The civil suit initiated by the Australian co-authors of Chin Peng's memoirs, Alias Chin Peng: My Side of History , against Nanyang Siang Pau for breaches of two commercial contracts raise the questions of whether the Home Ministry did interfere with the freedom of the press, and also the integrity and credibility of the oldest Chinese-language newspaper in Malaysia which is now also owned by a ruling party

As exclusively reported by malaysiakini earlier, the Australian co-authors and publisher of the controversial memoirs of Chin Peng, the secretary-general of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), Alias Chin Peng: My Side of History (Singapore, Media Masters, 2003 ) formally filed their writ of civil suit against Nanyang Siang Pau for alleged breaches of two commercial contracts in relations to the serialization, translation, publication, distribution and sale of the Chinese version of the book.

The writ was lodged today in the Ipoh High Court by a Perak-based legal firm, Chai & Partner which acts on behalf of the plaintiffs Ian Ward, Norma Miraflor and Media Masters Pte Ltd. Media Masters is the publisher of the original memoirs in English.

The writ essentially alleges that the defendant, Nanyang Siang Pau Sdn Bhd which owns and operates, among others, the Chinese-language daily Nanyang Siang Pau , has breached two commercial contracts entered with the plaintiffs on Sept 27 last year.

According to the allegations, the defendant undertook in the contracts to (1) serialize, publish and print eight chapters of the Chin Peng memoirs in Nanyang Siang Pau and pay Media Masters a total sum of RM120,000 for the exclusive licence, and (2) translate, publish, distribute and sell the memoirs in "good literary" Simplified Chinese language throughout Malaysia and Singapore for a period of five year and to pay Media Masters RM20,000 for royalties upon signing of the contract as well as royalties equivalent to 15 percent of the sale price of the Chinese-language memoirs.

Failed to pay

However, according to further claims, the defendant has not only failed to make any payments as agreed upon, but has also not delivered any of the translated portion of the memoirs to the plaintiffs despite repeated requests, nor has the defendant serialised, published, printed, distributed or sold any translated portions of the memoirs.

According to the plaintiffs, the defendant claimed in writing on around Jan 6 this year that "it had been 'advised' by the Home Ministry not to serialise or to translate the Chin Peng book" and that the Home Ministry had said that, "by doing the same would not be helpful or beneficial to a multi-racial society like ours".

Also according to the plaintiffs, the defendant "also suggested that going against such 'advice' could see them facing prosecution under laws such as 'the Sedition Act 1948, Internal Security Act 1960 and the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984".

But, as the plaintiffs point out in the writ, on Sept 13 last year, the Home Ministry had already issued "a formal pronouncement " that the Chin Peng book was not banned.

The plaintiffs also point out that they "were not aware of any legal action taken by the Home Ministry" against the Special Weekly magazine, malaysiakini or Oriental Daily for publishing extensive stories and commentaries on the Chin Peng book in Chinese and Malay.

The Special Weekly magazine is a Chinese-language periodical owned by the defendant.

The plaintiffs also claim that "since the launch of the sales of the Chin Peng book in Malaysia on or around August 2003, the Chin Peng book has enjoyed sales exceeding 20,000 and was on the bestsellers' list among the notable bookshops in Malaysia for over 20 weeks".

New set of explanations

Moreover, according to the plaintiffs, on Mar 5 this year, the defendant, in two subsequent letters, claimed that it merely decided to "postpone" the serialisation and translation of the book, but then, it also "refused to make the payments specifically determined, outlined and set specific time frames in the two contracts".

To the plaintiffs, the postponement as subsequently proposed by the defendant was "an entirely new set of explanations", besides the alleged "advice" given by the Home Ministry.

Also, the plaintiffs alleged, among others, that the defendant "had an improper motive of appearing to want to serialise and translate the Chin Peng book but without any intention of making payment", and that it:

(a) was only interested in exploiting Chin Peng's reputation to generate publicity; and/or

(b) tried to obtain an exclusive interview with Chin Peng through the plaintiffs; and/or

(c) (tried) to exclude other newspapers from serialising the book and preventing translation for as long as possible.

Besides claiming damages, the plaintiffs also seek orders (i) that the defendant to deliver up all or any of the works done on the Chinese Chin Peng book up to this date, and (ii) restraining the defendant from utilising any of the work done on the Chin Peng book pursuant to the contracts.

From the allegations and contentions in the writ, it seems that two questions have been raised, namely whether the Home Ministry did interfere with the freedom of the press with the alleged "advice" to Nanyang Siang Pau , and also the commercial integrity and credibility of the oldest Chinese-language newspaper in Malaysia which is now also owned by the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA).