Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

This appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court at Seremban dismissing with costs the appellant's claim for defamation against the respondent. In the court below there were two other defendants, namely, Khoo Chee Hian ("the first defendant") and Nanyang Siang Pau Malaysia Berhad ("the third defendant"), but the claim against them was withdrawn by the appellant. They are therefore not before this court, although for some reason, not made entirely clear by counsel for the appellant, they appear as respondents in the appeal.

The appellant is a businessman a member of the Malaysian Chinese Association or M.C.A., which is a political party and several other voluntary service organisations. The respondent is the publisher of a well known newspaper in the Chinese language called "China Press". In the issue of the respondent's newspaper of 25 March 1988, there appeared an article, the agreed translation of the body of which reads as follows:

The MCA Lukut branch today criticised Cheok Kee Lian for releasing an irresponsible statement through the Si-Rusa State Representative Mr. Krishnasamy claiming the merit of road resurfacing repair at Taman Lukut as his own.

The said branch described that Mr. Cheok Kee Lian (the appellant) had created confusion on the hearing and sight of the residence, therefore clarification on this matter was necessary.

In one of the statements, the said branch pointed out that all the local residence knew that the project of road resurfacing repair at Taman Lukut was approved on application of the said branch through Dr. Yew Chai Thiam and the branch chairman Mr. Khoo Chee Hian and committee member Mr. Hoo Thong Chuan together with others had actually measured the scene before the application and names were forwarded to the State Committee.

The statement said: The above facts clearly show that the MCA branch is really serving and solving problems of local residence of the area. Unlike certain people who is self considered as a devoted social worker, repeatedly releasing false statement on press in order to cheat the residents.

The statement released by the said branch chairman Mr. Khoo Chee Hian [the first defendant] also advised the Si-Rusa State Representative Mr. Krishnasamy not to be used by intended person unaware of the circumstances.

This State Representative should strengthen the services at Si-Rusa constituency instead of creating waves beyond the boundary at Jimah constituency.

The appellant took umbrage over the article. He issued writ. In his statement of claim he alleged that the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in the offending article meant and were understood to mean, inter alia, that the appellant was a cheat and that he was guilty of issuing false statements to the press with the intention of gaining popularity. Or, as his counsel put it during the argument before us, the article conveyed the meaning that the appellant was untrustworthy. The appellant contended that it was a serious matter to accuse anyone, especially a politician of untrustworthiness.

At the trial, the first defendant gave evidence. He denied having used the words "cheat" or "false statement" which appeared in the article published by the respondent. Despite the compelling nature of the evidence led before him, the learned judge found the article in question not to be defamatory. He held that it was not lopsided (by which we understand him to say that it was fair in the ordinary sense) and that it was upon a matter of public interest relating to the welfare of a particular locality. He also found that the respondent did not intend to ridicule the appellant in public. He therefore dismissed the appellant's claim. With respect, I am unable to agree with the conclusions of the learned judge.

It cannot, I think, be doubted that the first task of a court, in an action for defamation, is to determine whether the words complained of are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. An