Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lee Seiu Kin J
• Judgment Date: 07 November 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 230
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Suit No 569 of 2014 (Summons No 3403 of 2014)
• Published date: 11 November 2014
• Year: 2014
• Hearing Date: 18 September 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Davinder Singh SC, Angela Cheng, Samantha Tan and Imran Rahim (Drew & Napier LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: M Ravi (L F Violet Netto) and Eugene Thuraisingam (Eugene Thuraisingam)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Defamation
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 230

Lee Seiu Kin J: Introduction

The present action arises out of the publication of an article entitled “Where Your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From The City Harvest Trial” (“the Article”) on the blog “The Heart Truths to Keep Singaporeans Thinking by Roy Ngerng” (“the Blog”) on or about 15 May 2014. The plaintiff is the Prime Minister of Singapore and the Chairman of GIC Private Limited (“GIC”).¹ The defendant is the owner and writer of the Blog.²

The plaintiff filed the writ of summons in this suit on 29 May 2014. The defendant filed his defence on 17 June 2014 and an amended defence on 27 June 2014. Pleadings closed on 4 July 2014 when the plaintiff filed his reply. On 10 July 2014, the plaintiff applied under Summons No 3403 of 2014 (“SUM 3403/2014”) for the Court to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the certain allegedly defamatory words and images pursuant to O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) and to grant summary judgment pursuant to O 14 r 1 on the basis that the defendant has no defence to the claim. Counsel for the parties appeared before me on 18 September 2014 to make submissions on SUM 3403/2014, at the conclusion of which I reserved judgment. I now give my decision on SUM 3403/2014.

Facts

On or around 15 May 2014, the defendant published the Article on the Blog.³ The parts of the Article that the plaintiff takes objection to are reproduced below (“the Disputed Words and Images”):

The Heart Truths

To Keep Singaporeans Thinking by Roy Ngerng

...

Where Your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From the City Harvest Trial

Last week, Channel NewsAsia reported about how, “The founder of City Harvest Church Kong Hee and his five deputies [are] accused of misusing millions of church building funds.”

According to Channel NewsAsia, “The court accepted that there is evidence to show that the monies were moved from the church to the various firms to generate a false appearance that the church’s investments were redeemed. The judge said the six had been dishonest in the use of the money.”

It was also reported that, “Judge See said the auditors’ opinions were “only as good as the information they were given”.”

Below is the chart that Channel NewsAsia had created to show the relations of Kong Hee and his five deputies, and the funds that they have misappropriated.

Meanwhile, something bears an uncanny resemblance to how the money is being misappropriated.

Channel NewsAsia had reported that, “The court accepted that there is evidence to show that the monies were moved from the church to the various firms to generate a false appearance that the church’s investments were redeemed. The judge said the six had been dishonest in the use of the money.”

“Judge See said the auditors’ opinions were “only as good as the information they were given”.”

Meanwhile, the GIC claims that the “GIC manages the Government’s reserves, but as to how the funds from CPF monies flow into reserves which could then be managed by either MAS, GIC or Temasek, this is not made explicit to us.” The GIC also claims that, “The Government, which is represented by the Ministry of Finance in its dealings with GIC, neither directs nor interferes in the company’s investment decisions. It holds the board accountable for the overall portfolio performance.” However, the PAP prime minister, the two deputy prime ministers and the ministers for Trade and Industry and Education also sit on the board of directors. Lee Hsien Loong is the Chairman and Lee Kuan Yew is the Senior Advisor.

...

On the same day, the defendant published a link to the Article on his Facebook page and on The Heart Truths’ Facebook page.⁴

On 18 May 2014, the plaintiff, through his solicitors, issued a letter of demand to the defendant demanding that he:⁵ immediately remove the Article from the Blog; immediately remove the links to the Article on the defendant’s Facebook page and on The Heart Truths’ Facebook page; publish, at his own expense, within three days of the date of the letter of demand, an apology and an undertaking in terms of the draft which was enclosed to the letter of demand. The apology and undertaking were to be published without any amendment with prominence on the homepage of the Blog. The said apology and undertaking were to remain on the Blog for the same number of days that the Article remained on it; compensate the plaintiff by way of damages; and agree to indemnify the plaintiff in respect of the costs and expenses which he would have incurred in connection with the matter.

