Суд в Малайзии отказал правозащитной организации в требовании защиты от юрисдикции Сингапура

Justice Azizan Arshad, in his broad grounds of judgment, held that LFL had already participated in proceedings brought by a Singapore NGO challenging the same correction directive issued by Singapore’s home ministry over the republication of the same article. By doing so, he said, LFL had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore authorities. The judge further held that any question of enforcing Pofma in Malaysia remained subject to Malaysian law and any applicable international treaties to which Malaysia is a party. He also rejected LFL’s request for a declaration that it had the fundamental right under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution to express its views on any matter in Malaysia, saying such a declaration would merely state the obvious. Azizan said while the government has discretion on whether to render assistance to afford some form of diplomatic support to its citizens, there is no legal or constitutional obligation for the country to do so. “As such, the court cannot compel the government to assist the plaintiff (LFL) in any particular manner,” he added. Azizan, who made no order as to costs, said the written grounds would be made available in the event of an appeal. Before delivering his decision, the judge said he was bound by an earlier five-member Federal Court ruling that, among others, struck out LFL’s claim for a declaration that it could not be subjected to any legal process in Malaysia to enforce Singapore law. The dispute began in January 2020 when Singapore issued a correction directive under Pofma against LFL, a Malaysian rights group, over a statement it published concerning Singapore’s execution procedures. LFL did not challenge the validity of Pofma itself. Instead, it argued that Singapore could not compel a Malaysian entity operating entirely within Malaysia to comply with the correction directive. It further contended that Singapore’s actions amounted to an impermissible extraterritorial application of its laws and infringed its constitutional right to freedom of speech. LFL also maintained that the Malaysian government had a constitutional duty to protect Malaysians from the enforcement of foreign laws within Malaysia. The dispute eventually reached the Federal Court, which ruled that Singapore and its home minister were immune from suit under the doctrine of state immunity. However, the apex court held that LFL’s constitutional claims against Putrajaya disclosed triable issues and remitted those claims to the High Court for determination. Senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin and federal counsel Nuur Zul Izzati Zulkipli appeared for the government, while Gurdial Singh Nijar, Abraham Au and Shahid Adli Kamaruddin represented LFL.