An article showed up on focusmalaysia in the morning of March.I gave ten reasons why Khairy Jamaluddin, who used to be Malaysia’s health minister and was one of the country’s most well-known politicians, wasn’t qualified for the top job. The piece didn’t have a name on it; it was credited to someone who called themselves “Corruption Watch.” No name, no face, and no way to find out who they are. There is only an opinion, a fake name, and a.My domain name quietly signed up somewhere in the system.
Khairy didn’t wait. Within a few days, his lawyers sent a letter of demand to Focus Malaysia Sdn Bhd, the company whose name was linked to the domain. The answer, however, didn’t go anywhere. The company said it had sold its business many years ago, around 2018, and had nothing to do with the website. Whoever was in charge of focusmalaysia.They said it wasn’t them, so that’s good news. When a door shuts, Khairy did what everyone does: he looked for another one.
He sent a pre-action discovery request to MYNIC Berhad, which is in charge of managing Malaysia’s.my domain space. The question was clear. He needed the registered owner’s ID card or business registration number, as well as their address, email address, phone number, and the names and numbers of any technical or administrative people who were connected to the domain. Besides that, he asked for proof of when the domain was first registered, when it was set to expire, and any changes in ownership.
Legally speaking, it’s a pretty blunt tool, and that’s on purpose. The main point of the application is simple: without a court order, it’s not possible to find out who published that article because they are still anonymous. In court documents, Khairy’s lawyers admitted that they can’t find out who is behind “Corruption Watch” without help from the courts. It takes a lot of courage to say something like that. It makes it seem like all other options, at least the most obvious ones, had already been looked into.
The response from MYNIC was timed. The registry confirmed that it does have the necessary ownership records and said it would be happy to give them to the court if told to. That answer is a bit neat from an institutional point of view. MYNIC isn’t against the disclosure in general; it just wants a court order to protect it before it acts, which is reasonable for any organization stuck between a claimant and a registrant it didn’t mean to upset.
MYNIC disagreed with the idea of scope. Khairy’s application also asked for internal communication between the registry, the person who registered the domain name, and the accredited registrar. MYNIC was against that part because they said the communications had nothing to do with the planned defamation case. It also made it pretty clear, in pretty strong language, that it sees itself as an innocent third party in this case—not the intended defendant, not the cause of the alleged harm, and not ready to take on any legal costs or liabilities from what happens next. It wants to be protected from any problems that might arise because of compliance, which is the right thing for an organization that had nothing to do with publishing anything.
The people involved in this case aren’t the only thing that makes it interesting. Khairy is still a well-known figure in Malaysia. The bigger question is how much protection does online anonymity really offer when someone with enough proof uses the legal system to track down a domain? The records are kept by MYNIC. The court can tell them to go free. And when that happens, “Corruption Watch” might not be able to stay hidden for much longer.
It’s still not clear what the court will do about the parts of the request that are being argued, like the correspondence, the amount of information that needs to be shared, and the question of who should pay for what. Things look better now than they did a few months ago when it comes to Khairy’s main goal. It’s possible that the person who wrote the article that started this whole thing will soon be known.
