This is a libel action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The defendant pleaded, inter alia, the defences of fair comment and justification and gave particulars common to both pleas. By order of court dated 1 November 1988, further and better particulars were ordered. By order of court dated 7 April 1989, the registrar ordered that particulars (viii) under para 10 of the defence and the particulars (viii) of the further and better particulars filed on 25 November 1988 (vide order of court dated 1 November 1988) be struck out under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 and alternatively under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. An appeal was brought to this court; and I dismissed the appeal. I now give my reasons.

The plaintiff is the Prime Minister of Singapore since 1959 and was a member of the Malaysian Parliament from 1963 to 1965. The defendant was the President of Singapore from October 1981 to March 1985. By the original statement of claim (since amended on 17 April 1989), the plaintiff alleged that on two separate occasions, the defendant made statements defamatory of him.

In para 3 of the statement of claim, the plaintiff alleged that on or about 22 May 1988, in the course of the BBC 24 hours programme, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published and caused to be broadcast and published on radio within Singapore of and concerning him the following words defamatory of him:

He (meaning Mr Francis Seow) did not do anything which Lee Kuan Yew and

I had done with greater distinction when we were sitting on the

opposition benches of the Malaysian Parliament.

In para 4 the plaintiff alleged that these words in their natural and ordinary meaning in the context of the said radio broadcast meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff had collaborated and colluded with foreign powers in their plans to interfere in Malaysias internal affairs thereby subverting the independence, integrity and sovereignty of Malaysia and, in the premises, that the plaintiff was guilty of such misconduct when he was a member of the Malaysian Parliament as would have justified his immediate arrest and detention.

In para 5, the plaintiff alleged that on or about 22 May 1988, the defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published or caused to be written and published in a press statement issued by or on behalf of the defendant of and concerning him and of and concerning him as a member of the Malaysian Parliament contained the following words defamatory of him:

Other versions of the history of Singapores brief experience as part

of Malaysia tell a different story. One of them is that of Tunku Abdul

Rahman, Malaysias first Prime Minister, who told me not long ago, that

he had all the facts at his disposal to warrant the arrest of Mr Lee

when he was the most vociferous member of the Malaysian opposition.

...

But in courting and sedulously cultivating a whole variety of foreign

establishment and opposition circles, we did no more than what Mr Seow

is supposed to have done in his meetings with US State Department

Officials, who turned out to be rather small fry. Mr Lee courted far

more powerful figures in the countries concerned.

In para 6 the plaintiff alleged that these words in their natural and ordinary meaning meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff had collaborated and colluded with foreign powers in their plans to interfere in Malaysias internal affairs thereby subverting the independence, integrity and sovereignty of Malaysia and, in the premises, that the plaintiff was guilty of such misconduct when he was a member of the Malaysian Parliament as would have justified his immediate arrest and detention.

In his defence, the defendant alleged that the words were taken out of context; and denied that the words bear, or were capable of bearing, the meanings alleged b