1  [Please note that this case has not been edited in accordance with the current Singapore Law Reports house style.]

2 1       There are altogether 13 actions for defamation which have come before me for assessment of damages. In 12 of the actions (12 actions) it is pursuant to an order of the High Court dated 10 March 1997 striking out the defences filed on the ground of non-compliance with orders of court and entering judgment against the defendant. In the thirteenth action (Suit No 244/97) the defence filed was struck out on the ground that it disclosed no defence.

3 The parties

4 2       I shall first give a brief account of the parties to the various suits as it is settled law that the standing of the parties is a pertinent consideration in assessing damages for defamation. There are altogether 11 individuals who are plaintiffs in the 13 actions. Except for Suit Nos 1116/96 and 244/97, there are two defendants to each action. The substantive defendant in each action is Mr Tang Liang Hong (Mr Tang). There is a second defendant, Madam Teo Siew Har, who is the wife of Mr Tang. She is made a defendant on the ground that she is holding assets for her husband. In Suit No 1116/96 there are five defendants, with Mr Tang being the first defendant and his wife the fifth defendant. The other three defendants are the editor-in-chief, publisher and printer of the journal wherein the defamatory remarks were published. In Suit No 244/97 the sole defendant is Mr Tang.

5 3       In Suit Nos 1116/96 and 172/97, the plaintiffs are Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong. In Suit Nos 2523/96, 181/96 and 182/96, the plaintiff is Mr Lee Kuan Yew and in Suit No 70/97, Mr Lee Hsien Loong.

6 4       Mr Lee Kuan Yew was the first Prime Minister of Singapore and had remained in that office until he stepped down on 27 November 1990. Since then he has been and is the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office. Hereinafter I shall refer to him as ‘SM Lee’. He founded the People’s Action Party (PAP) in 1954 and was first elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Singapore in 1955. He represented the constituency of Tanjong Pagar under the PAP banner. Since the independence of Singapore in 1965, he has been the Member of Parliament (MP) representing the same constituency.

7 5       Mr Lee Hsien Loong was first elected to Parliament in 1984. Before entering politics he was a Brigadier-General in the Singapore Armed Forces. Hereinafter I shall refer to him as ‘BG Lee’. On 2 January 1985 he was appointed Minister of State. On 1 January 1987 he was promoted to the rank of Cabinet Minister. On 28 November 1990 he was appointed Deputy Prime Minister and has been holding that office to the present.

8 6       In Suit Nos 2524/96, 187/97 and 244/97 the plaintiff is Mr Goh Chok Tong, the Prime Minister of Singapore. Hereinafter I shall refer to him as ‘PM Goh’. He has held that office since November 1990. Before that, from January 1985 to November 1990 he was the first Deputy Prime Minister. PM Goh first entered politics in 1976 when he was elected a Member of Parliament.

9 7       In Suit No 76/97 the plaintiff is Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam who was first elected into Parliament in February 1979. He was immediately appointed Senior Minister of State. In 1980 he was appointed Cabinet Minister and thereafter served in various ministries. In December 1991 he stepped down from Cabinet, while remaining an MP and became the Chief Executive Officer of the Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation, a leading local bank. In August 1995 he rejoined Cabinet and was appointed Deputy Prime Minister, the post he now holds.

10 8       In Suit No 82/97, the plaintiff is Mr Lee Yock Suan. He is currently the Minister for Trade & Industry and the second Minister for Finance. Immediately before that, he was the Minister for Education. In December 1980, Mr Lee was first elected a Member of Parliament for the constituency of Cheng San. In 1981 he was appointed Minister of State. In 1987 he was appointed Cabinet Minister.

11 9       In Suit Nos 2525/96 and 188/97, there are six plaintiffs in each of these actions, namely, M/s Teo Chee Hean (RADM Teo), Ch’ng Jit Koon (Mr Ch’ng), Ow Chin Hock (Dr Ow), Chin Harn Tong (Mr Chin), Ker Sin Tze (Dr Ker) and Seng Han Thong (Mr Seng).

12 10     RADM Teo is now the Minister for Education and the second Minister for Defence. Before entering politics in 1992 he was the Chief of the Republic of Singapore Navy. Upon being elected a Member of Parliament he was appointed Minister of State.

13 11     Mr Ch’ng first entered Parliament in 1968 and was a Member of Parliament for 28 years before he retired at the last General Election. He first held office in the Government in 1982 when he was appointed Senior Parliamentary Secretary (Prime Minister’s Office). In 1985 he was promoted to the position of Minister of State and was further promoted to Senior Minister of State in 1991.

14 12     Dr Ow is presently the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and the Mayor of the Tanjong Pagar Community Development Council. He has been a Member of Parliament since 1976, representing the constituency of Leng Kee. From 1977 to 1981 he held the office of Parliamentary Secretary. Between 1991 to 1993 he was the chairman of the panel for the Chinese Development Assistance Council. From November 1993 until early this year he was the Executive Chairman of Pan- United Corporation Ltd, a public listed company.

