Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian
Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian was a defamation suit brought by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong against blogger and financial commentator Leong Sze Hian, over Leong's November 2018 Facebook share of an article alleging Lee's involvement in Malaysia's 1MDB corruption scandal.
The High Court found Leong liable and ordered him to pay S$133,000 in damages in March 2021, followed by a further S$129,327.22 in costs and disbursements in May 2021 — a combined S$262,327.22 that Leong paid in full through two rounds of public crowdfunding.
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Court | General Division of the High Court of Singapore (Suit No 1185 of 2018) |
| Applicant/Plaintiff | Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore, suing in his personal capacity |
| Respondent/Defendant | Leong Sze Hian, columnist, financial adviser and self-described human-rights campaigner and government critic |
| Underlying act/statement | Sharing, without added commentary, a hyperlink to the article "Breaking News: Singapore Lee Hsien Loong Becomes 1MDB's Key Investigation Target — Najib Signed Several Unfair Agreements with Hsien Loong In Exchange For Money Laundering" (published on Malaysia-based site "The Coverage") on his public Facebook Timeline, 7 November 2018 |
| Charge/Cause of action | Defamation; defence included denial that the shared post bore the defamatory meaning alleged, an Article 14 constitutional defence, and an argument that the suit was an abuse of process under the Jameel and Derbyshire doctrines |
| Key dates | Article shared: 7 November 2018 (removed 10 November 2018, after an IMDA notice); letter of demand: 12 November 2018; writ filed: 20 November 2018; striking-out applications (SUM 148/2019, SUM 428/2019) decided: 2019, reported as Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2019] SGHC 66; trial: 6–7 October and 30 November 2020; judgment on liability and damages ([2021] SGHC 66): 24 March 2021; costs and disbursements order: 10 May 2021; full payment (damages, costs, disbursements) completed via crowdfunding: 15 May 2021 |
| Citation | [2021] SGHC 66 |
| Outcome | Judgment for the plaintiff; damages of S$133,000 (S$100,000 general, S$33,000 aggravated); injunction refused; costs of S$50,000 plus disbursements of S$79,327.22 later ordered (10 May 2021), for a total of S$262,327.22 |
| Related proceedings | Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling [2014] SGHC 230 and [2015] SGHC 320 (principal comparator case on quantum of damages) |
Background
On 7 November 2018, an article titled "Breaking News: Singapore Lee Hsien Loong Becomes 1MDB's Key Investigation Target — Najib Signed Several Unfair Agreements with Hsien Loong In Exchange For Money Laundering" was published on The Coverage, a Malaysia-based social news website.
The article claimed that ongoing Malaysian investigations into the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) fund were seeking "the secret deals between the two corrupted Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia" — a reference to Lee Hsien Loong and then-Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak — and alleged several "unfair agreements" between them, including over the Singapore–Malaysia High Speed Rail project.[1]
At around 6:16pm that day, Leong Sze Hian — a columnist and financial adviser who describes himself as a human-rights campaigner and government critic — shared a hyperlink to the article on his public Facebook Timeline, without adding any accompanying text or commentary.
The post displayed part of the article's title and an accompanying image. By 10:16pm, it had drawn 22 "reactions", five "comments" and 18 "shares".[1]
Singaporean government figures and agencies moved quickly to rebut the article: on 8 November 2018, The Straits Times reported responses from Minister for Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam and the Singapore High Commission in Malaysia refuting its contents, and on 9 November 2018 reported that the Monetary Authority of Singapore had filed a police report over a materially similar article on the States Times Review, which the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) had separately called "baseless and defamatory".
Leong removed his post at 7:30am on 10 November 2018, after reading an IMDA notice sent to him the previous night.
On 12 November 2018, he received a letter of demand from Lee's solicitors seeking a published apology and compensation, to which he did not reply. Lee filed the writ commencing the suit on 20 November 2018.[1]
Proceedings
Interlocutory applications
Before trial, Leong sought to counterclaim against Lee in the tort of abuse of process; Lee successfully applied to strike out that counterclaim (SUM 148/2019), and an appeal against that decision was dismissed.
Leong's own application to strike out Lee's claim (SUM 428/2019) was heard together and was unsuccessful; the court found there was a triable issue warranting trial, a finding reported separately as Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2019] SGHC 66.[1]
Trial and no-case-to-answer submission
At trial, held over 6–7 October and 30 November 2020 before Justice Aedit Abdullah, Leong made a submission of no case to answer at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, electing not to give evidence himself. This procedural choice meant the court had to determine liability without the benefit of Leong's own testimony or cross-examination on his state of mind, though the court noted this did not prevent an adverse inference being drawn on the question of malice.[1]
On the meaning of the shared post, applying the "natural and ordinary meaning" test affirmed in Review Publishing Co Ltd v Lee Hsien Loong [2010] 1 SLR 52 and Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling [2014] SGHC 230, the court held that an ordinary reasonable reader — assumed to have general knowledge of 1MDB-related news coverage, including reporting on funds traced to Najib Razak's personal accounts and forfeiture actions by the US Department of Justice — would understand the post to mean that Lee was complicit in 1MDB-related criminal activity and had used his position as Prime Minister to help launder funds from the scandal.[1]
Leong raised several defences, including that the post did not bear the defamatory meaning alleged, an Article 14 constitutional-free-speech defence in the same vein rejected in the Roy Ngerng litigation, and an argument, drawing on the English doctrines in Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] QB 946 and Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534, that the suit was an abuse of process given the limited reach of his repost relative to the original article's originators.
