Finding that Ramasamy successfully raised the defence of fair comment and qualified privilege, sessions court judge Zulhazmi Abdullah ordered Lingeshwaran to pay RM15,000 in costs.
The suit concerned two remarks made by Ramasamy in a Malaysiakini article published on May 2, 2024, following a public debate over whether Universiti Teknologi Mara’s (UiTM) cardiothoracic surgery postgraduate programme with the National Heart Institute (IJN) should be opened to non-Malays to address the shortage of heart surgeons.
In the article, Malaysiakini sought Ramasamy’s responses to Lingeshwaran’s objection to the proposal.
The two remarks disputed by Lingeshwaran were: “Lingeshwaran doesn’t have basic common sense. He should be welcoming the move,” and “Obviously, it’s not appropriate for Lingeshwaran to be in the medical profession.”
Zulhazmi said the first remark was not defamatory, but amounted to criticism in the course of political debate. He also said Ramasamy’s remark on “basic common sense” did not imply Lingeshwaran lacked intelligence, but was political sarcasm that would not lower his reputation as a senator or doctor.
However, the judge found the second remark on Lingeshwaran’s suitability for the medical profession was capable of being defamatory as it touched on his professional standing as a doctor.
Zulhazmi said Ramasamy had, however, shown that the remark was protected by fair comment and qualified privilege.
He said the shortage of cardiothoracic surgeons was a matter of public interest as it involved public health, access to quality treatment and the country’s healthcare system.
“It is generally accepted that the shortage of specialist doctors in the field of heart surgery in relation to the population per capita is a critical issue,” Zulhazmi said.
He said every person, including Ramasamy, had a social or moral interest in commenting on whether the UiTM-IJN programme should be opened to non-Malay students to increase the number of heart surgeons.
Zulhazmi also said Lingeshwaran had failed to prove that Ramasamy acted with malice. He noted that only Lingeshwaran testified at the trial, and no other witnesses were called to prove actual or inferred malice.
The judge said Ramasamy, given his academic and career background, was entitled to make an honest comment on the issue. He added that Lingeshwaran remained free to respond.
Lingeshwaran was represented by lawyer Keshvinjeet Singh, while Ramasamy was represented by Shamsher Singh Thind.
Lingeshwaran said he and his legal team would appeal the decision to the High Court.