She said the court was also of the view that freedom of speech and protection of reputation, especially in a Parliamentary session, should be given attention even if immunity is granted. Latifah said the statement made by the plaintiff who was then the deputy minister of agriculture and agro-based industries, was inappropriate and tarnished the institution of Parliament which is one of the highest institutions in the country. She also added that the court was of the view that the alleged defamatory statements by the first defendant (Khalid) were not defamation if taken in the context of the time and the word “ sial” (cursed) used by the first defendant was a result of the plaintiff’s provocation. She also said that the plaintiff’s action of refusing to retract the sexist statement and insulting and mocking the opposition MPs had provoked Khalid. The plaintiff’s rationale that he was merely referring to the Seputeh MP’s family name was not founded, given the entire context of the matter,” she said.
![kini tv malaysia kini tv malaysia](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c9G2BF9a2Ak/XqjCAWWJ23I/AAAAAAAAKiA/fBz7-kMxO9sVKG02WQPjSEnjml-v7gBmgCLcBGAsYHQ/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/TV%2BPendidikan%2BOK%2BRTM.jpg)
“While replying to reporters, the plaintiff stated that he mentioned the name of Teresa Kok’s family and there was no other motive.
![kini tv malaysia kini tv malaysia](https://cdn.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/d8/images/methode/2020/08/12/6e6a81f6-dc3b-11ea-b1d3-42d340dc91a3_image_hires_174151.jpg)
They were uttered without provocation and had nothing to do with the ongoing debate at that time. She said the court was of the view that there was no need for the plaintiff to express vulgar words against the Seputeh MP. Latifah said the case stemmed from the plaintiff’s (Tajuddin) behaviour in Parliament on November 21, 2016, where he had issued a sexist statement and used unparliamentary language in his speech against the Seputeh MP that caused dissatisfaction among opposition MPs, especially Khalid. “The court was also satisfied that the statements made by the first defendant at the first press conference were reasonable comments and without malice, which were based on facts that were in the knowledge of the first defendant himself,” she said. She said this was supported by the testimony of the witnesses of the MPs who testified in court during the trial.