Lee Hsien Loong v Xu Yuan Chen: Defamation, Damages, and Justification in Online Publication

In Lee Hsien Loong v Xu Yuan Chen and Rubaashini Shunmuganathan, the High Court of Singapore addressed a defamation claim brought by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong against Xu Yuan Chen, the Chief Editor of The Online Citizen, and Rubaashini Shunmuganathan, the writer of the allegedly defamatory article. The court found Xu liable for defamation, awarding damages of $210,000, including aggravated damages. Rubaashini, who did not enter an appearance, was also found liable, with damages assessed at $160,000, jointly and severally with Xu. The court also granted an injunction restraining Xu from further publishing the defamatory allegations.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore PM Lee Hsien Loong sues Xu Yuan Chen for defamation over an article. The court finds Xu liable, awarding damages for the defamatory statements.

1.7 Decision Date

31 August 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lee Hsien Loong	Plaintiff	Individual	Judgment for Plaintiff	Won	Davinder Singh of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Pardeep Singh Khosa of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Xu Yuan Chen	Defendant	Individual	Judgment against Defendant	Lost	Lim Tean of Carson Law Chambers
Rubaashini Shunmuganathan	Defendant	Individual	Judgment against Defendant	Lost

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Audrey Lim	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Davinder Singh	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Pardeep Singh Khosa	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Lim Tean	Carson Law Chambers

4. Facts

Lee Hsien Loong sued Xu Yuan Chen for defamation over an article published on The Online Citizen website.
The article concerned a family dispute between Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings regarding a property owned by their late father, Lee Kuan Yew.
The article alleged that Lee Hsien Loong misled his father into thinking that the property had been gazetted, causing him to change his will.
Xu Yuan Chen claimed the article was not defamatory and constituted fair comment.
The court found that the article's natural and ordinary meaning was defamatory of Lee Hsien Loong.
Xu Yuan Chen was found to have acted recklessly and with ill-will towards Lee Hsien Loong.
The article was viewed 98,338 times in August 2019.

5. Formal Citations

Lee Hsien Loong v Xu Yuan Chen and another suit, Suit No 882 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 206
Lee Hsien Loong v Xu Yuan Chen and another suit, Suit No 882 of 2019 and Suit No 1136 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 206

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1995-12-07	Lee Kuan Yew made a will.
2011-03-18	Lee Hsien Loong informed Lee Kuan Yew that he should inform the editors of his decision to demolish the House.
2011-04-18	Lee Hsien Loong informed the siblings that if they wanted the House torn down, the heirs should not benefit financially.
2011-07-18	Lee Hsien Loong proposed that the House be put in Lee Hsien Yang's name.
2011-07-19	Lee Hsien Loong proposed that Lee Kuan Yew state in his will that the House be torn down.
2011-07-21	Lee Kuan Yew met with Cabinet to express his wish to have the House demolished.
2011-08-11	Lee Kuan Yew informed his children that he had asked Lee Hsien Loong if he intended to retain the House as a heritage site.
2011-08-14	Lee Kuan Yew emailed Ho Ching stating that the House should be willed to Lee Hsien Loong.
2011-08-20	Lee Kuan Yew executed the 2nd Will, bequeathing the House to Lee Hsien Loong.
2011-12-10	Lee Kuan Yew informed Kwa Kim Li to change the will to bequeath the House to Lee Hsien Loong without any encumbrance.
2011-12-27	Lee Kuan Yew wrote to Cabinet repeating his wish to have the House demolished.
2012-01-02	Ho Ching emailed the siblings setting out a proposal to renovate the House.
2012-09-06	Lee Kuan Yew stated in an email to Kwa Kim Li that the House had been gazetted as a Heritage house.
2013-12-17	Lee Kuan Yew’s last will was dated.
2017-06-14	Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling issued a joint statement regarding the family dispute.
2017-07-04	Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling issued a joint statement regarding the family dispute.
2017-07-01	Lee Hsien Loong brought the matter to Parliament.
2019-08-14	Ho Ching shared an article on her Facebook page.
2019-08-15	Xu Yuan Chen published the Article on the TOC website.
2019-09-01	Lee Hsien Loong wrote to Xu Yuan Chen through his Press Secretary to inform him that the Article and TOC Post have made false and defamatory allegations against him.
2019-09-04	Xu Yuan Chen sent a letter to Lee Hsien Loong stating that the Article is not defamatory.
2019-09-04	Xu Yuan Chen made the Article accessible again on the TOC website.
2019-09-05	Lee Hsien Loong commenced Suit 882 against Xu Yuan Chen.
2019-11-05	Lee Hsien Loong commenced Suit 1136 against Rubaashini Shunmuganathan.
2020-11-30	Trial began.
2021-06-21	Trial concluded.
2021-09-01	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Defamation
- Outcome: The court found that the article published by Xu Yuan Chen was defamatory of Lee Hsien Loong.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Defamatory statements
  - Damage to reputation
Justification
- Outcome: The court rejected Xu Yuan Chen's defense of justification, finding that the claimed meanings were false and baseless.
- Category: Substantive
Damages
- Outcome: The court awarded Lee Hsien Loong $160,000 in general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages against Xu Yuan Chen.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Aggravated damages

