Ambrose J:

This action was brought by the plaintiff in the High Court in Singapore against the government of Malaysia to recover damages for false imprisonment at Pearl's Hill Remand Prison, Singapore, from 7 November 1964 to 8 March 1965.

On 16 September 1963, the State of Singapore became part of the Federation of Malaysia and the judicial power of the Federation of Malaysia was vested by s. 13 of the Malaysia Act 1963, in the Federal Court, and the High Courts in Malaya, Borneo and Singapore and in such inferior Courts as may be provided by federal law.

The action commenced on 21 June 1965. On that date it was possible for the plaintiff to sue the government of Malaysia in the High Court in Singapore under the provisions of the Government Proceedings Ordinance 1956 of Malaya as extended to Singapore by the Modification of Laws (Government Proceedings and Public Authorities Protection) (Extension and Modification) Order 1965.

The Government of Malaysia entered appearance on 25 June 1965, and filed a defence on 6 July 1965.

On 9 August 1965, Singapore ceased to be a part of Malaysia and became an independent republic.

At the hearing no one appeared for the government of Malaysia. The Solicitor- General of Singapore appeared as amicus curiae.

The question I had to consider was whether it was possible for the plaintiff to continue the proceedings against the government of Malaysia in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore in view of the fact that Malaysia had become a foreign state, so far as Singapore was concerned, as from 9 August 1965. It was conceded by Counsel for the plaintiff that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action or other proceeding against any foreign state or the head or government of any foreign state: see Dicey'sConflict of Laws (7th Edn.) p. 129. But it was contended that the laws in force in Singapore immediately before 9 August 1965 (Singapore Day) continued to have effect according to their tenor. Counsel cited s. 7 of the Constitution and Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act 1965 of Malaysia. This reads:

All present laws in force in Singapore immediately before Singapore Day shall continue to have effect according to their tenor and shall be construed as if this Act had not been passed in respect of Singapore subject however to amendment or repeal by the legislature of Singapore.

It was argued that, because the Government Proceedings Ordinance 1956, as extended to Singapore by the above-mentioned Order of 1965 was in force in Singapore immediately before Singapore Day, it continued to have effect in Singapore as if the Act have not been passed in respect of Singapore. But it has to be pointed out that what is provided by s. 7 of the Act is subject however to amendment or repeal by the legislature of Singapore.

Here I have to refer to the Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965, of Singapore. Section 1 of the Act provides that the Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on 9 August 1965. Section 13(1) of the Act provides:

Subject to the provisions of this section, all existing laws shall continue in force on and after Singapore Day, but all such laws shall be construed as from Singapore Day with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with this Act and with the independent status of Singapore upon separation from Malaysia.

It seems to me that the Government Proceedings Ordinance 1965, of Malaya has to be modified in its application in Singapore in so far as it permitted the government of Malaysia to be sued in Singapore. The reason is that since Singapore Day the government of Malaysia has become the government of a foreign state, and, as such, has not been and is not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court, which since Singapore Day has ceased to be the High Court in Singapore in Malaysia and has become the High Court of the Republic of Singapore. It was submitted by Counsel for the