certification. That is indeed a serious offence on the account on false accusation and Perodua have taken the right step to plug the defamation claim by suing him.
Another day, another problem
If i had a business and someone is spreading bad words about it, I would be very pissed. I dont think this dude is just giving comments about the car that he bought. He probably cooked up false accusation on the company and can do serious damage to the image of the company. I feel the company has every right to sue this guy to shut him up.
if he really is being sued for posting up such a serious allegation without proof as mentioned, then i believe he definitely has crossed the line.
I actually read a posting on some website, where someone actually claimed that the savvy has no TUV cert. in fact, he was even so bold as to post the link to the TUV website, and oddly enough, but not surprisingly, there was a certification there for proton.
proton, perodua has shown the way forward…START SUEING THE BASHER!!!!
;-)
May I add further about this matter :-
I am not sure whether he made a direct accusation about the bribery or not because the article wasn't too clear.
Maybe he implied, but either way, the judge was satisfied it was defaming.
Note that it was stated at the end of the article that the defamation suit is still pending.
well … so be it,
interesting story.
It about the defininition of the internet and where is a public media and where is it private property. The court ruled that just because it has a web site that its automatically a public media and hence its defamation. Its a very narrow interpertation of private property – its about respect for private space and private property. Suppose you put up a poster in front of your house on your own property, is it still defamation?
lesson learnt here is that when one is to make a statement, make sure you have concrete facts to support yourself in case you get yourself in trouble. you can always voice out your dissatisfactions (it's a free world) .. but make sure you know where the limits are.
Then, i think Paul u have to be very careful to check across those comments come to your posts. Maybe someday u'll be questioned due to those blind outrage drivers out there. I don't deny, I'm one of the victims too, but just never cross the red line.
Discussing on the problem itself must have no problem, so dun worry, paul, u're still far from it.
Hope this sue won't affect too much postings for our daily meal – latest automotive news. Viel Gluck!!!
Another update, just read from Thailand newspaper that Toyota just launched Yaris yesterday, priced at Bt599,000 to Bt749,000. I think we don't far from it liao…
P2 not only bribe, they also bribed the judge so that they will win the case…….
Ok, I, nicked as Rexis, declared that the above statement is wrong and purely say for fun. Dun sue me.
I got a briliant idea. Everyone who owns a problematic proton, set up his/her own web site bashing proton ( defects n others ). Then each of the web site advertise in google, yahoo, msn, lycos n other search engine tat u can think of.
Then habislah proton!!!!!
coz their proton defects r made known to the whole world!!!
Well, it is not wrong n nt accusing!
I think the issue here is defamation. Unless you have proof, merely saying things without corroborating evidence can be tantamount to defamation and you will be open to legal redress.
Similarly, on this site, if accusations and comments are defamatory in nature, you (as in the owner of the site, Paul Tan) will be liable for its contents and may be held accountable.
This brings another issue here, accountability. Should the owner of the site be held responsible of the person making the accusation/comment? The trend nowadays seems to imply the owner of the site as this is the medium of communication. Like the China Press Editors who resigned over the Nude Squat fiasco. Note it wasn't the reporters who broke the story but the editors who were held responsible. Likewise, the newspaper is another form of media, much like the internet.
But the question posted by Bigjoe is also not without merit. Is this private property or public? Not sure about this yet.
My first thought is to tread lightly and try not to make too many obvious statements which can be easily misconstrued as defamatory in nature. Got something to complain about the cars, stick to the cars but try to avoid saying things about the company and especially about things like corruption, etc.
Big brother is watching. Want to know more, read George Orwell's book called 1985.
What's the website? Link please. Wanna read this guy's "wonderful" comments, hahah!!
It used to be http://www.geocities.com/mykelisa2002 but it's taken down now.
Aiyo. Taken down already lah. Too late.. Guess we'll never know what the guy was complaining abt and the so-called defamatory allegations. I believe too that he probably wasn't serious abt the corruption thingy. He was probably just trying to be sarcastic. If people can get sued for such things, then how come Conan O'Brien or Jay Leno never get sued? I mean, the things they say on their show is probably worst than this poor guy complaining about his lemon..
