Akmal Offers Honda X-ADV and Tilapia for Auction to Pay RM300,000 to Teresa Kok

A motorcycle and farmed fish to meet a court order

Umno Youth chief Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh is offering his Honda X-ADV motorcycle and farmed tilapia for auction to raise RM300,000 owed to Seputeh MP Teresa Kok after losing a defamation suit over his response to her comments on halal certification.

The Melaka High Court ordered Akmal to pay RM250,000 in general and aggravated damages and RM50,000 in legal costs. The decision was delivered on October 19, 2026, by Judicial Commissioner Isa Aziz Ibrahim, whose written grounds explained why the remarks crossed from political disagreement into a personal attack.

Akmal said in a Facebook post that his savings were insufficient to cover the amount. He said he had no land or house he could sell, and that the motorcycle and tilapia were his only fully paid assets available for sale.

Supporters had suggested opening a donation fund. Akmal thanked them but said he wanted to try raising the money himself first because they also had families, financial commitments and difficulties of their own.

His announcement puts a concrete financial consequence on a dispute that began in September 2024. Kok had questioned a proposal to make halal certification compulsory for restaurants and food businesses that did not serve pork or alcohol. Akmal responded with a video containing insults and accusations that the court found defamatory.

What Akmal is offering and how bidding works

Akmal invited serious bidders to pay a RM100 deposit into his bank account, then submit the payment receipt together with details of the asset they wanted and their offer. He said unsuccessful bidders would receive their deposits back in full.

The announcement did not specify an auction closing date, a minimum price for the Honda, the quantity of tilapia available, or how much the two sales were expected to raise.

Akmal described the motorcycle and fish farming venture as possessions tied to his work, memories and enjoyment. Selling them would be difficult, he said, but he preferred trying to meet the obligation through his own property before asking others for financial help.

He also thanked people who had offered prayers and encouragement, telling supporters they should not feel guilty if they could not buy anything or contribute. In the same post, he said he respected the court's decision, was prepared to comply and would take full responsibility for paying the amount.

How a certification proposal became a defamation case

Kok, who is also a DAP vice chairperson, had raised concerns about the cost of a proposed halal certification requirement, particularly for smaller businesses. The proposal concerned restaurants and food businesses that did not serve pork or alcohol.

Halal means permissible under Islamic rules. Food certification involves checking whether a business meets the relevant requirements. A restaurant's decision to avoid pork and alcohol is one part of a wider question about ingredients and food preparation. Kok's stated concern was the burden that a compulsory certification process could place on operators.

Akmal responded in September 2024 through a video posted on TikTok, Facebook and Instagram. He called Kok an "old nyonya", told her to keep quiet and suggested placing a "non-halal" label on her forehead.

The court examined more than those insults. It also considered the video's accusation that Kok repeatedly undermined national harmony. That allegation became central to the finding that Akmal had harmed her reputation.

The legal dispute continued for about two years before the October 2026 ruling. Akmal, who is also the Merlimau state assemblyperson, was absent when the decision was delivered.

Why the judge rejected Akmal's account

Judicial Commissioner Isa found that Akmal had no factual basis for accusing Kok of habitually destabilising national harmony. In his grounds dated October 19 and released on October 20, he described the meaning conveyed by the video:

The said video did carry a severe defamatory sting that the plaintiff habitually and continually destabilises national harmony.

In plain language, the judge found that viewers were being encouraged to see Kok as someone who repeatedly damaged relations within the country. That was a serious accusation about her conduct, extending beyond disagreement with her position on certification.

Isa also noted that Akmal admitted recording the video in anger without first seeking clarification. The court found that his primary motive was to attack Kok personally.

Akmal had kept the video online and had neither apologised nor retracted his remarks. Those actions formed part of the court's assessment of his conduct after publication, alongside the content of the video itself.

Why the legal defences failed

Akmal relied on fair comment, a defence concerning opinions expressed on matters of public interest. The court rejected it because the allegation that Kok habitually disrupted national harmony lacked a factual foundation.

Isa explained the problem with building an opinion on an unsupported accusation:

A defendant cannot invent or extrapolate unproven facts and comment upon them.

Akmal also claimed qualified privilege. This defence can protect a communication made in circumstances where a person has a duty or interest in giving information and the recipient has a corresponding interest in receiving it. The court rejected that argument, citing the wide circulation of the remarks and the personal attacks against Kok.

The judge also dismissed the argument that Kok had provoked the dispute through her Facebook post. Addressing the suggestion that her wording justified Akmal's response, Isa wrote:

An imperfect translation or unfortunate word choice by an elected official is not a licence for an opponent to execute an unevidenced character assassination.

Isa's written grounds also included a brief reminder about personal conduct: "Manners maketh man". His reasoning focused on the unsupported allegation, the insults and Akmal's purpose in publishing them.

The RM300,000 order includes more than damages

Kok received an award of RM250,000 in general and aggravated damages. General damages compensate for harm such as injury to reputation. Aggravated damages address additional injury arising from the way a defendant acted, including conduct surrounding the publication.

The court separately ordered RM50,000 in legal costs. Together, those two amounts produce the RM300,000 that Akmal says he is trying to raise. Damages account for five sixths of that total, while legal costs account for one sixth.

The order also required Akmal to remove the video from his social media accounts within seven days. Kok's lawyer, SN Nair, said the removal requirement covered the defamatory remarks across all of Akmal's social media platforms.

Akmal was further barred from republishing the remarks or words to the same effect. The restriction covers repeating the defamatory message in different wording, as well as posting the original statements again.

Two public responses after the ruling

Akmal's auction announcement followed a more defiant Facebook response to the verdict. In that earlier reaction, the Umno Youth chief wrote:

This is your time in power. Do whatever you want to do. I will never back down. Happy campaigning.

That post drew more than 15,500 likes, alongside comments expressing both support and criticism. His later fundraising message focused on accepting responsibility for the payment and trying to find the money through asset sales.

The change in focus matters for the practical outcome of the case. A political declaration addresses supporters; the auction is an attempt to raise money for a specific court obligation. Akmal's stated intention is to meet that obligation himself before turning to a donation fund.

Kok's award also comes with control over further publication of the defamatory remarks through the court's removal order and ban on repetition. Those requirements remain separate from the task of finding the RM300,000.

The key dates in the dispute

The case moved from a disagreement about business regulation to a judgment on reputational harm over roughly two years. The main dates are:

• September 2024: Akmal published the video on TikTok, Facebook and Instagram after Kok questioned the proposed compulsory halal certification requirement.
• October 19, 2026: The Melaka High Court ruled in Kok's favour, awarding RM250,000 in damages and RM50,000 in costs. The written grounds carry this date.
• October 20, 2026: The grounds were released, detailing the court's rejection of Akmal's defences and its findings about his personal attacks.
• Within seven days of the order: Akmal was required to remove the video from his social media accounts.

Akmal's sale announcement now brings the dispute to the question of payment. The motorcycle and tilapia are the assets he has identified for that effort, while the court's restrictions govern what he may publish about the defamatory allegations.

Key Points

• Akmal is offering a Honda X-ADV motorcycle and farmed tilapia to help meet a RM300,000 court obligation to Teresa Kok.
• The total comprises RM250,000 in general and aggravated damages and RM50,000 in legal costs.
• Bidders were asked to pay a RM100 deposit, refundable in full if their bid was unsuccessful.
• The court found no factual basis for Akmal's accusation that Kok habitually undermined national harmony.
• Akmal was ordered to remove the video within seven days and barred from repeating the defamatory remarks or words to the same effect.
• Akmal said he respected the ruling and wanted to try raising the money himself before seeking donations.