JUDGMENT

Sulaiman Daud JCA:

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant against that part of the decision of the learned High Court judge given on 13 May 2008 which disallowed his application for leave to amend the statement of claim in a libel action to introduce a new para. 8A to give particulars of the allegation that the statements or words complained of referred to him ("the proposed amendment"). After hearing submissions of counsel from both parties, we allowed the appeal with costs. We now give our reason for the decision.

[2] At all material times the appellant was a State Assemblyman and an Assistant Minister of Housing, Sarawak. The first respondent was a Member of Parliament and the Deputy Federal Minister of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia. Both of them were members of the Sarawak United People's Party ("SUPP") holding high office in the Sibu Branch and in the Central Working Committee of the party.

[3] In this action the appellant claims damages for libel against all the respondents in respect of two statements made by the first respondent on 6 February 2007 and 11 February 2007 which were published in the See Hua Daily News on 7 February 2007 and 12 February 2007 respectively. The second respondent is and was at all material times the proprietor and publisher of the newspaper. The third respondent was the chief editor of the newspaper and the fourth respondent was its distributor.

[4] The impugned statements or words so published are set out in paras. 8 and 10 of the statement of claim respectively, which in the English translation read as follows:

(a) in para. 8:

Lau Hoi Chew said emotionally, "It's enough! Don't continue doing it! Don't think that with the backing of Party's Chairman/President, you can do nonsense. You may burn my backyard and I may burn yours too. It's a tooth for a tooth."

Datuk Low Hoi Chew said that someone, feeling superior of himself and thinking that he is the cleverest person, wanted to become the chairman and be the candidate for the election. Sending out poison letters, SMS to everywhere. Can support this kind of person to become the chairman if he stands for election?.

(b) in para. 10:

Described Soon Choon Teck as ungrateful person and acted contrary to justice

He (Datuk Robert Lau Hoi Chew) described Soon Choon Teck as an ungrateful person and acted contrary to justice who had discarded a group of cadres who helped him get elected. This kind of person should not be supported.

He pointed out that there were people in Sibu branch leaving the team. It was the result of the seeds sown by a particular person. This is something dangerous.

He said, "When you sow the seeds of disunity in my backyard, I also can sow them in yours. What would be the consequence then?".

[5] The appellant pleaded that the impugned words in their natural and ordinary meaning or by way of innuendo meant, and were understood to mean, one or more of the defamatory meanings as set out in para. 20 of the statement of claim, which include the following, that is to say:

(a) the plaintiff is unscrupulous, ruthless, dishonourable, selfish and greedy politician;

(b) the plaintiff is an ungrateful person and acts contrary to justice, a hypocrite or untrustworthy person;

(c) the plaintiff is a thankless person, or discreditable person or a person lack of any integrity;

(d) the plaintiff is mischievous and wicked person.

[6] The respondents in their defence denied that the said words or any of them referred to or were understood to refer to the plaintiff. They also denied that the words used have, and were understood to bear, the meanings alleged or any meaning defamatory to the appellant. They also relied on the defence of fair comment and qualified privilege.

[7] On 11 March 2008 the appellant filed an application before the learned judge in chambers to make certain amendments to the statement of claim, including the addition of a new para. 8A to expressly provide that the impugned statements or words referred and were understood to refer t