Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling

2014–2015 Singapore defamation suit over a CPF blog post Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling was a defamation suit brought by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong against blogger Roy Ngerng over a May 2014 blog post that compared the Government's handling of Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies to the City Harvest Church criminal misappropriation trial. The High Court found the post defamatory and granted interlocutory judgment with a permanent injunction in November 2014, then assessed damages at S$150,000 (S$100,000 general, S$50,000 aggravated) in December 2015.

Field	Detail
Court	High Court of Singapore
Applicant/Plaintiff	Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC Private Limited
Respondent/Defendant	Roy Ngerng Yi Ling, blogger, author of "The Heart Truths to Keep Singaporeans Thinking"
Underlying act/statement	Blog post "Where Your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From The City Harvest Trial", published on Ngerng's blog and shared on Facebook, on or about 15 May 2014
Charge/Cause of action	Defamation (common law, as modified by the Defamation Act); sole pleaded defence was that the law of defamation was unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution
Key dates	Article published: 15 May 2014; letter of demand: 18 May 2014; writ filed: 29 May 2014; summary judgment/meaning application heard: 18 September 2014; judgment on liability and injunction ([2014] SGHC 230): 7 November 2014; damages assessment hearing: July 2015; judgment on damages ([2015] SGHC 320): 17 December 2015; costs agreed/due: 16 March 2016; repayment settlement reached: mid-March 2016, effective 1 April 2016; damages paid in full: 4 May 2021
Citation	[2014] SGHC 230 (liability and injunction); [2015] SGHC 320 (assessment of damages)
Outcome	Interlocutory judgment for the plaintiff; permanent injunction restraining republication of the allegation; damages of S$150,000 (S$100,000 general, S$50,000 aggravated) plus S$30,000 costs; damages repayable by instalment over up to 17 years (S$100/month for 5 years, then S$1,000/month), paid in full via crowdfunding on 4 May 2021
Related proceedings	Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew [1990] and [1992]; Review Publishing Co Ltd v Lee Hsien Loong [2010] 1 SLR 52 (cited as binding authority on the Article 14 defence)

Background

On or about 15 May 2014, Roy Ngerng, the owner and writer of the blog "The Heart Truths to Keep Singaporeans Thinking", published an article titled "Where Your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From The City Harvest Trial".

The article juxtaposed contemporaneous news coverage of the ongoing criminal trial of City Harvest Church founder Kong Hee and five co-defendants over alleged misuse of church building funds with a discussion of the lack of transparency in how CPF monies flowed into GIC and Temasek Holdings investments, alongside a chart purporting to show parallels between the two.

Ngerng also published a link to the article on his own Facebook page and on the blog's Facebook page.

On 18 May 2014, Lee Hsien Loong's solicitors issued a letter of demand requiring Ngerng to remove the article and related links, publish a prescribed apology and undertaking, compensate Lee by way of damages, and indemnify his costs.

On 23 May 2014, Ngerng published a statement on his blog and, through his own solicitors, wrote to Lee's solicitors acknowledging that the article meant and was understood to mean that Lee "is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund", that the allegation was "false and completely without foundation", and that it had caused Lee "distress and embarrassment".

On 27 May 2014, Ngerng's solicitors offered S$5,000 in damages, which Lee did not accept.

Lee filed the writ commencing Suit No 569 of 2014 on 29 May 2014.

Proceedings

Summary judgment and injunction ([2014] SGHC 230)

Lee applied under Summons No 3403 of 2014 for the court to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the disputed words and images under Order 14 Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, and for summary judgment under Order 14 Rule 1 on the basis that Ngerng had no defence.

Ngerng's sole pleaded defence was that the common law of defamation was unconstitutional, on the theory that Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees an unrestricted right to free speech unless Parliament specifically legislates a restriction, and that Parliament had never done so for defamation.

Justice Lee Seiu Kin held this argument was foreclosed by binding Court of Appeal authority — Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew [1990] 1 SLR(R) 337 and [1992] 1 SLR(R) 791, and Review Publishing Co Ltd v Lee Hsien Loong [2010] 1 SLR 52 — all of which had held that the constitutional right to free speech under Article 14 is, and always has been, subject to the common law of defamation as continued in force via Article 162 (formerly Article 105(1) of the 1963 State Constitution). The court accordingly found there was no triable defence.

On meaning, the court held that the article, read as a whole, conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader that Lee — as Prime Minister and Chairman of GIC — was guilty of criminal misappropriation of CPF monies, rejecting Ngerng's argument that the rest of the article (discussing the Government's legal enrichment from CPF investment gains) served as an "antidote" that put the City Harvest comparison in a non-defamatory light.

The court noted the test for meaning was objective, and that Ngerng's stated intention not to make such an accusation was accordingly irrelevant. On the question of an injunction, the court distinguished between interim and final injunctions, and held a final injunction requires evidence the defendant is likely to repeat the defamatory allegation.

Reviewing a sequence of events after the letter of demand — including Ngerng republishing links to the City Harvest/CPF comparison, asserting in a video that his allegation was "the truth" and that he did not "regret" making it, and privately directing media contacts to a mirror of the removed content after undertaking to take it down — the court found Ngerng had "manifested a propensity to repeat the defamatory allegation" and granted a final injunction restraining him from publishing the allegation "or any words and/or images to the same effect", declining Lee's broader request to extend the injunction to "any allegation to the same effect, by any means whatsoever" as unduly wide.

