Hepworth J:

[1] The plaintiff who resides at 24, Kia Peng Road, Kuala Lumpur, was at all material times the Minister for Education or the Minister for Health in the Government of the Federation of Malaya.

[2] The 1st defendant who resides at 7, Hale Street, Ipoh, Perak, is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court in Malaya and was at all material times a Member of the House of Representatives of the Federation of Malaya.

[3] The 2nd defendant who resides at 12, Jalan Kramat, Dato Kramat, Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, was at all material times a business man and company director.

[4] On the 11 September 1963, at a meeting at the Chinese Assembly Hall, Kuala Lumpur, at which large numbers of the members of the public and press representatives, variously estimated to number between 500 and 700 persons, were present the 1st defendant, addressing the plaintiff and those present through a microphone and loudspeakers available for the purpose, said the following words referring to the plaintiff:

"You (meaning the plaintiff) allege that I besmirched your character in the House. You are wrong, because you could have asked the House to punish me under Standing Orders with a maximum penalty of $1,000 or two weeks in jail. You are no Parliamentarian and no politician. I am certainly not going to apologise to you because there is nothing to apologise for and nothing to withdraw. You issued this challenge to appear here on your own volition without any instigation from me. I am here today at the invitation of Inche Rahman Talib. I have been asked by him to repeat here what I said in Parliament on 22nd day of August, 1963. What I said was based on information and evidence oral and documentary which was supplied to me and which I have no reason to doubt.

The proper course in all democratic countries would, in such circumstances, have been to adopt Parliamentary procedure and appoint a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into allegations of misconduct. This would have been the quickest way of clearing his (meaning the plaintiff's) name-if it could be cleared at all. In this connection you will recall that Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore has always ordered inquiries when allegations are made in Parliament.

I am not concerned whether Inche Rahman Talib is criminally liable or not. It seems to me, however, that if a Commission of Inquiry is set up then there would be sufficient evidence to discredit him and to render him unfit to continue in office as a Member of Government.

I have read in the press about a duel of words, and so on. So far as I am concerned the duel of words will take place not here but in some Court or Commission of Inquiry.

I am here at the invitation of Inche Rahman Talib made at his own instance and of his own free will and the invitation is to repeat the allegations which I said in Parliament should be inquired into. I now repeat the allegations as recorded in the official records of Parliament:

'Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise under Standing Orders 18(1) to ask leave to move the adjournment of this House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. Mr Speaker, Sir, at this stage I am not entitled to go into the details of why I want to move it, but it is necessary only for me to say that I seek your permission to move the adjournment of this House to discuss the matter of corrupt practices indulged in by the present Minister of Health (meaning the plaintiff) in that he received various sums of money and other favours from a company known as the Malay Natural Fertilisers Co Ltd, Pahang, and that these allegations against the said Minister will be shown by documentary and other proofs in my possession. I submit, Sir, that this matter is definite, this matter is urgent, because in the public interest such matter must be considered by this House without any delay and appropriate action to suspend the Honourable Minister at least will be taken. I do hope that I will get that leave and I do hope that ther