Marmitecrab,
it's called integrity and accountability… whenever an underling commits a mistake, the heads are held responsible. when i was a kid, whenever my younger brothers did something wrong, i would be the one who gets the scolding and punishment for not looking after and controlling them…
but do we see them in government departments and GLCs? often when something happens, fingers are all pointed elsewhere and everywhere. nobody would want to admit to their mistake, nobody would want to shoulder responsibility.
e.g,
Wheh Proton fails, the blames are on under-declared imports, but never on the quality issues, which was one of the underlying cause. it shows how much proton is unable to compete if the playing field is leveled (assuming the under-declared price would be similar to price after fair tax structure, not current one)
The website was set up in 2002 so it's an old case. It must have been taken down some time back (2003 ?) during the first injunction.
Poor bugger..
is Jemery Clarkson sued for making fun and destroy of perodua kelisa???
"å•Š~~我得自由~~~~~~我失自由~~~~~~~~~~伤~心~难过~~眼泪æµ. …" ..suddenly want to sing this song. Freedom ~~~
Come on… don't threaten Paul laaa… pity him… he's put all the effort of doing all this for us to share our knowledge and opinion… or else just his article to read and nobody to comment or discussion… tak syok isn't it?… so, mind your own language… everybody will happy… cheers!!!
GONG XI FA CAI
I think some of you still don't get it. Please read the fine print properly. This guy was sued on the basis of false accusation because he stated that Perodua bribed the United Kingdom Vehicle Certification Agency for the ISO 9000 certification and not of the defects of his car.
If those things about the Proton having an aquarium in the boot are true,(my boot leaks when it rains) we are able to state these things because they have already happened and are factual findings.
Nobody can sue you for that because they are indeed true and it is concrete evidence.
i guess the ISO things is the main reason y PERODUA sue Richard, things about Kelisa is just another minor reason in order to support PERODUA suits.
for me, i think richard go too far for the ISO news. he should do that. and Paul, no worry, as long as u didn't post any untruth news, u safe. :D
cheers…
Again , without having the opportunity to read from the website , it is not fair to start making opinion whether what this guy posted are actually baseless or with malice.
For all we know , it could just be the end result of a guy so frustated that he went overboard. Wonder if P2 willing to go all the trouble to get legal recourse , did it not be better for them to use these resources to settle the problem amicably.
What is the maximum P2 had to offer ? The most is just another replacement or refund with the condition of non-disclosure. My only thought was why our friend did not go to those so-called small claim tribunal.
Unless the complaints and bashing is getting from bad to worse, it is weird that P2 went to all the trouble. Might as well take on the joker JC , al least some of the local will get some laugh.
P1 , if you want to take on someone , you should start with 2tm.
Paul , received your mail. I will now stand behind you… right behind you.
Understood your difficulty. You did right. Cheers & keep up the good work.
I took delivery of a Kembara a few years back and there were some problems. The main one was the differential was locked when the button was supposed to be disengaged. I returned the car to the workshop and the mechanics were very nonchalant about it. They said I have to leave the car with them for a few days and so on. I was hesitant.
I then called the customer service and the guy on the other end had the nerve to even scold me.
I got it fixed awhile later but the experience left a bad tast in my mouth. I have no major problems with the car and am overall happy with the quality. What irks me is the customer service culture amongst Malaysian companies.
I can sympathise somewhat with Richard as I'm sure he tried to rectify the problems in his car as I tried to and if he went through the same thing I did, I'd be mad as well. I guess he took things one step further and really bashed the company and that's why he's in so much trouble.
If only P2 and other companies as well try harder to satisfy their customers, then maybe we wouldn't take it so far. You almost never hear of these things in the US where they take customer service very seriously. You don't like your car, they'll replace it for you. Here, your car got problems at delivery? Leave it with the workshop for rectification. After all, it's still under warranty. Who cares about QC? Got sticker enough, lah.
The thing is simple, in this matter, if you, a customer having problem with quality or any sort of problem – can see in front of your eyes thingy, then if you want to complaint, nag or whatso ever then so no matter, thats is your right as a dissastisfied customer/user.. same like jeremy clarkson – but accussing Criminal act without proof, eg bribary, power abuse etc2 then this is like digging a grave for youself and let the big2 corporate guys kick you in.
You can be sued for defamation or slander by anyone if you do not have proof to back up your written or oral claims. It's not about the complaints. It's about the "bribery" allegations.
THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!! WHERE'S OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH???!!! MALAYSIA BOLEH???!!! BOLEH APA???!!! :(