15 13     Mr Chin was a Member of Parliament from 1972 until the last General Election earlier this year when he stepped down. During that period, he held various positions in the government: first as Political Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs from 1977 to 1978 and later as Parliamentary Secretary and Senior Parliamentary Secretary in the same ministry.

16 14     Dr Ker is presently the Managing Director of Yenom Holdings Pte Ltd and Chairman of Superior Metal Ltd. He first entered Parliament in 1991. He is still a Member of Parliament having been returned at the last General Election in the Group Representational Constituency of Aljunied (Aljunied GRC). During the period from 1992 to 1994 he was the Minister of State for the Ministry of Information and the Arts and the Ministry of Education. Between 1994 and 1996 he was the chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law. Since 1994 he has been the vice-chairman of the Chinese Development Assistance Council.

17 15     Mr Seng is presently the director of the Administration and Research Unit of the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC). Before joining NTUC he was a journalist for 21 years. He is also the vice-president of the Seng Clan Association and a member of the board of directors of, inter alia, SBS Bus Service Pte Ltd and SBS Leisure Ltd.

18 16     Mr Tang was a practising advocate and solicitor of 28 years standing until he fled Singapore on 4 January 1997. His practising certificate as an advocate and solicitor lapsed on 31 March 1997. He was a prominent member of the Chinese community. For some years now he has been and is a strong advocate of Chinese culture and language and seeks to prevent what he considers to be their corruption by western values. He founded the Chinese Institute of Education and Culture. At various times, he has been a director of Singapore Chinese High School, a council member of Hwa Chong Alumni Association, a director of the Hwa Chong Education Foundation, a member of the management committee of Hwa Chong Junior College, a director of Nanyang Arts Services Pte Ltd and a director of Nanyang Fine Arts Foundation Ltd. He has also held directorships in various other companies.

19 17     Although the 13 actions are separate actions, based on separate torts and not consolidated, there are facts which are common or linked. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, this combined judgment is issued and I shall deal with them as a whole. Wherever appropriate and convenient I shall refer to the plaintiffs in all the actions collectively as ‘the PAP leaders’.

20 18     Although at the commencement of these assessment proceedings, Mr Tang’s counsel were present in court, they were instructed by him not to take part in the proceedings. Pursuant to his instructions, his counsel also applied to be excused from attendance in court. As I felt it would be desirable to have the presence of his counsel even though they could not ask questions as instructed by him, I did not accede to the request. However, in order to ensure that his counsel were not present, he subsequently discharged them. Thus the court was completely deprived of any assistance from Mr Tang or his counsel. Evidence adduced by the plaintiffs before me was therefore unchallenged.  

21 The facts

22 19     Sometime in March 1996 there was some public disquiet as to the circumstances surrounding the purchases by SM Lee and BG Lee of certain apartments at two new developments called ‘Nassim Jade’ and ‘Scotts 28’ (the HPL purchases) from a public listed company, Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL). As a result, PM Goh directed an investigation be carried out by the Finance Minister, Dr Richard Hu and Mr Koh Beng Seng, the deputy managing director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore. PM Goh did not think it necessary to appoint a commission of inquiry. On 21 May 1996 the findings of their investigation were presented to Parliament by Dr Richard Hu clearing both SM Lee and BG Lee of any impropriety concerning the purchase of the apartments. Both SM Lee and BG Lee also gave full accounts of their purchases to demonstrate that they were wholly above board. Even opposition Members of Parliament spoke and accepted that there was no wrongdoing or impropriety. The matter rested there.

23 20     Suddenly in the 2 June 1996 issue of Yazhou Zhoukan (a Chinese language publication of Hong Kong with a wide circulation in Singapore) an article appeared touching on the purchases by SM Lee and BG Lee, which ended with the following remarks attributable to Mr Tang, an English translation of which is:

24 This matter should be referred to professional agencies such as the Commercial Affairs Department or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. The reports put up by them will be more convincing to the people. Koh Beng Seng and Finance Minister Richard Hu are after all not experts in this field.

25 21     The defendant does not deny that he made those remarks to Yazhou Zhoukan with a view to publication. Indeed on the evidence before me, I find that he made them knowing that they would be published. This comment is the subject of the action in Suit No 1116/96. There are four main defendants to that action, and the other three defendants, who are from Yazhou Zhoukan, have all tendered their apology (the apology was published in Yazhou Zhoukan) and have paid damages of $450,000 each to SM Lee and BG Lee. A settlement with the other defendants does not preclude the plaintiffs from pursuing Mr Tang and recovering the difference between what I may award and the sum already paid by the other defendants: see Lee Kuan Yew v Vinocur [1996] 2 SLR 542.

