SWISS-BASED civil society group Bruno Manser Fund (BMF) claims an anti-SLAPP conference in Zurich yesterday said more companies worldwide are resorting to litigation aimed at silencing public criticism.
SLAPP, which stands for strategic litigation against public participation, is a lawsuit intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
In a statement, BMF said timber companies, Samling Plywood (Miri) Sdn Bhd and Samling Plywood (Baramas) Sdn Bhd, are examples of how companies worldwide are allegedly using legal action to silence public participation.
The timber giant filed a defamation suit against Save Rivers last year in response to a series of press releases the CSO published that exposed Samling’s failures to properly consult communities in its logging concessions and the communities’ subsequent opposition to the logging.
BMF said SLAPPs are “abusive lawsuits that muzzle journalists and civil society from sharing information and intimidate them into silence”.

Clare Rewcastle, the editor of Sarawak Report who exposed the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal and who has faced countless legal threats, labelled the Samling SLAPP suit as an example of “a powerful company targeting indigenous people, some of the most vulnerable and poor people in the world”.
BMF said it is also facing a SLAPP suit from the eldest daughter of Sarawak Yang di-Pertua Negeri Abdul Taib Mahmud, Jamilah Taib Murray, over BMF linking her unexplained wealth to alleged corruption in Sarawak.
Hearing is expected to begin this year in a Swiss civil court.
Commenting on the impact of SLAPPs on journalism and civil society, BMF executive director Lukas Straumann said “in order to keep our institutions working and our democracies alive, we need to be able to report and speak freely about issues like corruption, money-laundering, human rights violations, environmental destruction or undue interference in democratic processes”.
He said SLAPPs are not necessarily designed to win; they are designed to put considerable strain on the defendants’ resources and stop dissent. – May 6, 2022.
Comments