SHAH ALAM, 5 March 2026 – Former finance minister Lim Guan Eng has won a defamation lawsuit against former housing and local government minister Zuraida Kamaruddin and two other defendants over statements linked to a low-cost housing project dispute.
The High Court ruled in favour of Lim, who argued that remarks made by Zuraida during the Kuala Kubu Bharu by-election campaign in 2024 were defamatory and had damaged his reputation as a senior Malaysian political figure.
Court Awards Damages
The court ordered the defendants to pay RM50,000 in damages to Lim Guan Eng, along with costs related to the case.
Lim had filed the lawsuit after Zuraida alleged that he had rejected requests to approve funding for a low-cost housing project in Bestari Jaya when he was serving as Malaysia’s finance minister.
According to Lim, the statements implied that he had been insensitive to the welfare of residents and acted in a discriminatory manner, claims he said were false and harmful to his reputation both domestically and internationally.
Dispute Linked to Housing Project
The dispute centred on the Projek Perumahan Rakyat (PPR) Bestari Jaya housing project, which involved plans to build about 200 units of low-cost homes for estate workers.
Zuraida had previously said she had met Lim twice between 2018 and 2019 to seek funding approval for the project and claimed the request was rejected.
Lim, however, denied the allegation and maintained that the statements were misleading and defamatory.
Political Implications
The case attracted significant public attention because both Lim and Zuraida were members of the federal Cabinet during the Pakatan Harapan administration from 2018 to 2020, making the dispute one between former political colleagues.
Lim currently serves as the adviser to the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and remains a prominent figure in Malaysian politics.
Series of Defamation Battles
The ruling adds to a series of high-profile defamation cases involving Lim Guan Eng over the years. Courts have previously ruled both in his favour and against him in different lawsuits tied to political disputes and public statements.
For observers, the latest judgment highlights how political statements made during election campaigns can carry significant legal consequences, particularly when they are deemed to damage a public figure’s reputation.
