Ex-senator agrees Islamic authorities never called out Yeoh's book

Summary

• Former senator Ibrahim Shah Abu Shah testifies that Malaysia’s Islamic authorities never called out Youth and Sports Minister Hannah Yeoh’s memoir “Becoming Hannah” since it was published in 2014.

• Ibrahim is testifying in defence of UUM lecturer Kamarul Zaman Yusoff, who is being sued by Yeoh for defamation over his claims that the book showed an alleged agenda to Christianise Malaysia.

• He also admits he didn’t lodge a police report against the book but countered that he raised the issue in Dewan Negara.

A former senator agreed that Youth and Sports Minister Hannah Yeoh’s memoir “Becoming Hannah” has never been called out by government Islamic departments and councils since the memoir was published in 2014.

Ibrahim Shah Abu Shah today was testifying before the Kuala Lumpur High Court as a witness for Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) lecturer Kamarul Zaman Yusoff, who is being sued by Yeoh for defamation.

The civil action centred on the allegation that her memoir contained an alleged agenda to Christianise Malaysia.

During cross-examination by Yeoh’s counsel Sangeet Kaur Deo, Ibrahim agreed that there had not been any attempts by the government to ban the book.

The former Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) vice-chancellor agreed that the prime ministers, the home ministers, the inspectors-general of police (IGP) and the menteri besar for most states have been Muslims since the book’s publication.

Sangeet: There has never been anybody, including Islamic councils and departments that stated the book threatened Islam over the past 10 years?

Ibrahim: Yes.

The former senator also admitted he did not lodge a police report during the duration of the book being published, but contended that he still raised the issue in Dewan Negara then.

Ibrahim’s testimony seeks to back Kamarul’s claim that he did not defame Yeoh when the academic made a statement about his friends’ dissatisfaction with the book.

It should be noted that the Segambut MP maintained that her book is a personal biography of her journey into politics with no agenda to convert Muslims to Christianity.

During today’s re-examination by Kamarul’s counsel Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz, Ibrahim explained he raised the alleged Christianisation agenda in Dewan Negara as it was a larger platform than merely lodging a police report.

“This case involves a complicated movement where via my reading showed that the perpetrators would not admit to it, that this movement is quite cunning, utilizes the art of deception, proxy, and camouflage as well as subterfuge so that the actions are not seen.

“The problem is not them trying to apostatise the Muslim community in Malaysia who, Insyallah, is not easy to happen, but rather the major problem of their (perpetrators) methods are quite malicious,” Ibrahim contended.

The former academic testified that the fact Yeoh still held multiple government posts in spite of the book’s publication was determined by who was in power at the time rather than her book’s lack of a Christianisation agenda.

“It is correct that so far there is no court ruling that the book (has an alleged agenda). My personal stance is very straightforward, I am an academic, not a politician, so my personal stance is that I was worried, the (Christianisation) movement is proven by the book,” Ibrahim said.

He claimed that the movement is spearheaded by foreign forces outside Malaysia.

“Why Malaysia, because Malaysia is a small prosperous country that can be used as a laboratory for transformation, to turn this country into a Christian nation, this is my reading as an academic,” Ibrahim said, urging Malaysians to take the issue seriously as it is a complicated issue.

Activist: I’ve no money to take legal action

Meanwhile, during today’s civil trial, Islamic activist Aminuddin Yahaya testified that he did not initiate legal action against Yeoh’s book as he did not have money.

Kamarul’s witness told Sangeet during her cross-examination about why he did not take action over the Home Ministry’s approval for the publication of the memoir.

Sangeet: If there is no action (by the authorities), then why did you not take legal action?

Aminuddin: I have no money.

The activist, who is one of Kamarul’s friends who expressed dissatisfaction about the book to the academic, testified that court procedures cost a lot of money.

However, Aminuddin pointed out that he took action in other ways such as through his activism and by coming to court today to speak on behalf of the defendant.

The activist said that while the criminal courts have not found Yeoh guilty of any offence linked to the book, he contended his personal views remained that she had committed a type of offence somehow.

During re-examination by Khairul, Aminuddin testified that his reading of Yeoh’s book showed that she was one of “God’s ambassadors” and that she was part of the Overseas Christian Fellowship, which has a certain mission.

The activist contended that the book brought certain connotations and that he as a responsible Muslim needed to speak up about.

“I discussed with my friend Kamarul how this book is dangerous based on my views as Muslim,” the witness said.

The trial before judge Aliza Sulaiman resumes tomorrow morning.

‘Christian agenda’

Filed in February 2022, Yeoh’s suit is over Kamarul’s two Facebook posts dated May 10 and 17, 2017.

Incidentally, on May 17, 2017, Kamarul also lodged a police report against Yeoh over her book.

He accused Yeoh, who was then the Selangor speaker, of alleged proselytisation, claiming she was driving a “Christian agenda”.

The first Facebook post was titled “Hannah Yeoh contoh hipokrasi terbesar DAP”, while the second one was “Laporan polis saya terhadap Hannah Yeoh”.

Yeoh claimed that the two Facebook posts were very irresponsible, scandalous, vile, and intentionally published by Kamarul to inflame hatred and anger against her.

She contended that he had abused his position as an academic to issue politically driven statements against her.

Through the writ of summons against Kamarul, Yeoh is seeking general, aggravated, and exemplary damages.

She seeks for the lecturer to make an unconditional public retraction of the alleged defamatory statements and an apology.

She also wants a court injunction to prevent him from further publishing any defamatory statements against her.

However, in his statement of defence, Kamarul raised the defence of justification.

Under Malaysian law for civil action, justification is a defence that the statements or allegations are true, and if proven successful in court, this would act as an absolute defence against the related lawsuit.

Kamarul also denied his two Facebook posts were defamatory against Yeoh, further dismissing her claim that they were politically motivated.

Previously, Kamarul also sued Yeoh for defamation over her Facebook post. However, he withdrew the civil action.

Court rejects Yeoh's bid to make witness testimonies inadmissible

KJ: Defamation suit to counter falsehood on Covid-19 vaccines

Chegubard says sorry to S'gor MBI subsidiary over claims on project

Yeoh seeks to nullify 4 testimonies backing UUM academic

Defamation suit: IGP seeks to cite Papagomo for contempt

Rosmah seeks RM1m in damages from TikToker