The court granted interlocutory judgment for Lee with damages to be assessed.

Assessment of damages ([2015] SGHC 320)

At the assessment of damages hearing in July 2015, Ngerng appeared in person, without counsel, and broke down under sustained cross-examination by Lee's counsel, Davinder Singh SC.

He maintained that he was being persecuted for speaking up on the CPF issue, while also apologising to Lee for the defamatory allegation.

Davinder Singh did not specify a figure but submitted that "a very high award of damages, including aggravated damages" was warranted, citing a series of prior defamation awards to Singapore prime ministers ranging from S$230,000 to S$260,000 in the 1980s (Lee Kuan Yew v Seow Khee Leng; Lee Kuan Yew v Derek Davies; Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin [1990] 1 SLR(R) 709) to sums exceeding S$300,000 more recently (Lee Kuan Yew v Vinocur John (1995); Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan (2005); Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party (2009)).

The court found Ngerng had acted with malice — Justice Lee Seiu Kin considered it likely that Ngerng had "cynically defamed" the Prime Minister in a bid to increase viewership of his blog — and that his conduct after publication was aggravating, warranting an award of aggravated as well as general damages.

However, it held a "substantial reduction" from the range awarded in the cited prime-ministerial precedents was appropriate, given that — unlike those earlier defendants, who included senior opposition politicians and international publications — Ngerng was, in the court's assessment, a defendant "of modest standing".

The court set damages at S$150,000, comprising S$100,000 in general damages and S$50,000 in aggravated damages, on 17 December 2015, and reserved the question of costs for further submissions.

Costs and repayment settlement (March 2016)

The costs of the assessment of damages hearing were separately agreed at S$30,000.

According to Lee's press secretary, Chang Li Lin, Ngerng initially asked to be released from the debt by paying only S$36,000 against the combined S$150,000 damages and costs owed; Lee responded that Ngerng would have to discharge the full debt, but offered to let him pay the S$150,000 in damages by instalments provided the S$30,000 costs were paid immediately.

Ngerng was given until 16 March 2016 to pay the costs.

Following negotiation between the parties' solicitors, a settlement on the repayment schedule for the damages was reached in mid-March 2016, announced by Suang Wijaya of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP, who represented Ngerng pro bono.

From 1 April 2016, Ngerng would pay S$100 a month for five years, rising to S$1,000 a month thereafter until the full S$150,000 was repaid — a schedule that, if followed exactly, would not be completed until 2033.

The instalments carried a default interest rate of 5.33% per annum, payable only if a payment was made late. Lawyers not involved in the case, speaking to Yahoo News Singapore at the time, described the length of the repayment period as unusual, since a judgment creditor is not typically willing to accept payment terms extending over such a long period.

Aftermath: settlement terms and crowdfunded repayment

Ngerng reached a settlement with Lee on the repayment schedule for the S$150,000 award: he would pay S$100 a month for the first five years, rising to S$1,000 a month thereafter until the full sum was repaid.

Ngerng, who said he had left Singapore after being unable to find employment and was by then based in Taiwan, said the S$1,000 instalment represented close to half his monthly income; at that rate, and with an outstanding balance of around S$144,000, he calculated he would still be paying off the debt as late as 2033.

In 2021, encouraged by friends and supporters, Ngerng revived a crowdfunding campaign to clear the remaining debt in full. He announced on 16 April 2021 that he had raised S$144,389.14 from more than 2,100 donors.

On 4 May 2021, he posted on Facebook a receipt from Lee's solicitors, Davinder Singh LLC, confirming the outstanding balance had been paid in full, ending what he called "the harassment" he had faced since the suit was filed.

He said the payment was intended as a collective message from his supporters: "It is not just the damages he asked for. It is a statement that each of you are sending, and I am glad to have helped you carry it to him."

Ngerng said he was considering directing any funds raised in excess of the outstanding balance to fellow bloggers Leong Sze Hian and Terry Xu, both separately sued for defamation by Lee. Ngerng's crowdfunding success followed a similar campaign by Leong Sze Hian, who raised over S$133,000 from more than 2,000 donors in 11 days in early April 2021 to satisfy a separate defamation award to Lee.

The Online Citizen reported that Singapore's mainstream media outlets were largely silent on both bloggers' crowdfunding campaigns and on Ngerng's completed repayment — with only The Straits Times reporting the latter among local outlets — even as international outlets including Bloomberg, Reuters and the South China Morning Post covered the story.

See also

• Roy Ngerng
• Leong Sze Hian
• Central Provident Fund
• Lee Hsien Loong
• Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew
• Review Publishing Co Ltd v Lee Hsien Loong

External links

• Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling [2014 SGHC 230] — full judgment, liability and injunction
• Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling [2015 SGHC 320] — full judgment, assessment of damages
• "It will take blogger Roy Ngerng a total of 17 years to pay damages..." — Yahoo News Singapore, 14 March 2016, on the costs order and repayment settlement
• "Blogger Roy Ngerng completes payment of S$150,000 in damages..." — The Online Citizen, 5 May 2021, on the crowdfunded repayment