Jeff Ooi implicated for defamation & Sedition

I was in the plane and having the NST, I found this article...it's damn bewildering; I just can't believe it. Here's what it says:

3 police reports were lodged against blogger Jeff Ooi for alleging defaming the country, government and police force. The reports were lodged by the Malaysian Islamic Consumer Association, Malaysian Indian Muslim Congress and Pertubuhan Seni Silat Ikatan Kalam Malaysia against a statement issued by Ooi to Al Jazeera reporter.

The complainant want Jeff Ooi to be investigated alleging that the interview given to Al Jazeera not only tarnished the image of the country but also seditious and caused racial tension. Jeff was alleged to have given inaccurate information to Al Jazeera in stating that the police used unnecessary force in dispersing the demonstrators.

First and foremost, "Defamation" comes under the Law of Tort, a civil action between the wrongdoer and the victim, and the aim is to compensate the victim for the harm done. Defamation is a civil action, not a criminal action, and thus no police report is needed. You just get a lawyer and file a suit against the party who commits libel or slander. Since it was alleged that Jeff Ooi spoke, then it's slander. The "victim" must prove that the defendant had committed the relevant act or omission, and that "Damage" had been caused as a result, and in this case, it is also necessary to prove the state of mind have the necessary "Intention", "Negligence" or "Malice."

Definition of Defamation:
Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person.

With the above definition, I am puzzled as to why the 3-groups are alleging defamation. Furthermore, the 3-group is suing on behalf of the government, police, and the country; that's frivolous! In defamation, local authorities and government cannot sue for libel or slander, unless in their personal capacity (see: Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspaper (1992)). The Court of Appeal states that, "to allow such actions to be brought by democratically elected bodies, or any government body, would be against public interest in free debate about the actions of elected authorities. Political parties are also unable to sue for libel because of the public interest in free speech concerning those who put themselves forward for public office.

So, the only probability to make that police report is to get the A-G to act against Jeff for sedition.

Section 4 of the Sedition Act specifies that anyone who "does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do" an act with seditious tendency, such as uttering seditious words, or printing, publishing or importing seditious literature, is guilty of sedition.

The act defines sedition itself as anything which "when applied or used in respect of any act, speech, words, publication or other thing qualifies the act, speech, words, publication or other thing as having a seditious tendency".

Under section 3(1), those acts defined as having a seditious tendency are acts with a tendency:

“ (a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;

(b) to excite the subjects of the Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;

(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;

(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or

(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of part III of the Federal constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.
”
Exceptions:

Section 3(2) provides certain exceptions, providing examples of speech which cannot be deemed seditious. It is not seditious to "show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures", nor is it seditious "to point out errors or defects in the Government or Constitution as by law established". It is also not seditious "to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the territory of such Government as by law established" or "to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of the Federation". However, the act explicitly states that any matter covered by subsection (1)(f), namely those matters pertaining to the Malaysian social contract, cannot have these exceptions applied to it.

How is it possible that the statement made to Al Jazeera can be seditious if the same words were also expressed by so many, including the reporters at the scene of the demonstration? The funny thing is that, why did it take the 3-group, namely, Malaysian Islamic Consumer Association, Malaysian Indian Muslim Congress and Pertubuhan Seni Silat Ikatan Kalam Malaysia to lodge this police report? In fact, the police and the A-G, without these 3, can take up an action if they are convinced that what was said was in fact seditious. Did this 3 had something in mind?