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

Defamation

10. Practice Areas

Defamation Litigation

11. Industries

Media
Publishing

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
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 test for determining the natural and ordinary meaning of offending words in a defamation action.
Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto Sia	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 639	Singapore	Cited to support the principle that a defendant is not allowed to defend himself by showing that he did not intend to defame.
Stocker v Stocker	N/A	Yes	[2019] 3 All ER 647	N/A	Cited for the principle that the court must determine a single meaning and consider whether that meaning is defamatory.
Goh Chok Tong v Tang Liang Hong	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 1 SLR(R) 811	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court must determine a single meaning and consider whether that meaning is defamatory.
Rubber Improvement Ltd v Daily Telegraph Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1964] AC 234	N/A	Cited for the repetition rule, stating that repeating someone else’s libellous statement is just as bad as making the statement directly.
Mark v Associated Newspapers Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2002] All ER (D) 471	N/A	Cited for the rationale behind the repetition rule in defamation.
Brown v Bower and another	N/A	Yes	[2017] 4 WLR 197	N/A	Cited for the principle that the court must consider what the offending words would convey to the reader, viewed in the context of the publication as a whole.
Hewson v Times Newspapers Ltd and another	N/A	Yes	[2019] All ER (D) 120	N/A	Cited for the principle that the impact of the repetition rule on the meaning of allegations repeated by others must be mitigated or neutralised by material that is found within the same publication.
Yoon Shin Lee v Bob Chae-Sang Cha	N/A	Yes	[2005] NSWCA 279	N/A	Cited for the principle that the impact of the repetition rule on the meaning of allegations repeated by others must be mitigated or neutralised by material that is found within the same publication.
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 principle that the amended paragraph must be read in context of the amended article in which they are set out.
Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin and another action	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR(R) 971	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court may find a lesser defamatory meaning than that pleaded by the plaintiff.
V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 1422	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court may consider unpleaded claims where no prejudice is caused to the other party or where it would be clearly unjust for the court not to do so.
OMG Holdings Pte Ltd v Pos Ad Sdn Bhd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 231	Singapore	Cited for the principle that evidence given at trial, where appropriate, can overcome defects in the pleadings provided that the other party is not taken by surprise or irreparably prejudiced.
Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 86	Singapore	Cited for the nature of general damages and the relevant circumstances in determining the appropriate quantum of general damages.
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 nature of general damages and the relevant circumstances in determining the appropriate quantum of general damages.
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 relevant circumstances in determining the appropriate quantum of general damages.
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 compensatory objectives of damages for defamation includes vindicating the injured reputation of the plaintiff and consoling him for the wrong done to him.
Turley v Unite the Union and another	N/A	Yes	[2019] EWHC 3547 (QB)	N/A	Cited for the principle that adverse reactions to the publication expressed on social media was evidence that the publication had caused serious harm to the plaintiff’s reputation.
Suttle v Walker	N/A	Yes	[2019] EWHC 396 (QB)	N/A	Cited for the principle that libellous posts followed by a large number of aggressive and threatening comments directed at the plaintiff aggravated the damage done by the publication.
Lisle-Mainwaring v Associated Newspapers Ltd and another	N/A	Yes	[2017] All ER (D) 209 (Mar)	N/A	Cited for the principle that the court considered the cruel, ignorant and vindictive comments of the readers to the article and accepted that these comments must have been very upsetting to the plaintiff.
