Defamation trial: High Court awards PM Lee S$210,000 in damages against TOC editor-in-chief and writer
The High Court on Wednesday (1 Sep) awarded S$210,000 in damages to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his civil libel lawsuit against TOC editor-in-chief Terry Xu.
The S$210,000 comprises S$160,000 in general damages and S$50,000 in aggravated damages.
The writer of the article was separately sued by PM Lee. Mr Xu was not named as a defendant in the separate lawsuit.
For the suit against the writer of the article titled "PM Lee’s wife, Ho Ching weirdly shares article on cutting ties with family members", Justice Audrey Lim awarded S$160,000 in general damages to PM Lee.
However, Justice Lim ruled that PM Lee should not be doubly compensated as the defamation pertained to the same article.
Thus, Justice Lim said both Mr Xu and the writer of the article should be held "jointly and severally liable" for damages amounting to S$160,000.
This means that PM Lee can claim S$160,000 from only either Mr Xu or the writer of the article, but not from both.
Mr Xu is also required to pay S$50,000 in aggravated damages to PM Lee.
PM Lee's lawyers had previously stated in their closing submissions for the defamation suit against Mr Xu that damages awarded in previous defamation cases involving government ministers in Singapore fell within the range of S$100,000 to S$400,000.
An injunction was granted by the court to prohibit TOC from publishing or referring to the words complained of by PM Lee, which means that TOC will not be allowed to publish the allegations made by the Lee siblings regarding the Oxley Road dispute in the future.
In her 64-page written judgement released on Wednesday, Justice Lim ruled that it is irrelevant as to what meaning was ascribed to the offending words, whether by the one who made the statement or the one who published it.
This is because determining the "natural and ordinary" meaning of the offending words would require "an objective test", she said.
What is meant by "natural and ordinary", said Justice Lim, is not limited to the literal meaning of the words, but also encompasses "inferences or implications" that the ordinary reasonable person might draw from the use of such words.
The ordinary reasonable person may do so based on their "general knowledge, common sense, and experience".
"Hence, a defendant is not allowed to defend himself by showing that he did not intend to defame," said Justice Lim.
The judge also ruled that each time the offending words is republished, it "constitutes a new and separate instance of defamation".
This, referred to as the "repetition rule", is based on the concept that repeating a libellous or defamatory statement made by another is "just as bad as making the statement directly".
"Ultimately, the court must consider what the offending words would convey to the reader, viewed in the context of the publication as a whole," said Justice Lim.
Consequently, inserting qualifiers such as “claimed” or “alleged” is "unlikely, in itself, to insulate a publisher from the effect of the repetition rule", she said.
"If the impact of the repetition rule on the meaning of allegations repeated by others are to be mitigated or avoided, they must be mitigated or neutralised by material that is found within the same publication," said Justice Lim.
This can be done, for example, by reporting both sides of the dispute or refuting the allegation being repeated, the judge illustrated.
Justice Lim also ruled that the offending words did not merely target PM Lee's "personal integrity, character and reputation", but had also placed "his moral authority to lead Singapore" at stake.
Further, TOC’s "wide viewership and role lends credence to the publication, thereby rendering it more believable to the ordinary reader", said the judge in deciding to award higher damages to PM Lee in the immediate case.
"Here, Xu is the Chief Editor of TOC. The Article was published on the TOC website, which is considerably widely followed," said Justice Lim, adding that TOC is not "a mere individual's personal blog" but a news publication website.
While she agreed with Mr Xu's counsel Mr Lim Tean's argument that the court can rely on adverse comments by readers of the defamatory publication to prove harm done by the publication, Justice Lim reasoned that the absence of comments or reactions, especially adverse ones, "does not necessarily show that there is no or little damage to reputation".
"Such absence could merely mean that the readers did not bother to respond to what they have read.
"In the present case, I find that Xu has failed to discharge the burden of rebutting the presumption of damage," said the judge.
PM Lee's silence did not lead to the conclusion that he had misled LKY regarding Oxley Road property's gazetting: High Court
Justice Lim also found that PM Lee "did not and had no reason to mislead" the late Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) or to inform him that the Oxley Road property in question had been gazetted, contrary to the first claimed meaning of the offending words in the article.
Citing an email from PM Lee to LKY dated 19 July 2011, which was copied to the siblings, Justice Lim reasoned that the email demonstrated PM Lee's support for demolishment.