The defendant was requested to confirm in writing that he would comply with the demands, and provide an offer for damages and costs, within three days from the date of the letter of demand.⁶ The plaintiff, through his solicitors, agreed to extend the deadline to 23 May 2014.⁷

On 23 May 2014, the defendant published a statement on the Blog, stating that he recognised “that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund”, that “this allegation is false and completely without foundation” and that he had caused the plaintiff “distress and embarrassment” by the allegation.⁸

Also on 23 May 2014, the defendant’s solicitors wrote to the plaintiff’s solicitors stating that the defendant “recognises that the offending Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund” and that the defendant “admits and acknowledges that this allegation is false and completely without foundation”, and that the allegation had caused the plaintiff “distress and embarrassment”.⁹ On 27 May 2014, the defendant’s solicitors wrote to the plaintiff’s solicitor to offer $5,000 as damages.¹⁰

In SUM 3403/2014, the plaintiff applied to the Court to: construe the natural and ordinary meaning of the Disputed Words and Images, and enter interlocutory judgment in favour of the plaintiff for damages to be assessed and restrain the defendant from publication or dissemination of the allegation on the basis that the defendant has no defence to the plaintiff’s claim.

Issues

The issues before this Court are: whether the Disputed Words and Images, in the natural and ordinary meaning, are defamatory of the plaintiff; whether the defendant has any defence to the plaintiff’s claim in defamation; and whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction.

In Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and others [2010] 3 SLR 110 at [69]–[70], the Court of Appeal opined that: O 14 r 12 should be used in defamation for determination on meaning in tandem with the application for summary judgment; and the Court should refrain from making a ruling on the meaning pursuant to O 14 r 12 if there are triable defences. In ANB v ANF [2011] 2 SLR 1 at [61]–[62], Steven Chong J followed this approach, reasoning that the underlying purpose of O 14 r 12 was the saving of time and costs for the parties.

In the present case, the plaintiff has applied under SUM 3403/2014 for the Court to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the Disputed Words and Images pursuant to O 14 r 12, and to grant summary judgment pursuant to O 14 r 1, on the basis that the defendant has no defence to the claim. Accordingly, I first examine if there are any triable defences to the plaintiff’s claim in defamation before I consider the natural and ordinary meaning of the Disputed Words and Images.

Whether the defendant has any defence to the plaintiff’s claim in defamation

The sole defence, which is in para 17 of the amended defence, is that the law of defamation contravenes Art 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution”). Paragraph 17 of the amended defence states as follows:

Further and in the alternative the Defendant avers that by virtue of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution the Plaintiff has no cause of action against the Defendant as alleged in the Statement of Claim or at all.

The defendant submits that the plaintiff’s claim in defamation, which is based on common law, cannot stand because the right to freedom of speech cannot be restricted unless Parliament, by law, specifically provides for it.¹¹ The defendant’s submission is premised upon Art 14(1)(a) and Art 14(2)(a) of the Constitution, which states:

14.—(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —

(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;

...

(2) Parliament may by law impose —

(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1)(a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;

...

The defendant argues that only the Parliament has the constitutional competence under Art 14(2)(a) of the Constitution to enact laws imposing restrictions on the right to freedom of speech under Art 14(1)(a) of the Constitution.¹² This includes the law of defamation.¹³ Since the Parliament had not at any time enacted any law providing against defamation, the right to freedom of speech cannot be restricted by the law of defamation. It follows that the plaintiff has no cause of action in defamation against the defendant. The defendant says that the common law action of defamation is, in essence, unconstitutional.

This argument has in fact been considered in two cases before the Court of Appeal, namely Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew [1990] 1 SLR(R) 337 ...