Court of Appeal Decision Affirms That Freedom of Speech Must Be Exercised Responsibly

suppadmin | July 4, 2026

The statement issued by DAP Sarawak following the Court of Appeal’s decision attempts to recast a defamation case into a struggle over democracy and freedom of speech. That narrative ignores the central issue decided by the courts, said Sentosa assemblyman, Wilfred Yap.

He said no one disputes that transparency, accountability and good governance are essential pillars of a democratic society. Equally, no one disputes that Members of the State Legislative Assembly have every right—and indeed a duty—to question government policies, expenditure and decisions. Those questions can and should be raised in the august House, through the Public Accounts Committee, and through other lawful democratic processes.

However, this case was never about denying the Opposition the right to ask questions.

It was about the publication of defamatory allegations that the courts, after hearing the evidence over a period of 13 years, found to be unlawful. The High Court reached that conclusion, and the Court of Appeal has now affirmed it, even increasing the damages awarded. The judgments demonstrate that the issue before the courts was not political criticism, but whether serious allegations had crossed the legal boundary into defamation, he added.

Yap said DAP Sarawak’s attempt to portray this decision as an attack on freedom of speech is therefore misplaced. “It is also misleading to suggest that this case arose because there was no opposition in Sarawak. At the time the case commenced in 2013, DAP Sarawak held 12 seats in the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly and was the largest opposition party in the House. Its elected representatives spoke freely, debated government policies vigorously, and scrutinised the administration on a daily basis. The existence of this lawsuit did not prevent DAP from continuing to perform its role as the Opposition,“ he pointed out.

Yap added that respecting today’s judgment does not mean rejecting transparency or accountability. Those principles remain fundamental to good governance and continue to be upheld through lawful institutions and democratic debate.

“If DAP Sarawak believes there are important legal questions that should be determined by the Federal Court, it is entitled to pursue the appellate process. That is the essence of the rule of law.However, it should not seek to mislead the public into believing that this case is about silencing dissent. It is about accountability for defamatory statements. The Court of Appeal has spoken clearly, and its judgment deserves respect”, he said.