I'm writing in reference to this absurd
court judgment which in a nutshell is about a defamtion suit brought by the father of a Malaysian artist against the artist herself. The court has ruled in favour of the father handing down a judgment that a child would be found making a defamatory statement under the law if he/she claims that he/she has one father only who is otherwise the plaintiff.
This is one good example that shows the law is insensitive towards the circumstance surrounding a particular case beforehand. A very good example for anyone who wish to highlight that the law is somewhat lack of ethnic of care whereby the law fails to undertake a sensitive approach towards the situation and context a particular case should fall into.
Let's analyse this case. First and foremost, it is utter ditasteful that the law prohibit freedom of speech even if pertain the very most personal issue in your heart. Nasha, the artist, was found making a defamatory statement in an interview which later published in Mingguan Malaysia. In the interview , Nasha has claims that she only has one father that is her adoptive father thereby suggesting his biological father who gave her away to her aunt when she's 3 months old is not her father.
Looking from an orphan and common child's upbringing angle, it's not surprise to accept that most often than not an orphan would detest or radically despise his/her biological father through denouncing the father status from him because human do have emotion attached and especially in this case it's the paternal love that is in issue. Nasha's father has done the lest bit of a paternal responsibility the he owes to Nasha. Human in psychologically speaking (covers emotion) will only render a person their father or mother if the person has assisted or guided them throughout the entire course of growing up and have become their most close friend whom they can trust and confide to.
Human are like animal. A pet will assume you're their parents because you have been looking after them since small and the countless shower of love you give them indubitably recognise you as their father or mother in their eyes. Let's look at the situation where a chimpanzee mothers few pups. As the days goes by, the bonding between both different creature will soon foster a parental relationship as evident a chimp will protect the pups from any eminent threat and danger despite they do not have the blood relationship after long cohabitation. Therefore it's justify within the realm of logic that Nasha would have recognise her adoptive father being her only father because he's the only one who carried out the father role in her life.
The personal question is, who has played the father role in Nasha life? When someone ask you a question, whose your father? Without hesitate you will announce the one person who has been taking care of you since small not some prick who dumps you when you need them the most and later forcibly claim parental-ship over your life. Speaking of parental control, I think the lawyer and the judge might have erred in their judgment in failing to consider from the family law angle as the law in this angle do provide a distinctive principle to guide the judge about who should become Nasha's legal father.
But however the family law again like other angle of laws are rigid because it's highly procedural which requires any adoptive parents to legally attain permission to adopt a child in order to be confered the right of parental-ship over a child. If Nasha's adoptive father fail to comply to the strict adoptive requirement, the adoptive father can't be confirmed as the legal father. That's why I said from the beginning the law is insensitive. The law doesn't care about personal issue.
For Nasha, deep down in her life, she has already accepted that her adoptive father is her real father because he plays the role of father in her life. How can she not recognise his sacrifice in her life? It's very hard for someone to denounce someone who actually physically and emotionally recognised to be ones father compared to someone who doesnt deserve the honourable mention in someone's life.
All the legal personnel who are involve in this case should put to the gallow, hang them by the balls and tear their skin out from their body because whatever statement Nasha has made which subsequently published in Mingguan Malaysia article "Jangan Tanya Hal Peribadi " was not wrong. The only fault that I can find is the Mingguan Malaysia publisher because Nasha has explicitly contend the question about whose her father is a personal question therefore she should has the absolute right ,a perogative , to conceal whatever truth exist for her own benefit and her silence cannot amout to intention to defame his biological father. If a person say " In my heart, there's only one (adoptive) father" then would this statement ever become defamatory to his biological father? Is it a tortious liability for someone who speaks about his personal issue or it it every celebrity's liability to tell the whole world the truth and nothings but the truth whilst forgoing all the emotion deep down in their heart?
It was the Mingguan Malaysia who should be held at responsible for twisting the fact thereby insinuated Nasha's biological father. Nasha has never intended to defame the biological father, because she never ever mention that her biological father is not her biological father. She says she only has one father and we can safely presume that it was the father who is close to her hear, her adoptive father. We cannot ignore human emotion when we are dealing with defamation.
In conclusion, I find the court judgment is ridiculous. Anyway, Nasha's biological father didn't win anything at all consider the fact he only won RM10 k which I think not even enough to pay the litigation fees haha...and Nasha on the other hand has no problem paying RM10 k to a beggar since she's rich.
Side note: I regret to note that PDRM has failed to revert a feedback to me and there goes another dip in the public confidence. I wonder maybe they refuse to give me positive feedback because maybe PDRM indeed has changed their summon rate and they do not wish to increase public awareness thereafter might jeopardise the future elicit-bribe effort by their down to earth police traffic.
