Kuching: The Court of Appeal here yesterday heard an appeal in the defamation case involving DAP Sarawak Chairman Chong Chieng Jen and his “Black Hole” case, with a rare three-generation appearance by members of Chong’s family as part of the defence team.
Chong’s son, Chong Hong Hien, made his debut as a formally practising lawyer, joining his grandfather Chong Siew Chiang, and lawyer Michael Kong Feng Nian in presenting submissions on behalf of the appellant.
In his arguments, Chong Hong Hien contended that the judicial commissioner at the High Court had erred by misconstruing the overall meaning of the disputed leaflet.
He said the court had selectively extracted certain passages instead of interpreting the publication as a whole.
He argued that the leaflet did not accuse the government of misappropriating public funds but instead questioned the long-standing refusal to disclose the list of beneficiary institutions under the RM11 billion Government Contributions Towards Approved Agencies Trust Fund.
The leaflet, he said, raised issues of transparency, accountability, and good governance, which constituted legitimate political criticism.
From the perspective of public interest, Chong Siew Chiang submitted that Chong Chieng Jen, in his capacity as both a Member of Parliament and a state assemblyman, had raised questions in the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly on six occasions seeking explanations on the whereabouts of the funds, but these queries were consistently rejected.
He argued that under the principle of qualified privilege, elected representatives are entitled to question and criticise matters relating to public finances, provided that such actions are motivated by public interest and not malice.
Lawyer Michael Kong Feng Nian further submitted that the written grounds of judgment from the High Court were delivered 49 months after the conclusion of the trial, which he said undermined judicial fairness and placed the defendant at a disadvantage in pursuing the appeal.
He also told the court that during the original proceedings, the defence was prevented from calling several key witnesses, including then Second Minister of Finance Wong Soon Koh, thereby denying the defendant the opportunity to adduce crucial evidence and resulting in serious injustice.
Responding to the plaintiff’s claim that Chong Chieng Jen’s statements with malice, Kong argued that the statements had caused no substantive damage to the government’s reputation.
He noted that government revenue had continued to reach record highs in subsequent years, rendering the allegation of tarnished reputation untenable.
After hearing submissions from all parties, the Court of Appeal reserved its decision. Chong Chieng Jen’s legal team said they respected the judicial process and would await the court’s ruling.
The appellate court on Tuesday set 19 February 2026 for case management and to fix a date for the delivery of the appeal judgment.
