Workers' Party v Tay Boon Too

• Judgment Date: 22 July 1975
• Date: 22 July 1975
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 41 of 1974
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Workers' Party

Plaintiff

and

Tay Boon Too and another

Defendant

[1975] SGCA 8

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

A V Winslow J

and

TKulasekaram J

Civil Appeal No 41 of 1974

Court of Appeal

Tort–Defamation–Publication–Claim that defamatory statement in Hokkien made at election rally–Plaintiff relied on reporter's English report based on Chinese notes taken during election–Reporter unable to recall actual Hokkien words used–Whether publication of words proved–Whether allegation that money had been received by political party for its election expenses from foreign country defamatory

The appellant (“WP”), a political party, commenced proceedings against the first respondent (“Tay”) for slander and against the second respondent, the Department of Broadcasting, Ministry of Culture, for libel.

WP alleged that Tay had published to persons attending an election rally defamatory words to the effect that WP had received a sum of $600,000 from a foreign country for its election expenses. In addition, WP claimed that the Department of Broadcasting had broadcast and published Tay's statement over its wireless transmission to the public. WP claimed that Tay's statement meant and was intended to mean that WP was acting in the interests of persons who were not citizens of Singapore, and that it was questionable whether WP's motives in contesting the elections were genuinely to serve the interests of the citizens of Singapore, or whether they were actually to serve the interests of foreigners.

WP alleged that the statement in question had been made by Tay in the Hokkien dialect during the election rally. WP relied on the testimony of a reporter (“Law”) for the Department of Broadcasting, who had taken down notes in Chinese in point form, before submitting to his news editor a report in English which translated what he had heard Tay say in Hokkien during the rally. Law was unable to produce the notebook in which he had jotted down his Chinese notes or to recall the actual Hokkien words used by Tay. WP did not call any other witnesses to prove the speaking of the words by Tay. The trial judge thus found that, in respect of Tay, WP had failed to prove publication of the words complained of. In respect of the second respondent, the Department of Broadcasting, the trial judge found that the words complained of were not defamatory.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The trial judge was entitled and was indeed bound to regard the absence of proof of the original or actual words in Hokkien as fatal to WP's claim against Tay. Law had no recollection of the words used in Hokkien and was only able to give evidence of his own translation of the notes he took in Chinese in point form. When a foreign language is used it is necessary for the appellant to prove the actual words published in that language and the English translation of those words. It was not sufficient for the witness to testify as to what he conceived to be the substance and the effect of such words: at [16], [18] to [20].

(2) An allegation that money has been received by a political party for its election expenses from a foreign country is not per se defamatory. The trial judge was right in deciding that the words in question were incapable of bearing or of being understood to bear the meanings alleged and that in fact, in their natural and ordinary meaning, they were not defamatory of WP: at [32] and [33].

Capital & Countries Bank v Henty (1882) 7 SC 741 (refd)

Rainy v Bravo (1872) LR 4 PC 287; 17 ER 427 (refd)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, TheO 78r 3 (1)

J B Jeyaretnam and Lee Tow Kiat (J B Jeyaretnam & Co) for the appellant

G S Hill and P Selvadurai (Rodyk & Davidson) for the first respondent

Tan Boon Teik (Attorney-General) and Warren Khoo (State Counsel) for the second respondent.

Wee Chong Jin CJ

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The Workers' Party, the appellant in this appeal, is a political party. Tay Boon Too, the first respondent, is a member of the People's Action Party, another political party. He was the People's Action Party candidate for the Paya Lebar constituency at the general election held on 2 September 1972.

2 At that general election the appellant fielded 27 candidates thereby contesting 27 seats out of 65 seats in Parliament. The People's Action Party fielded candidates for all the seats in Parliament.

3 At an election rally of the People's Action Party held at Lorong Tai Seng on 25 August 1972 the first respondent, Tay Boon Too, was one of many speakers. On the same evening at its regular 11.00pm news broadcast the Department of Broadcasting broadcast over the radio edited versions of speeches made at, several election rallies held by various political parties at various parts of Singapore. One of the edited versions broadcast that evening was the speech made by the first respondent at the election rally at Lorong Tai Seng. Some of the items broadcast over the radio at 11.00pm on 25 August 1972 were repeated in the regular news broadcast at 6.30am, 7.00am and 8.00am the next morning. The items containing the edited version of the first respondent's speech was so repeated. That item as broadcast reads as follows:

At another PAP rally in Lorong Tai Seng, the PAP's candidate for Paya Lebar, Mr Tay Boon Too, accused the Workers' Party of having received $600,000 from a foreign country for its election campaign.

4 The edited version of the first respondent's speech was prepared from a report in English by a reporter, Law Ah Ta, of the Department of Broadcasting who had attended...