The court held Jameel was of limited direct application in Singapore and, in any event, highly fact-specific, and found no abuse of process on the facts.[1]
Judgment on damages
The court found the defamatory statement — implicating Lee in a cross-border misappropriation of another country's public funds carried out in cooperation with that country's own head of government — to be, in substance, worse than the allegation in the Roy Ngerng case, notwithstanding a far smaller reach: the court found Leong's post had been seen by a much smaller audience than the estimated tens of thousands of readers of Ngerng's blog.
The court considered Ngerng's case "the most appropriate comparator", noting Leong and Ngerng were of roughly comparable public standing — both "socio-political commentators who did not hold any formal positions of public office" — but found the malice and aggravation present in Leong's conduct to be less extensive than Ngerng's.[1]
Balancing the greater gravity of the allegation against the smaller reach and lesser aggravation, the court awarded S$100,000 in general damages — matching the general damages awarded in Roy Ngerng despite the far smaller readership — but only around a third of that sum, S$33,000, in aggravated damages, for a total of S$133,000.
The court declined to grant an injunction, reasoning that the greater risk of continued publication lay with the article's original publishers rather than with Leong, who had complied promptly with the IMDA notice and had not been shown to be at risk of reposting the material.[1]
Decision not to appeal
On 23 April 2021, Leong announced through his lawyer Lim Tean's firm, Carson Law Chambers, that he would not appeal the judgment, saying that the support he had received from the public was "far more valuable" to him than a possible successful appeal, and that there was "no greater verdict" than the judgment of the people of Singapore.[2]
Costs and disbursements
On 10 May 2021, having considered the parties' submissions, the court ordered Leong to pay a further S$50,000 in costs plus S$79,327.22 in disbursements — S$129,327.22 in total — on top of the S$133,000 in damages, bringing his total liability to S$262,327.22. On 12 May 2021, Lee's lawyers gave Leong a deadline of 17 May 2021 to pay the full amount.[3]
Aftermath: crowdfunded repayment
First round: the S$133,000 damages award
Following the March 2021 damages judgment, Leong launched a public crowdfunding campaign to raise the S$133,000 owed. On Easter Sunday, 4 April 2021 — the 11th day of the campaign — Leong announced on Facebook that he had raised the full amount, describing it as a "Miracle on Easter Sunday". A total of 2,065 people had contributed S$133,082, with donations ranging from S$2.91 to a single largest gift of S$5,000.[4]
Second round: costs and disbursements
After the 10 May 2021 costs order brought Leong's total liability to S$262,327.22, and with Lee's lawyers setting a 17 May 2021 deadline for payment, Leong launched a second crowdfunding drive to cover the additional S$129,327.22 in costs and disbursements.
In the 26 days before the deadline was announced, he had raised S$65,032, leaving a further S$64,295 to be raised in five days. Leong reported that Facebook had, for unexplained reasons, blocked him from sharing links to the campaign on his own page and in Facebook groups until 18 May 2021 — after the payment deadline — leaving him reliant on friends and supporters to relay updates through other channels.
The Online Citizen reported that no mainstream media outlet covered the payment deadline set by Lee's lawyers.[3]
Despite these obstacles, Leong announced on Facebook at 9:38pm on 15 May 2021 — two days ahead of the deadline — that the full S$262,327 had been raised, writing: "I am very very grateful for your support, concern and encouragement, over these two and a half years!"
Roy Ngerng, who had separately crowdfunded payment of his own defamation debt to Lee the previous month (see Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling), publicly congratulated Leong, and had earlier transferred the surplus raised in his own campaign — after fully repaying his S$125,000 outstanding balance at the time — to help toward Leong's costs.[3]
See also
- Leong Sze Hian
- Roy Ngerng
- Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling
- Lee Hsien Loong
- 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal
References
External links
- Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021 SGHC 66] — full judgment on liability and damages
- "Leong Sze Hian raises full sum for $133,000 defamation damages on Easter Sunday" — The Online Citizen, 4 April 2021
- "S$262,327 fully raised by Leong Sze Hian..." — The Online Citizen, 15 May 2021
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66, at [5]–[11].
- ↑ "'No greater verdict than the judgement of the people of Singapore' — Leong Sze Hian decides not to appeal against High Court judgement in libel case", The Online Citizen, 23 April 2021.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 "S$262,327 fully raised by Leong Sze Hian to pay defamation damages, cost and disbursement to Singapore Prime Minister", The Online Citizen, 15 May 2021, https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2021/05/15/s262327-fully-raised-by-leong-sze-hian-to-pay-defamation-damages-cost-and-disbursement-to-singapore-prime-minister.
- ↑ "Leong Sze Hian raises full sum for $133,000 defamation damages on Easter Sunday", The Online Citizen, 4 April 2021, https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2021/04/04/leong-sze-hian-raises-full-sum-for-133000-defamation-damages-on-easter-sunday.