Updated, Fri 29 Nov:
"She had claimed that the quality of food served to her during her incarceration was so bad that it was similar to dog food, which was reported by Utusan Malaysia. She had initially accused the Malay-language daily of manipulating her words but later admitted to making the remark." - See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/dap-mp-utusan-drop-lawsuits-after-reaching-mutual-settlement#sthash.nSHMYzNE.dpuf
So why did Teresa did it? Simple. If she had not dropped the suit against Zaini Hassan, Utusan would have definitely nailed her for the dog food remark. That won't look good for her. For my readers' info, it is actually quite common for politicians to blame the media for misquoting them or manipulating their words when they get into trouble for saying stupid things. In the dog food case, unfortunately for Kok, there was solid proof that she did utter the words as reported by Utusan Malaysia ...
Dog food day. The Seputeh MP did not just withdraw the RM30 million suits against Utusan Malaysia and award-winning journalist Zaini Hassan, she agreed to withdraw the suits without the liberty to file afresh and with no order as to cost. As a layman with some (as in limited) experience of being sued myself, I see this as the equivalent of the MP throwing in the towel. Which is odd, because you know Teresa, she doesn't give in easily.
So was there a deal?
I hear it has something to do with Utusan Malaysia's suit filed against her in 2011. Newspapers in this country don't sue people and the 2011 legal action against the YB was a rare one. Some said Utusan was left with no choice but to play the same game. After the 2008 general election, it was apparent that politicians from the Opposition were gunning for certain media organisations aligned to the ruling party. The aim was to sue them till they go bankrupt. Utusan, seen as a close Umno ally, became a favorite target. To date, Anwar Ibrahim, Karpal Singh, and Lim Guan Eng have sued the paper.
In the suit against Teresa, Utusan Malaysia stated the MP defamed the paper by accusing it of distorting its report on her "makanan anjing" claim. It is possible that Utusan may have agreed to drop the suit if Kok withdraws hers.
p.s. I do not condone newspapers suing anyone, even politicians, but it's hard to trust politicians who sue journalists and media organisations and then condemn the media for not being free ...
....Utusan consistently loses the cases that do make it to court, and that's in a legal system that doesn't really favour opposition politicians.
Should tell you something.
After Uncle Umno bails them out from their current "on life support machine" status, I'm sure a couple of people will make good $$$ from the deal.
Less sure their standards of "journalism" will improve, though.
Sorry....but doesnt she always barked ?ReplyDelete
Anon 7:21 pm,ReplyDelete
What about Malaysiakini? Its "journalism" is worst than Utusan. The Star and all Chinese language newspapers too are not practicing good journalism. Just because Utusan is owned by UMNO (Malays) you said its standard is bad.
Forget about her allegations of being fed dog food. Why use the ISA against her, in the first place? Bullying tactic?ReplyDelete
Bila sendiri kena saman, pandai kecut perutReplyDelete
And you may want to comment on some politicians and their wives who prefer elegant silence even when accused 'wrongly'?
A very good attempt at Zamlogik(TM), sir. I congratulate you.
Very few publications (in print or online) are practicing good journalism currently.
Too plenty abuse of the law to the extend of restricting one's right. Very undemocratic way to silent the right to speak. Very much the style of southern neighbor of same breed.ReplyDelete
"Utusan, seen as a close Umno ally, became a favorite target."ReplyDelete
Bitch please, since when being the mouthpiece of your owners is considered being "seen as a close ally".
Like you, Utusan's soul is owned by UMNO and their funders. There is nothing impartial about that.
Time to rename rockys bru to rocky's crap. Sad that mainstream media is made up of fools like you.
Which newspaper has been proven to fabricate its article and also has been consistently been asked to pay for their made up story ?ReplyDelete
To date why is it that Malaysiakini has yet to be told by the courts to pay for fabricating their story or stories, if any ?
Isn't the duty of the media and the journalists to write the truth of what have happened ?
Also why is Malaysiakini going from strength to strength when Malay Mail, with support of financial support from their owners had folded ?
Malay Mail was helmed by Rocky Bru...Itu sebab dia terus linkup!
Latuk: What's the use of suing Utusan or NST ? Opposition politicians win, they get awarded damages, mainstream newspapers mahu bungkus, the gomen demand GLC buat advertisement pulak. Better still, gomen pump taxpayers' money into the dying papers.ReplyDelete
Suruhlah UMNO masukkan duit, jangan guna duit rakyat, boleh ?
