This action for slander arose out of what the defendant had uttered in the course of an electioneering speech made on 26 August 1988 in the Parliamentary general elections of 1988 before a crowd of about 7,000 people at Bedok Town Centre, car park no 6. The trial of this action, which lasted four days, is concerned with the usual, and in this case the most important, issue as to the ordinary and natural meaning of the speech complained of. The second issue is whether the defence of fair comment avails the defendant. The third issue is whether, as the defendant asserted, there is a novel defence of privilege based on art 14(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. Fourthly, where the answer of this court to the second issue and/or third issue is in the affirmative, only then will the question arise as to whether the defendant was actuated by malice which would be fatal to the defences of fair comment and privilege. The fifth matter for consideration in this trial is the quantum of damages if the defendant is liable for the slander and, finally, this court has to decide whether in its discretion it will grant the injunction sought.

At the commencement of the trial there was some doubt, having regard to the averments of para 5 of the defence which was later renumbered as para 7 of the amended defence, whether the defendant was relying on the defence of justification. Those averments, followed by certain particulars of facts, are in these terms: Further or in the further alternative, in so far as the words used by the defendant consist of allegations of fact, they are true in substance and in fact. Those averments do not allege that the particulars of facts pleaded apparently by way of justification go to prove the truth of the defamatory meaning of the words as contended by the plaintiff. Nor do they seek to justify any lesser defamatory meaning or meanings which have to be spelt out in accordance with the decision of Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 147. If Lucas-Box [1986] 1 WLR 147 has been followed, the issue or issues would have been defined between the parties and they and this court would have been assisted when it came to deal with this aspect of the case. Inevitably, Mr Eady, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that unless the particulars justify the published words in some defamatory meaning, they were irrelevant and should be struck out. However, Mr Thomas, learned counsel for the defendant, made it clear to this court that the defendant was not pleading justification as a defence and that the particulars listed will be relied upon only in support of the plea of fair comment. In those circumstances, para 7 of the amended defence was allowed to stand so far as they may be relevant to the issue of fair comment.

The parties

The plaintiff was admitted to practise as an advocate and solicitor in August 1951. He has been very active in politics. In November 1954, he became the secretary-general of the Peoples Action Party (PAP) on its foundation and, save for a brief interlude of a month in 1957, has held that office ever since. In March 1955, he became a member of the Legislative Assembly. In the May 1959 general elections, the PAP won a majority and the plaintiff formed the government and became the Prime Minister of Singapore. Since then there has been eight general elections which the PAP won. Throughout this period the plaintiff has remained the Prime Minister.

The defendant is also an advocate and solicitor. He was for a time in the Singapore Legal Service where he rose to become the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the equivalent of the senior district judge in 1963. He went into private practice in 1964. On 27 June 1971 he joined the Workers Party and on the same day became its secretary-general. He has held that office ever since. He unsuccessfully contested a number of elections between 1972 and 1980. In October 1981 he won the by-election for