Comments
Why was LHY sued for defamation despite compliance with POFMA correction direction?
Veteran journalist Bertha Henson questions the need for defamation suits against Mr Lee Hsien Yang when POFMA corrections were made and were complied. She cites parallels with cases such as WakeupSg’s, where, despite POFMA compliance, defamation charges ensued for those involved.
Bertha Henson, former Associate Editor of the Straits Times (ST), commenting on the defamation lawsuit against Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY), questioned the necessity of such suits when the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) corrections have been issued.
The veteran journalist asked whether compliance with POFMA should eliminate the necessity to remove ‘offending words’. POFMA’s intention, she suggests, is to allow individuals to assess both versions of the information.
Last Friday, the Singapore High Court ruled in favour of Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan, awarding them a total of S$400,000 in the defamation lawsuit against LHY, the brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and son of the late Lee Kuan Yew, over allegations made regarding Ridout estate rentals.
The hearing for damages on 2 May earlier was quickly resolved in just 15 minutes due to LHY’s absence and lack of representation.
The two ministers alleged that LHY had, in his Facebook post in July last year, accused them of receiving preferential treatment from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), implicating them in corrupt activities.
Justice Goh Yihan, in his written judgement dated 24 May, described the allegations as “of the gravest kind,” targeting the personal integrity and professional reputation of Mr Shanmugam, who serves as Law and Home Affairs Minister, and Dr Balakrishnan, the Foreign Minister.
Justice said LHY was found to have acted with malice, and despite opportunities to retract the post and apologize, he did not take corrective action.
In the July 2023 Facebook post, which Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan have sued LHY for, LHY wrote that “two ministers have leased state-owned mansions from the agency that one of them controls” and mentioned having felled trees and “getting state-sponsored renovations.”
At the time of publication of the post, there was widespread public discussion and media coverage regarding the leases of 26 and 31 Ridout Road by the ministers. The judgment notes that investigations, including those by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing or preferential treatment in relation to these leases.
On 25 July 2023, a Correction Direction under the POFMA was issued to LHY regarding the post, in which LHY also complied and edited his post to include the POFMA correction notice.
However, the judgement noted that the defendant did not remove the Offending Words on 25 July 2023. They remained visible on the Post until 10 November 2023.
The ministers alleged that LHY’s post implied corrupt behaviour and personal gain on their part through preferential treatment from SLA and state-funded renovations to certain properties. This claim contradicts statements by the CPIB and ministerial statements asserting their innocence.
Despite demands for an apology, withdrawal of allegations, and payment of damages, LHY refused, arguing that his statements did not imply corruption or personal gain.
He criticized the demand for what he termed a “false apology” for accusations he claims he never made.
Legal proceedings ensued, with the ministers’ legal team initially seeking permission to serve papers on LHY in the United Kingdom, where he resides. However, the court permitted the papers to be served outside its jurisdiction via Facebook Messenger.
LHY did not enter an appearance in the lawsuit, maintaining a preference for the UK as the venue for litigation.
Nonetheless, Justice Goh Yihan ruled in favour of the ministers in November 2023, ordering LHY to pay the costs and granting injunctions against him to restrain further defamatory allegations.
Bertha Henson: “Someone needs to clarify about POFMA”
On Sunday (26 May), in a Facebook post Ms Henson penned her skepticism over the necessity of the defamation lawsuit against Mr LHY. She suggesting the apparent redundancy and potential overreach in cases where individuals comply with POFMA yet still face defamation lawsuits.
“If someone complied with POFMA, then there’s no need to remove ‘offending words’ is there? Cos the whole idea is to let everyone assess both versions.”
Henson draws parallels with other cases, such as the Wake Up Singapore (WUSG) case, where despite compliance with POFMA, defamation suits were pursued, sometimes even resulting in criminal defamation charges.
“So one tap and then a big sledgehammer? If it’s defamatory, then sue. Why POFMA?”
Last month, Ariffin Sha, the administrator of WUSG was charged in court for allegedly publishing a misleading article online that claimed a woman suffered a miscarriage due to mishandling at KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (KKH).
A POFMA correction direction was also issued against the posts made by WUSG on 27 March 2022. WUSG apologised after the woman featured in the article admitted to fabricating her story. WUSG also complied with the POFMA order right away.
LHY questioning the Ministers’ refusal of international litigation options
On a separate note, last Friday, Mr Lee Hsien Yang commented on the High Court’s judgment regarding the lawsuit filed against him by the two ministers, despite his absence during the proceedings.
Mr Lee had again raised questions about the ministers’ desire to clear their names, pointing out their refusal of offers to litigate the matter in a London court or an independent international tribunal.
Furthermore, Mr Lee broke down the substantial legal costs incurred in the case. The ministers are now liable for damages totalling s$400,000 ($200,000 each) and nearly S$220,000 in additional costs, resulting in a staggering total of approximately $620,000.
This sum equates to about 13.6 months’ rental for the two Ridout houses at the centre of the dispute, Mr Lee added.
” In addition, they have also been given other costs amounting to over $117,000, including for a mountain of almost 43,000 pages of paper by the ministers. Printing and paper costs alone amounted to more than $22,000.”