You keep kicking dead horses like NST and Utusan, and you think they will come alive, meh ?
Permit me to digress from your report above.What I have to say has nothing to do with the subject of your report.ReplyDelete
No newspaper fabricates news.Period.But sometimes the way in which a piece of news is presented causes problems And one must remember its a different ball game in Court.You need to surmount the strict rules of evidence and to compound matters more often than not the newspaper has to protect its sources.Compounding that is the fact that defamation law is extremely Plaintiff friendly . Yes Rocky, many pro opposition lawyers have told me that they intend to bankrupt Utusan..Now,if Utusan was an inconsequential newspaper as some would like to suggest why try to bury it.The truth is they are very afraid of Utusan..as ZAM put it Utusan is rightly or wrongly the "duri dalam daging"for many.
If they only understood the history of Utusan and its struggles....How many know that its first editor went on to become the President of Singapore and his picture is on every Singapore dollar until today.
And as for newspapers rarely suing for defamation I personally think its time to change that perception given that the very people who used to shout about freedom of the press are now the very people who cannot take any public criticism .If you want to be in public life then be prepared to be criticised publicly.By all means seek your right of reply but don't try to gag the press.
Didn't the Home Minister take Malaysiakini to task for spinning his statements?Yet he did not sue.Looks like UMNO Ministers still respect the freedom of the press.But all that may change soon...
Lesson for the two chicken shooed by a lawyer at Jln Riong.ReplyDelete
Suggestion to get into the chicken business remain. Should slaughter the cow-ed chicken first.
Specifically for The Ugly Kiwi who is not a kiwi at all, maybe a brand of thing that shine my shoe.ReplyDelete
Never in a million years should you say that a newspaper is guilty of fabricating any story just because the court said so. Same like 'there is confirmed peneration but not enough bla...bla.. for a conviction". No sane mind can accept that so is with the UM case just a verdict of guilty was laid out, doesn't mean the charge was proven (by just a word or a sentence!).
For your fuddled minded logics, nobody has yet brought your favorite Meloyakini to court because every time somebody involved coughed, it quickly says,
'sorry boss!' and went on to lie about other things. They were lucky because there were readers like you who willingly paid to read their rants and story telling!
Let me quote Dr. Paul Flewers a Leninist marxist from England,"Even intelligent people can end up accepting illogical things if they are part of broad package they generally accept."
To me it sounds more like herd mentality or worse still lemmings mentality. Huh!
why tell lie..ReplyDelete
You are a journalist. But you will not use this information to tell your blog readers?ReplyDelete
What journalism is that?
Care to explain?
Global Settlement Between Teresa Kok & Utusan Malaysia Berhad
I have filed two suits against Utusan Malaysia in 2008 in the KL High Courts (namely, in respect of an article published in the Utusan Malaysia dated 8.9.2008, "Ada usaha larang Azan di masjid-masjid Selangor" and in respect of an article published in the Utusan Malaysia dated 10.9.2008 "Azan, Jawi Jais Uitm dan ba-alif-ba-ya").
After that, Utusan Malaysia had filed a suit against me in 2008 (the “dog food” remark), following my release from ISA detention in 2008.
By way of a mutually agreed global settlement that was reached on 22nd November 2013, all parties have agreed to withdraw their respective suits with no order as to cost and with no liberty to re-file.
Accordingly, I withdrew my suits against Utusan Malaysia and its editor Zaini Hassan which came for hearing at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur yesterday, 27th November 2013.
Today, as per the terms of the global settlement, Utusan Malaysia has withdrawn its suit against me (the “dog food” remark) with no order as to cost and with no liberty to refile.
The only pending action that remains is my suit against Dato Seri Khir Toyo.
Hey bastard charleskiwi,ReplyDelete
Malaysiakini is going from strength to strength? Are you kidding me? And readers have to pay just to read garbage? FYI, opposition friendly buggers who now own Malay Mail. See what kind of shits come out from Malay Mail nowadays.
@ 1:23 pm:ReplyDelete
"If they only understood the history of Utusan and its struggles..."
If Utusan understood that history, then maybe it would not have become the manipulated mouthpiece of a corrupted party clinging on to their "divide and cash-in" policy.
Oh sorry, "the struggle for bangsa, agama dan negara".