PM Lee, she added, had "encouraged LKY to redevelop the site while he was still alive", as "the government would later come under great pressure to compulsorily acquire the House and turn it into a national monument".
Justice Lim also noted that PM Lee had testified at trial that he did not partake in Cabinet's move in a meeting between LKY and the Cabinet then on 21 July 2011 to oppose LKY's idea of demolishing the house.
PM Lee did not participate, as he was conflicted over carrying out his father's wishes as a son and considering the views of the Cabinet as the PM.
Further, PM Lee had said that he had notified LKY of having to agree to the property being gazetted, as it would be difficult to override the Cabinet's wishes if they finally decided to preserve the house.
However, PM Lee did not inform LKY that the house had been gazetted.
"Thus, even if LKY had formed the impression that the House had been gazetted or felt that this would be inevitable, this did not mean that LHL had misled him into believing that the House had been gazetted," said Justice Lim.
Background on the civil defamation suit
At the heart of the 38 Oxley Road dispute is the house owned by the Lee siblings’ late father and Singapore’s founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, and the elder Lee’s wish to have the house demolished instead of being turned into a museum or government relic.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) and Dr Lee Wei Ling (LWL) are joint executors and trustees of Mr LKY’s estate.
In a joint statement released on 14 June 2017, which was shared on their Facebook pages, PM Lee’s two younger siblings made multiple allegations regarding PM Lee's role and that of his wife Ho Ching in the Oxley Road property dispute.
PM Lee issued a statement the same day to counter the allegations. Despite that, Mr LHY and Dr LWL continued to make claims against PM Lee in subsequent Facebook posts.
Following that, PM Lee announced in June the same year his plans to deliver a ministerial statement in Parliament the next month to address the allegations made by his siblings.
The prime minister delivered his ministerial statement on 3 July 2017, in which he branded the allegations as baseless.
PM Lee also said that he would not be suing Mr LHY and Dr LWL as doing so would further besmirch their parents’ name.
The next day, PM Lee delivered another ministerial statement, in which he said that he would not call for a Select Committee or a Commission of Inquiry to be convened into the 38 Oxley Road dispute and his siblings’ allegations.
Mr LHY and Dr LWL on 4 July — the same day PM Lee made his second ministerial statement on the matter — in a joint statement made another allegation against the prime minister regarding the dispute.
Two days later on 6 July, Mr LHY and Dr LWL jointly stated that they would not post any further evidence on the allegations if PM Lee and the Government do not interfere with Mr LKY’s wish — as well as their own — to have the house demolished.
PM Lee responded the same day by saying that he could not concede to his siblings’ demand to withdraw plans to deliver his ministerial statement and to hold the debate in Parliament, as well as disbanding the Ministerial Committee and not responding to their accusations.
Mr LHY and Dr LWL henceforth continued to make posts on matters relating to 38 Oxley Road.
However, PM Lee decided to file a defamation suit against Mr Xu for publishing the article that contained the allegedly defamatory statements made by Mr LHY and Dr LWL in relation to the 38 Oxley Road dispute.
Prior to that, PM Lee’s press secretary Chang Li Lin wrote to Mr Xu, asking the latter to remove the “libellous” article containing the siblings' claims and to publish a “full and unconditional” apology.
PM Lee later began legal proceedings against Mr Xu after the latter had refused the demands made in Ms Chang’s letter.
'Very disappointed' with High Court decision; PM should have sued siblings if he found their allegations defamatory: TOC editor-in-chief Terry Xu
Mr Xu in a Facebook post on Wednesday said that he and Mr Lim are "very disappointed with the judgement" on the civil defamation suit.
"Especially since the Prime Minister did not demonstrate how his reputation has been damaged by the contested statements," he said.
Mr Xu also reiterated the stance he made prior to the court proceedings, in which he stated that PM Lee should have initiated a lawsuit against his siblings if he found their allegations in 2017 to be defamatory.
He said that following the High Court decision on Wednesday, he will be working with Mr Lim to decide on the next steps, including the possibility of appealing against the judgement.
In the meantime, Mr Xu seeks the goodwill of the public for crowdfunding.
"I append below the accounts that I have set up for the sole purpose of crowd-funding," he said.
Details for Mr Xu's fundraiser are as follows.
Name: Terry Xu
DBS Current: 1206943287
PayNow/PayPal: +65 91781031
"I thank all those have donated so far and those who have pledged to do so," said Mr Xu.
"To avoid any complications, please refer to my letter on 4 Sept as to what I think of this suit," he added.
