How did the article link MRCB to project cost increases?

Question

Accepted Answer

MRCB Lawsuit Alleges Defamatory Linking to LRT3 Project Issues

Malaysian Resources Corporation Bhd (MRCB) and its executive vice-chairman, Salim Fateh Din, have filed a RM100 million defamation suit against journalist P. Gunasegaram. The lawsuit, lodged in the Shah Alam High Court, claims an article published by Gunasegaram damaged their reputations by linking MRCB to cost increases and delays associated with the LRT3 Shah Alam Line project. The plaintiffs assert that these allegations are untrue and baseless, and that Gunasegaram did not seek their response prior to publication.
Allegations of Cronyism and Unqualified Procurement

The core of the lawsuit centres on the assertion that the article implied MRCB secured the LRT3 rail project through improper means. Specifically, it is alleged that the publication suggested MRCB's win was a result of cronyism, political patronage, and influential connections, rather than a merit-based selection through an open procurement process. MRCB and Salim Fateh Din have vehemently rejected these claims, stating they are false.
Implication of Political Ties for Business Benefits

Further to the procurement allegations, the suit contends that the article implied Salim Fateh Din leveraged political ties to secure business advantages for MRCB. This suggests a narrative that the company's success was not solely driven by its capabilities but also by its perceived political influence. The plaintiffs deny these implications, asserting that such claims are unfounded.
Reputational Damage and Financial Loss

MRCB and Salim Fateh Din claim the article has caused significant damage to their reputations and credibility. This alleged harm has reportedly led to a loss of confidence among investors and business partners, consequently impacting MRCB's share price negatively. The RM100 million sought in the lawsuit includes damages for this alleged reputational loss, alongside demands for general, aggravated, and exemplary damages. They are also seeking injunctions to have the disputed content removed and to prevent future similar publications.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How did the article link MRCB to project cost increases?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends