Jeyaretnam JB v Goh Chok Tong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: L P Thean J
• Judgment Date: 28 November 1984
• Neutral Citation: [1984] SGHC 40
• Date: 28 November 1984
• Subject Matter: Tort,Fair comment,Whether defamatory of plaintiff in his capacity as secretary-general of his political party,Words published by defendant at press conference,Damages and injunction,Qualified privilege,Defamatory statements,Defamation,s 5 Defamation Act (Cap 32)
• Docket Number: Suit No 4474 of 1981
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: J Grimberg (Drew & Napier)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Plaintiff in person

On 21 September 1981 the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), a registered political party in Singapore, held its inauguration at the Singapore Conference Hall auditorium starting at 6.30pm. To this inauguration was invited the plaintiff who was at that time and still is, the secretary-general of the Workers` Party (WP), another registered political party in Singapore. At the time when the plaintiff was invited he intimated to Chiam See Tong, secretary-general of the SDP, that he (the plaintiff) had a dinner engagement on the same evening as the inauguration and would therefore have to leave after his speech, and this was acceptable to the SDP.

The plaintiff and the chairman of the WP, Wong Hong Toy, attended the SDP`s inauguration, and as a guest speaker the plaintiff took his seat at the rostrum in the company of the leaders of the SDP, whilst his chairman sat with the audience. The plaintiff was the first main speaker after words of welcome from the leaders of the SDP, adoption of the SDP`s constitution and the swearing-in ceremony of the office bearers of the SDP. The plaintiff was the only guest speaker and was the most popular man that evening; he received rounds of applause even before he spoke and he made a fairly long speech. After his speech he left the meeting and at that time or immediately following his departure a large section of the audience also left. In fact, from that time onwards, people began to trickle out of the hall, presumably because the meeting was quite prolonged; it did not really conclude until 10.30pm or thereabout.

On the following day the popularity of the plaintiff at the SDP`s inauguration was reported in the Business Times as follows:

If applause were considered a good measure of popular support, Mr JB Jeyaretnam, secretary-general of the Workers` Party, was definitely the most popular person at the Conference Hall last night.

Ironically, the occasion was the inauguration of the Singapore Democratic Party. Mr Jeyaratnam, the guest speaker received four rounds of loud hand claps - before he uttered his first words - as he was introduced.

Several of the some 300-strong audience even walked out after his speech ...

On 14 October 1981 a writ was issued for a Parliamentary by-election for the constituency of Anson, and the nomination day for candidates for the by-election was fixed for 21 October 1981 and the by-election was to be held on 31 October 1981. On 20 October 1981, on the eve of the nomination day, the following report appeared in the then afternoon newspaper, New Nation under the heading, `Chiam, Jeya keep mum`:

Today is the eve of Nomination Day for the Anson by-election but the Workers` Party and the Singapore Democratic Party are still keeping mum.

Mr JB Jeyaretnam, secretary-general of the Workers` Party, said party members will meet today but declined to elaborate.

Mr Chiam See Tong, secretary-general of SDP, said last week that his party chairman, Mr Fok Tai Loy, is a likely candidate for the by-elections. But this morning, he would not confirm this. However, he maintained that the party will be contesting.

The United People`s Front secretary-general, Mr Harbans Singh, has said that he will be contesting.

The PAP has named Mr Pang Kim Hin as its candidate for the by-election on 31 October.

On the nomination day, the People`s Action Party (PAP) nominated Pang Kim Hin, as their candidate and the WP nominated the plaintiff as their candidate for the by-election. The SDP on seeing that the plaintiff was nominated did not field a candidate to contest the by-election.

The defendant is the Minister for Defence and Second Minister for Health in the government. He was appointed the first organising secretary of the PAP on 17 April 1979 and has continued to hold that post. As such he was responsible for, inter alia , the party`s election activities. He was therefore most concerned at securing the return of the PAP`s candidate at the by-election. On 26 October 1981 he held a press conference at Blair Plain at which representatives of the media, such as the press and Singapore Broadcasting Corp, were present. At that conference the defendant spoke, among other things, the following words:

SDP had their inaugural (sic)earlier this month. Mr Jeyaretnam attended. After Mr Jeyaretnam had spoken, he left the hall, and when he left the hall 200 participants left with him. I believe the exodus was engineered. I don`t think it was a spontaneous exodus. If it was, it did not speak well for the SDP. It shows that the crowd, the limited crowd still look towards Mr Jeyaretnam, for the time being, as a leader of the opposition. But I am inclined to believe that the exodus was contrived by the leader of the Workers Party to show who is boss at this stage. And surely Mr Chiam cannot take that trick lightly.