ABU v MGN Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2003] 1 WLR 2201	N/A	Cited for the principle that a defendant was fully entitled to rely on all matters in mitigation of damages, “for example”, where no one believed the defamatory words.
Brown v Marron	N/A	Yes	[2001] WASC 100	N/A	Cited for the principle that damages may be reduced if none of the persons to whom it was published believed in the truth of the material in the context where the publication was to a very small number of persons.
Clover Bond Pty Ltd v Carroll	N/A	Yes	[2004] WASC 216	N/A	Cited for the principle that where the publication was to a handful of persons, damages would be modest and may be further reduced if none of them believed in its truth.
Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1971] 1 WLR 1239	N/A	Cited for the principle that the quantum of damages had to be examined in light of the fact that “few, if any” of the readers had believed in the defamatory matter.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 642	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a plaintiff is presumed to have suffered damage to his reputation by reason of the defamation and does not have to prove that he has suffered financial loss or that any particular person has thought the worse of him as a result of the defamatory publication.
Lee Kuan Yew v Davies Derek Gwyn and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1989] 2 SLR(R) 544	Singapore	Cited for the definition of malice in defamation.
Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 1 SLR 506	Singapore	Cited for the two ways malice may be proven.
Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 46	Singapore	Cited for the principle that such republication was the natural and probable consequence of the publication of the Article.
Cairns v Modi	N/A	Yes	[2013] 1 WLR 1015	N/A	Cited for the “percolation phenomenon” where, as a consequence of modern technology and communication systems, a story has the capacity to “go viral” more widely and quickly than ever before.
Lee Kuan Yew v Seow Khee Leng	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1988] 2 SLR(R) 252	Singapore	Illustrates substantial damages awarded where the PM of Singapore is defamed.
Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1990] 1 SLR(R) 709	Singapore	Illustrates substantial damages awarded where the PM of Singapore is defamed.
Lee Kuan Yew and another v Vinocur John and others and another suit	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR(R) 38	Singapore	Illustrates substantial damages awarded where the PM of Singapore is defamed.
Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR(R) 573	Singapore	Illustrates substantial damages awarded where the PM of Singapore is defamed.
Lee Hsien Loong v Ngerng Yi Ling Roy	High Court	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 1321	Singapore	Illustrates substantial damages awarded where the PM of Singapore is defamed.
Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 66	Singapore	Illustrates substantial damages awarded where the PM of Singapore is defamed.
Toh Wee Ping Benjamin and another v Grande Corp Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 308	Singapore	Cited for the principle that where the claim is for an unliquidated amount, the quantum of the damages will have to be assessed and cannot automatically follow as a matter of admission.
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome	N/A	No	[1972] AC 1027	N/A	Cited for the lowest common denominator principle which requires it to assess damages by referring only to aggravating circumstances for which all defendants can properly be held responsible.
Chiam See Tong v Ling How Doong	High Court	No	[1996] 3 SLR(R) 942	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the lowest common denominator rule in Cassell v Broome is not applicable in Singapore.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Defamation Act (Cap 75, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Defamation
Justification
Damages
Malice
Repetition rule
Gazetted
Family dispute
Online Citizen
Lee Kuan Yew
Lee Hsien Loong

15.2 Keywords

Defamation
Singapore
Lee Hsien Loong
Xu Yuan Chen
Online Citizen
Family Dispute
Damages
Injunction

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Defamation	95
Damages	60
Evidence	30
Civil Procedure	25

16. Subjects

Defamation
Tort
Media Law