Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng: Defamation, CPF Misappropriation Allegation

In Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling, the High Court of Singapore assessed damages payable by Roy Ngerng to Lee Hsien Loong for defamation. The court had previously found that Ngerng's article implied that Lee Hsien Loong was guilty of criminal misappropriation of Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies. The court considered the nature and gravity of the defamation, the parties' positions, the extent of publication, and the defendant's conduct in determining the appropriate amount of damages. The court ordered Ngerng to pay $150,000 in damages.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Roy Ngerng was found to have defamed Lee Hsien Loong. The court assessed damages payable for alleging criminal misappropriation of CPF monies.

1.7 Decision Date

16 December 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
LEE HSIEN LOONG	Plaintiff	Individual	Judgment for Plaintiff	Won	Davinder Singh, Angela Cheng, Samantha Tan, Imran Rahim
ROY NGERNG YI LING	Defendant	Individual	Damages assessed	Lost

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lee Seiu Kin	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Davinder Singh	Drew & Napier LLC
Angela Cheng	Drew & Napier LLC
Samantha Tan	Drew & Napier LLC
Imran Rahim	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

The defendant published an article on his blog that was found to be defamatory of the plaintiff.
The defamatory material conveyed the meaning that the plaintiff was guilty of criminal misappropriation of CPF monies.
The plaintiff issued a letter of demand to the defendant to remove the article and apologize.
The defendant removed the article and published an apology, but continued to make statements regarding the CPF.
The defendant sent emails to members of the international media regarding the lawsuit.
The plaintiff commenced legal proceedings against the defendant for defamation.
The court found that the defendant acted out of malice.

5. Formal Citations

Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling, Suit No 569 of 2014 (Assessment of Damages No 20 of 2015), [2015] SGHC 320
Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling, , [2014] SGHC 230

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2014-05-15	Article published on the Blog
2014-05-18	Letter of demand issued to the defendant
2014-05-19	Defendant published article 'I Have Just Been Sued By The Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong'
2014-05-20	Defendant published article 'YOUR CPF: The Complete Truth And Nothing But The Truth'
2014-05-21	Article removed from the Blog
2014-05-23	Apology Letter sent to the plaintiff’s solicitors
2014-05-23	Defendant published two articles on the Blog
2014-05-24	Defendant published article 'Roy Ngerng’s Message: Defamation Suit From Singapore Prime Minister'
2014-05-24	Video posted by the defendant on YouTube
2014-05-25	Defendant sent an email to members of the international media
2014-05-26	Defendant forwarded the First Email on two other occasions
2014-05-26	Defendant sent out the Second Email on three occasions
2014-05-26	Plaintiff’s solicitors sent a letter to the defendant’s then-solicitors
2014-05-26	Defendant published the 26 May Article
2014-05-27	Plaintiff’s solicitors sent a letter to the defendant’s then-solicitors
2014-05-27	Defendant’s then-solicitors offered $5,000 as damages to the plaintiff
2014-05-27	Defendant published the 27 May Article
2014-05-28	Defendant’s then-solicitors wrote to the plaintiff’s solicitors
2014-05-28	Defendant published the 28 May Article
2014-05-29	Plaintiff commenced legal proceedings
2014-11-07	Court found that the article was defamatory of the plaintiff
2015-12-17	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Defamation
- Outcome: The court found the defendant liable for defamation and assessed damages payable to the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Imputation of criminal misappropriation
  - Damage to reputation
  - Assessment of damages
- Related Cases:
  - [2010] 4 SLR 357
  - [1965] 2 QB 86
  - [2001] 1 SLR(R) 86
  - [2004] 1 AC 628
  - [2003] 1 QB 281
  - [1972] AC 1027
  - [2013] 4 SLR 629
  - [1988] 2 SLR(R) 252
  - [1995] 3 SLR(R) 38
  - [1996] 41 NSWLR 176
  - [2005] 1 SLR(R) 573
  - [1979-1980] SLR(R) 24
  - [2012] HKCFA 59
  - 1982 CarswellBC 2254
  - 71 Sask R 33
  - [2013] 1 WLR 1015
  - [1989] 2 SLR(R) 544
  - [2008] EWHC 1797 (QB)
  - 71 OR (3d) 416
  - [2009] EMLR 10
  - [2009] 1 SLR(R) 642
  - [1998] 2 SLR(R) 971
  - [2006] EMLR 5
  - [1979–1980] SLR(R) 255
  - [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576
  - [2010] 1 SLR 52
  - [2001] 2 AC 127
  - (1997) 145 ALR 96
  - [2006] EMLR 11
  - [2015] FCA 652
  - [2001] EMLR 18
  - [1995] 1 SLR(R) 856
  - [1996] 3 SLR(R) 942
  - [2014] SGHC 230
  - [1990] 1 SLR(R) 709

