Idris Yusoff J:

[1] Mr Karpal Singh the defendant in a civil suit filed by the plaintiff applies to strike out the writ of summons dated 16 December 1993 together with the statement of claim pursuant to O 18 r 19 of the Rules of the High 1980 and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the following grounds:

(a) the plaintiff has no locus standi to bring the said suit. The said suit by the plaintiff is not maintainable against the defendant;

(b) the issues raised which relate to alleged criminality do not come within the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court;

(c) The Attorney-General and no one else is vested under the provisions of art 145(3) and s 5 of the Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15) with the powers to institute proceedings under the Sedition Act;

(d) the said suit is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of the process of the Honourable Court;

(e) the alleged publication does not amount to defamation or sedition. There is no cause of action against the defendant.

[2] He also seeks an order that all further proceedings in respect of the said suit be stayed pending the disposal of this application.

[3] In his statement of claim the plaintiff seeks a total of 4 declarations coupled with an injunction which are couched in the following terms:

(a) A Court declaration that the statement or words uttered by the defendant Encik Karpal Singh as appeared in the Berita Harian dated 14 December 1992 tantamount to seditious libel.

(b) A Court declaration that it is sedition to degrade any Ruler or Sultan in the way the defendant did.

(c) A declaration that by degrading the Ruler the defendant Encik Karpal Singh has indirectly degraded the Malays.

(d) A declaration that the Court has unlimited powers to grant a declaration and injunction if requested by any person if the Sultan is reluctant to commence legal proceedings, any subject can do so otherwise the Malay subjects or citizens have no remedy for injustice.

(e) An injunction to restrain the defendant Encik Karpal Singh from further speaking and publishing the said or any similar sedition.

[4] This suit arises out of a press statement allegedly made by the defendant which was published in the issue of Berita Harian of 14 December 1992. The statement which is alleged to be seditious and libelous is published in the following words:

Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) boleh digunakan untuk menahan sesiapa saja, termasuk raja kerana mereka tidak terkecuali daripada bidang kuasa berkenaan, kata Ahli Parlimen Jelutong Karpal Singh.

Beliau berkata, s 8(1) Akta berkenaan menyebut, Menteri Dalam Negeri boleh menahan sesiapa saja untuk tempoh tidak melebihi dua tahun jika tindakan itu dapat menghalang individu terbabit mengancam keselamatan negara.

Pengunaan perkataan 'sesiapa saja' turut membabitkan raja. Bagaimanapun, DAP menentang penahanan mengikut ISA kerana ia dibuat tanpa perbicaraan," katanya dalam sidang akhbar di sini, hari ini.

[5] It is alleged by the plaintiff that by "such impertinent slander as aforesaid the defendant is insinuating that most Rulers, if not all, are capable of committing offences under the Internal Security Act and has indirectly classified that the Malays "are hooligans". The plaintiff further alleges that "not only has Mr Karpal Singh committed criminal libel under the Sedition Act but he is also liable civilly for libel and slander against the plaintiff who being of Malay race and a subject of the Sultan of Kelantan".

[6] The defendant in support of his application to strike out the suit maintains that to institute any proceedings in the Court of law the plaintiff must possess the necessary standing (locus standi), whereas the circumstances of this case show that the plaintiff possesses none. The allegations by the plaintiff that the defendant is liable for libel and slander just because the plaintiff being of a Malay race and a subject of the Sultan of Kelantan is misconceived and devoid of any basis or merit. It must be made known from the outset