GEORGE TOWN, Sept 23 ― The High Court here found the terms “political frog” or “frog” to be not defamatory, when dismissing former PKR Bukit Gelugor division chief Lim Boo Chang's defamation suit against Tanjung MP Ng Wei Aik.

In his decision today, Judicial Commissioner S. Nantha Balan said the term political frog is merely a label to describe the act of a politician who hops from one party to another party.

“It is my contention that the impugned words ― frog or political frog ― used are not capable of being defamatory and the plaintiff had failed to prove the words are capable of having defamatory meaning,” Nantha said when reading out his 20-minute judgement.

“Therefore, to call a politician a frog is a benign label as it referred to a politician who hops from party to party so it is clear and plain logic that the defendant (Ng) did not call the plaintiff (Lim) an animal with no human characteristics as claimed by Lim,” he added.

He also noted that there was no evidence of vendetta by Ng against Lim and did not see a manifestation of malice on Ng's part against Lim.

He emphasised that in a Malaysian context, politicians who changes party frequently are called frogs, before awarding RM30,000 in costs to Ng.

Lim had filed the suit against Ng in January 2012 over statements published in several news articles in Kwong Wah Yit Poh, Nanyang Siang Pau and Malaysiakini in December 2011.

Lim, represented by M.Thayalan, claimed Ng had referred to him as a “frog” without any “human character” in the articles and demanded that he apologise and withdraw his statements.

Lim, who was also a former Datuk Keramat state assemblyman, was a Gerakan member from 1984 before he left to join MCA in 1999.

He left MCA in 2008 to join PKR and left PKR in 2011.

His resignation from the party sparked public exchanges with Ng through the media then.

Ng, who was represented by Lee Khai and Tham Shirn Shyong, later told the press outside the court that he is relieved that the three-year case is settled.

“He might appeal but at least the High Court has ruled based on the truth of what was said,” he said.