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
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 357	Singapore	Cited for the manner in which a plaintiff in a defamation suit may recover damages.
McCarey v Associated Newspapers Ltd (No 2)	N/A	Yes	[1965] 2 QB 86	England and Wales	Cited for the elements that compensatory damages may include.
Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor	N/A	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 86	Singapore	Cited for the functions of general damages in defamation actions and the circumstances the court will take into account in the assessment of general damages.
The Gleaner Co Ltd v Abrahams	Privy Council	Yes	[2004] 1 AC 628	N/A	Cited for the deterrent effect of general damages.
Kiam v MGN Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2003] 1 QB 281	England and Wales	Cited for the importance of awarding an adequate amount of damages in order for the award to be an effective deterrent.
Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1972] AC 1027	England and Wales	Cited for the role deterrence plays in the quantification of damages for defamation as a practical compromise.
Koh Sin Chong Freddie v Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 629	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the more closely defamation touches the plaintiff’s personal integrity, professional reputation, honour, courage, loyalty and the core attributes of his personality, the more serious it is likely to be.
Lee Kuan Yew v Seow Khee Leng	N/A	Yes	[1988] 2 SLR(R) 252	Singapore	Cited for the principle that charges of corrupt and criminal conduct can have severe repercussions, especially if levelled against the leader of a country.
Lee Kuan Yew and another v Vinocur John and others and another suit	N/A	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR(R) 38	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the allegation of nepotism and corruption levelled against the Senior Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister was an attack that would cause grievous harm to them in the discharge of the functions of their office and indignation on their part as it was an attack on the very core of their political credo.
Crampton v Nugawela	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	[1996] 41 NSWLR 176	Australia	Cited for the principle that the reputation of public leaders in Singapore can be considered to be their whole life.
Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan	N/A	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR(R) 573	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the public perception of prominent public figures' integrity will affect their effectiveness and standing, and they have the capacity to damage the reputations of those they speak ill of.
Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin	High Court	Yes	[1979-1980] SLR(R) 24	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the greater the standing of the defamer, the greater will be the impact of the defamation and degree of injury.
Oriental Daily Publisher Ltd and Anor v Ming Pao Holdings Ltd and others	Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal	Yes	[2012] HKCFA 59	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that the poor credibility of an accuser ought to be regarded as relevant to assessing general damages.
Randall v Weich	British Columbia Supreme Court	Yes	1982 CarswellBC 2254	Canada	Cited for the principle that if the accuser lacks credibility, his accusations against persons of good character and reputation for integrity are likely to do little harm.
Kohuch v Wilson	Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench	Yes	71 Sask R 33	Canada	Cited for the principle that damages would be attenuated by the fact that the defendant would not be taken seriously by most people.
Cairns v Modi	UK Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 1 WLR 1015	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a court should not confine the assessment of damages only to the publication to the original publishees, but should take into account the propensity of defamatory messages to “percolate through underground channels and contaminate hidden springs”.
Lee Kuan Yew v Davies Derek Gwyn and others	N/A	Yes	[1989] 2 SLR(R) 544	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the mode in which the publication was made was also considered.
Nigel Smith v ADVFN Plc and others	English High Court	Yes	[2008] EWHC 1797 (QB)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that communications on bulletin board posts are not taken as seriously as “they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out” and “it is often obvious to casual observers that people are just saying the first thing that comes into their heads”.
Barrick Gold Corporation v Lopehandia et al	N/A	Yes	71 OR (3d) 416	Canada	Cited for judicial pronouncements on the credibility of defamatory material on the internet, albeit in relation to bulletin board posts.
Adelson v Associated Newspapers Ltd (No 2)	English High Court	Yes	[2009] EMLR 10	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an apology that is not full or frank does not appease the feelings of the person defamed and does not undo the harm to the claimant's reputation.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit	N/A	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 642	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an immediate withdrawal of the Defamatory Material coupled with an apology by the maker of the defamatory statement is a mitigating factor.
Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin	N/A	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR(R) 971	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the maker of a defamatory statement made “recklessly, without considering or caring whether it be true or not” is “treated as if he knew it to be false” and had acted in malice.
Collins Stewart Ltd v The Financial Times Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2006] EMLR 5	England and Wales	Cited for the nexus the defendant’s subsequent conduct must have to the original defamatory statement.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1979–1980] SLR(R) 255	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the casting of aspersions over a plaintiff’s motives in the defamation action in question constitutes an aggravating factor.
Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew and another and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 576	Singapore	Cited for the principle that any argument which calls for a reduction or moderation of damages purely on the basis that the successful plaintiff is a politician, say a minister, or that the case has a political flavour is untenable and wrong.
Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 52	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the freedom of speech enshrined in Art 14(1)(a) of the Singapore Constitution is likewise ‘a right based on a constitutional or higher legal order foundation’ and, thus, freedom of expression is the rule and regulation of speech is the exception requiring justification could be taken into consideration in the assessment of damages.
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others	N/A	Yes	[2001] 2 AC 127	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that there is no interest in being misinformed.
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1997) 145 ALR 96	Australia	Cited for the principle that each member of the Australian community has an interest in disseminating and receiving information, opinions and arguments concerning government and political matters that affect the people of Australia.
Galloway v Telegraph Group Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2006] EMLR 11	England and Wales	Cited as an example of politicians successfully suing in defamation in their personal capacity.
Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited	Federal Court of Australia	Yes	[2015] FCA 652	Australia	Cited as an example of politicians successfully suing in defamation in their personal capacity.
Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] EMLR 18	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the Reynolds privilege is unlikely to apply for false allegations of criminal guilt.
Chiam See Tong v Xin Zhang Jiang Restaurant Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR(R) 856	Singapore	Cited as an example of awards that have been given to leaders of opposition parties who have succeeded in defamation actions.
Chiam See Tong v Ling How Doong and others	N/A	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR(R) 942	Singapore	Cited as an example of awards that have been given to leaders of opposition parties who have succeeded in defamation actions.
Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling	High Court	Yes	[2014] SGHC 230	Singapore	The judgment in respect of the plaintiff’s application in Summons No 3403 of 2014.
Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin	N/A	Yes	[1990] 1 SLR(R) 709	Singapore	The then-Prime Minister was awarded $260,000 in damages for an allegation that he had been implicated in the unlawful taking of a life for a sinister purpose.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Defamation
Central Provident Fund
CPF
Misappropriation
Damages
Blog
Letter of Demand
Apology
Malice
Freedom of expression

15.2 Keywords

defamation
CPF
Lee Hsien Loong
Roy Ngerng
Singapore
damages
misappropriation

16. Subjects

Defamation
Media Law
Constitutional Law

17. Areas of Law

Defamation Law
Civil Procedure