Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng: Defamation, Freedom of Speech, and Criminal Misappropriation Allegations
In Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling, the High Court of Singapore addressed a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, the Prime Minister of Singapore, against the defendant, a blogger, concerning an article published on the defendant's blog. The article implied the plaintiff was guilty of criminal misappropriation of Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies. The court found the article defamatory, rejecting the defendant's defense based on constitutional freedom of speech. The court granted interlocutory judgment to the plaintiff, ordering damages to be assessed and restraining the defendant from further publication of the defamatory allegations.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Interlocutory judgment granted to the plaintiff with damages to be assessed. The defendant is restrained from publishing the defamatory allegation.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment on defamation suit. Roy Ngerng accused Lee Hsien Loong of criminal misappropriation of CPF funds. Court found Ngerng's article defamatory.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Hsien Loong | Plaintiff | Individual | Interlocutory Judgment Granted | Won | |
| ROY NGERNG YI LING | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The defendant published an article on his blog entitled “Where Your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From The City Harvest Trial”.
- The article juxtaposed the City Harvest Church (CHC) case with the governance of the Central Provident Fund (CPF).
- The article included a chart mimicking a chart from the CHC case, replacing its contents with the plaintiff's name and the CPF logo.
- The plaintiff claimed the article implied he was guilty of criminal misappropriation of CPF monies.
- The defendant argued his article was about the government legally enriching itself with investment gains from CPF monies.
- The plaintiff issued a letter of demand to the defendant to remove the article and apologize.
- The defendant initially published an apology but later asserted he was 'right' to make the allegation.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling, Suit No 569 of 2014 (Summons No 3403 of 2014), [2014] SGHC 230
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Article published on the blog | |
| Plaintiff filed the writ of summons | |
| Defendant filed his defence | |
| Defendant filed an amended defence | |
| Plaintiff filed his reply | |
| Plaintiff applied for the Court to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the defamatory words | |
| Counsel for the parties made submissions on SUM 3403/2014 | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Defamation
- Outcome: The court found that the Disputed Words and Images convey the natural and ordinary meaning that the plaintiff, the Prime Minister of Singapore and the Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Defamatory Imputation
- Defamation by Implication
- Freedom of Speech
- Outcome: The court held that the right to freedom of speech under Art 14 of the Constitution is restricted by the law of defamation.
- Category: Constitutional
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Media
- Government
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 110 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that O 14 r 12 should be used in defamation for determination on meaning in tandem with the application for summary judgment and that the Court should refrain from making a ruling on the meaning pursuant to O 14 r 12 if there are triable defences. |
| ANB v ANF | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for following the approach in Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and others, reasoning that the underlying purpose of O 14 r 12 was the saving of time and costs for the parties. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 337 | Singapore | Cited for the holding that the right to freedom of speech is restricted by the law of defamation. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 791 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the decision in Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew [1990] 1 SLR(R) 337 and explaining that the right of free speech and expression under cl 1(a) of Art 14 is expressly subject to cl 2(a) of the same article. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Chin Vui Khen | High Court | Yes | [1991] 3 MLJ 494 | Malaysia | Cited for expressing a similar opinion to JJB v LKY (1992) regarding freedom of speech. |
| Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 52 | Singapore | Cited for holding that Parliament did enact legislation to expressly restrict the right to freedom of speech when the constitutional right came into existence in Singapore. |
| Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others | House of Lords | Yes | [2001] 2 AC 127 | England | Cited in the context of whether the Reynolds privilege is part of Singapore law. |
| Microsoft Corp and others v SM Summit Holdings Ltd and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 465 | Singapore | Cited for the test for determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the alleged defamatory words. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Goh Chok Tong | Unknown | Yes | [1983-1984] SLR(R) 745 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court decides what meaning the words would have conveyed to an ordinary, reasonable person using his general knowledge and common sense. |
| Rubber Improvement Ltd v Daily Telegraph Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1964] AC 234 | England | Cited for the principle that the natural and ordinary meaning of words includes reasonable inferences. |
| Gordon Berkeley Jones v Clement John Skelton | Unknown | Yes | [1963] 1 WLR 1362 | England | Cited for the distinction between inferences based on general knowledge and inferences based on extrinsic evidence. |
| Skuse v Granada Television Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] EMLR 278 | England | Cited for the characterisation of the hypothetical ordinary reasonable person. |
| Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 971 | Singapore | Cited for the characterisation of the hypothetical ordinary reasonable person. |
| Hasnul bin Abdul Hadi v Bulat bin Mohamed | Unknown | Yes | [1978] 1 MLJ 75 | Malaysia | Cited as an example of defamation by implication through a defamatory comparison. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 675 | Singapore | Cited for adopting a similar approach in comparing NKF and/or Durai on the one hand and the Government and/or the plaintiffs on the other hand. |
| ABZ v Singapore Press Holdings Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 648 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the whole publication must be examined in order to determine if it is defamatory. |
| Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto Sia | Unknown | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 639 | Singapore | Cited for the inquiry of whether the effect of the defamatory imputation is overcome by contextual matter of an emollient kind so as to eradicate the hurt and render the whole publication harmless. |
| Morosi v Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1980] 2 NSWLR 418 | Australia | Cited for the inquiry of whether the effect of the defamatory imputation is overcome by contextual matter of an emollient kind so as to eradicate the hurt and render the whole publication harmless. |
| Chin Bay Ching v Merchant Ventures Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 142 | Singapore | Cited for implicitly acknowledging the distinction between an interim injunction and a final injunction preventing the future publication of defamatory materials. |
| Chiam See Tong v Xin Zhang Jiang Restaurant Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 856 | Singapore | Cited for the approach on final injunctions granted in cases of defamation. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 14 r 1 of the Rules of Court |
| O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 14 | Singapore |
| Defamation Act (Cap 75) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Central Provident Fund (CPF)
- Defamation
- Freedom of Speech
- Criminal Misappropriation
- City Harvest Church (CHC)
- GIC Private Limited (GIC)
- Natural and Ordinary Meaning
- Interlocutory Judgment
- Injunction
15.2 Keywords
- defamation
- freedom of speech
- CPF
- Lee Hsien Loong
- Roy Ngerng
- Singapore
- High Court
- criminal misappropriation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Defamation | 95 |
| Constitutional Law | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Defamation
- Constitutional Law
- Media Law