In defamation, a defendant must clearly state and justify any alternative meanings attributed to impugned words; vagueness in the defense can lead to dismissal of amendment applications.

[1] On 7 March 2008, the plaintiff (the respondent in this appeal) filed this defamation action against the defendant (the appellant in this appeal) in respect of certain remarks made by the defendant during a political speech on 20 February 2008 at Lembah Pantai, Kuala Lumpur. During the speech, the defendant uttered the words "DAP main PAS dari kanan, PAS main DAP dari kiri, Anwar main dua-dua dari belakang", which the plaintiff contends is defamatory of him. The defendant has, through his lawyer's letter dated 6 March 2008 in response to the plaintiff's letter of demand, admitted uttering the impugned words.

[2] At the material time in February 2008, the plaintiff was the advisor to Parti Keadilan Rakyat Malaysia, and the defendant, the Deputy Youth Chief of the Youth Wing of UMNO.

[3] The defendant filed his defence on 21 October 2010 relying, inter alia, on the defences of justification, qualified privilege and estoppels.

[4] An order precluding the defendant from defending the action was made on 13 August 2012 due to the defendant's failure to comply with an Unless Order made by the court during case management directions ("the Preclusion Order"). The defendant failed in his bid to set aside the Preclusion Order in the High court but succeeded before the court of Appeal on 21 June 2013.

[5] All preliminaries and pre-trial procedures have been completed; and the case has been fixed for hearing for two days in November and two days in December 2013. In compliance with case management directions, the plaintiff has filed the Bundle of Pleadings, Bundles of Documents, Statement of Agreed Facts, Statement of Issues to be Tried, List of Witnesses and Case Summary. Witness Statements are due to be filed and exchanged on or before 14 November 2013.

[6] The defendant now, seeks to amend his defence of justification to include a "lesser/lower defamatory meaning" and a plea of "partial justification".

[7] The draft amended defence is exhibited to defendant's application. They read as follows:

"11. Subject to and without prejudice to the matters pleaded in para 10 above the defendant pleads that the impugned words carry a lesser/lower defamatory meaning which are as follows:

(i) The defendant uttered the impugned words as an analogy to the true nature of the alliance formed by the Opposition Parties prior to the General Election. Without prejudice to the matters pleaded in para 4 above, the defendant states that the words were uttered by the defendant during the defendant's speech which was delivered in the course of the Barisan Nasional's campaign in the 12th General Election held in Lembah Pantai Kuala Lumpur on or about 20 February 2008;

(ii) The impugned words were targeted to explain how the political parties known as the Democratic Action Party ("DAP"), Pan Malaysian Islamic Party ("PAS") and the People Justices Party ("PKR") which had at that time grouped together to form the informal political coalition between themselves known as "the Pakatan Rakyat" would interact between each other;

(iii) The words were uttered by the defendant to explain to those present at the gathering that DAP, PAS and PKR had chosen to form the informal coalition with the aim of a common political agenda for the purposes of contesting an election to mutually benefit themselves. The thrust of the impugned words was targeted to explain the position or defendant's opinion of this alliance and that it was not a true alliance simply because in actual fact there are no true synergy/ co-operation between DAP, PAS and PKR as the political leaders of the respective parties were in the habit of playing each other out to further their respective political interests/agendas s