These are the words complained of by the plaintiff as defamatory of him and the present proceedings were initiated by the plaintiff against the Defendant claiming damages and injunction. The plaintiff claims that the words complained of in their natural and ordinary meaning were defamatory of him: they meant and were understood to mean that the `plaintiff was an opportunist, a man of base and dishonourable motives, seeking only to promote himself, to gain power for himself, and had shown by his conduct that he was not genuinely sincere in building up a credible and constructive opposition in Parliament but out solely to seek his own glory and was accordingly unfit to hold the office of a Member of Parliament. He further claims that the words were calculated to injure him in his office as leader of a political party and in aspiring to be a Member of Parliament. By this further plea the plaintiff is in effect invoking s 5 of the Defamation Act (Cap 32), to which I shall revert later. The defendant denies that the said words in their natural and ordinary meaning were defamatory of the plaintiff as alleged or at all and that they were calculated to disparage the plaintiff in his office as the secretary-general of the WP. The defendant further raises two other defences, namely: first, the said words were fair comment spoken without malice upon a matter of public interest, namely, the conduct of leaders of the opposition parties, including the plaintiff, and the conduct of members of the public prior to the Parliamentary by-election, and secondly, the occasion in which the said words were uttered was one of qualified privilege. The plaintiff joins issue with the Defendant on the latter`s defences and alleges that the defendant was actuated by malice when he said those words. There are therefore five issues before me:

(i) whether the words in their natural and ordinary meaning were defamatory of the plaintiff;

(ii) if they were, whether they were calculated to disparage him in his office as the secretary-general of the WP and hence are actionable without proof of special damage under s 5 of the Defamation Act (Cap 32);

(iii) whether the words complained of were fair comment on a matter of public interest;

(iv) whether the occasion in which the words were spoken was one of qualified privilege, and

(v) whether the defendant was actuated by any malice in uttering the words complained of.

The first issue is one purely of construction of the words complained of, and the approach to such a construction is to consider the meaning such words would convey to ordinary reasonable persons using their general knowledge and common sense; it is not confined to strict literal meaning of the words but extend to any reference or implication from which persons can reasonably draw. As said by Lord Morris in Jones v Skelton [1963] 3 All ER 952 at p 958:

The ordinary and natural meaning of words may be either the literal meaning or it may be an implied or inferred or an indirect meaning: any meaning that does not require the support of extrinsic facts passing beyond general knowledge but is a meaning which is capable of being detected in the language used can be a part of the ordinary and natural meaning of words (see Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd[1963] 2 All ER 151). The ordinary and natural meaning may therefore include any implication or inference which a reasonable reader, guided not by any special but only by general knowledge and not fettered by any strict legal rules of construction, would draw from the words. The test of reasonableness guides and directs the court in its function of deciding whether it is open to a jury in any particular case to hold that reasonable persons would understand the words complained of in a defamatory sense.

Together with the ascertainment of the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of to be considered is the question whether they were defamatory of the plaintiff. The test here is whether the words were calculated to expose him to hatred, ridicule or contempt in the mind of a reasonable man or would `tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally` (perLord Atkin in Sim v Stretch ) [1936] 2 All ER 1237.

The crucial point in this issue is this: did the words complained of in their natural and ordinary meaning impute to the plaintiff any dishonourable or discreditable conduct or motives or a lack of integrity on his part? If they did, then inescapably they were defamatory of the plaintiff. It seems to me that in considering this issue one must bear in mind the following salient facts. First, the event to which the words made reference was the inauguration of the SDP - undoubtedly a great and important event to the SDP. Secondly, at the inauguration the plaintiff in his position as the secretary-general of the WP was accorded an unusually high honour in being invited to speak. He was the only guest speaker and the first main speaker taking precedence over the speeches of all the leaders of the SDP. From the reports and according to representatives of...