I note that Karpal Singh invoked the mantle of law in demanding apology from Rustam A Sani. I have read the text of Rustam's statement. It was made in the context of a discourse that is meant to provoke debate and criticism. What was stated was done in measured language. The tone and style is neither polemical nor offensive.

With respect to Karpal, his view on the law of defamation is not maintainable.

In Atip bin Ali vs Josephine Doris Nunis & Anon [1987] 1 MLJ 82, Wan Yahya J reiterated the well-known common law principle that "defamation is a personal action maintainable by person defamed and not by individuals who are remotely related to him". In that case which appeared for the defendant who successfully fended off an action from an irate Umno member that the defendant has defamed Umno male members by publication of a writ that the defendant had against Rahim Thamby Chik.

It is interesting that the High Court judge there said, "I am fully with Mr Karpal Singh on these authorities. Even going on the hypothesis that the entire Alai (Melaka) Umno members have been defamed the plaintiff has yet no course of action. An individual member of group which had been libeled cannot claim damages unless the words referring to the group also contained references on him as an individual."

It is lamentable that public discourse on very significant issues are fettered by defamation writs or threats of the same.

Karpal should be the first to acknowledge this principle and not invoke the mantle of legal argument (which is demonstrably unsupportable) to trump the issue under scrutiny. The issues raised by Rustam may be refutable by contrary evidence or by compelling arguments based on analysis and logic but certainly must not be trumped by threat of defamation writ.