26 22     Before instituting Suit No 1116/96 the defendant was given an opportunity to retract and apologise. He refused stating that the offending words were not defamatory, that he did not intend to defame and to the extent that anyone understood the offending words in a defamatory sense he withdrew them. He has also pleaded the defence of fair comment.

27 23     In December 1996, the Government announced that the General Election would be held on 2 January 1997 and that nomination day was to be on 23 December 1996. Mr Tang was one of the Workers Party (WP) candidates to contest at Cheng San GRC. The PAP team to contest in that GRC was led by Mr Lee Yock Suan. PM Goh and SM Lee were gravely concerned about Mr Tang entering the election. This was because of the views the latter had expressed in the past. He advocated the superiority of the Chinese language and culture. He wanted Chinese-educated Singaporeans to play a more prominent role in the administration of the affairs of Singapore. He even suggested that the Chineseeducated should sit in the sedan chair to be carried by others.

28 24     PM Goh and SM Lee were concerned that if Mr Tang were to get into Parliament, he would use it as a platform to propagate his chauvinistic views. Singapore being a multi-racial society, such activities would be highly dangerous. In their view, anyone who tries to work up communal feelings ‘over specious dangers to Chinese language and culture has to be stopped early’. They felt it was and is important to maintain policies of accommodations and tolerance amongst all races, with English as the working language. In their view, Singapore has to be careful when dealing with highly emotive matters like language and culture. Thus, to them, it was vital that Mr Tang should be kept out of Parliament where he could potentially do great harm.

29 25     The PAP leaders relied upon the following facts and circumstances to come to the conclusion that Mr Tang is a Chinese chauvinist and a dangerous character. As early as in 1992 when Mr Tang was proposed as a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), five PAP MPs then (one had since passed away), in their separate and confidential communications to the Speaker of Parliament, and without consulting each other, gave their respective opinions on the suitability of appointing Mr Tang as an NMP. In his note to the Speaker dated 6 August 1992, Mr Ch’ng stated:

30 2       I have no objection to all other nominations except Mr Tang Liang Hong.

31 3       Based on my experiences and observations in coming into contact with Mr Tang, I find his views and opinions on ethnic and cultural issues rather extreme and insensitive. He is inclined to speak like a ‘Chinese chauvinist’ to the discomfort of other races.

32 4       In the interest of maintaining our racial harmony, it may not be prudent to allow him any opportunity for free expression of his chauvinistic views on ethnic and cultural issues in Parliament.

33 It will be seen that well before Mr Tang contemplated entering politics, Mr Ch’ng has already called Mr Tang a ‘Chinese chauvinist’.

34 26     Mr Ch’ng told this court that he formed those views on Mr Tang after having had several conversations with the latter at different functions over a period of time. Mr Tang used to emphasise that the English-educated were dominating the whole of society and the Government, whilst the Chinese-educated had no opportunity for advancement.

35 27     In his note of 6 August 1992 to the Speaker, Dr Ker commented on Mr Tang as follows:

36 2        Mr Tang holds radical views on the promotion of Chinese language and culture. In September 1991, he formed a small group which argued that the number of hours spent teaching in Chinese in primary schools should be substantially increased, up to at least 45% of total teaching hours. In November 1991, he said that ‘English educated Chinese, who do not have a good grasp of their culture, and do not feel embarrassed about it, are likely to lack respect for their own kind, and confidence in themselves.’ He also said that ‘The type of knowledge that really matters in life, and which determines the quality of life for the Chinese people, can only be expressed in Chinese, not English’ (Sunday Times, 3 November 1991).

37 3        The majority of the Chinese community do not share these views. Mr Tang’s group initially comprised 25 persons, but eventually only 6 persons signed the press statement. Many of the remainder dissociated themselves from the group.

38 4       If Mr Tang is selected, he will probably reiterate these views in Parliament. While all views are entitled to be heard in a democracy, the committee should nevertheless consider whether appointing Mr Tang may indirectly lend legitimacy to his radical viewpoint on what remains a sensitive issue in our multi-racial society.

39 28     Mr Chin who knew Mr Tang since the early sixties when both of them were undergraduates at the then Nanyang University, told the Speaker of his impression of Mr Tang as follows (dated 8 August 1992):

40 My impression was that he liked to play to the gallery on a popular issue like the Chinese education issue prevailing then. Nonetheless, despite his professed view of the Chinese education, he had enrolled in an English language institution at a time when his fellow supporters would have looked upon such a move as unthinkable. Since then until very recently, I have not known him to have any public view on Chinese education. He began to speak up publicly on the subject after the 1991 General Election focused attention on it once again. The problem seems to be that he likes to be in the limelight.

41 29     In his note of 11 August 1992 Dr Ow, while noting that Mr Tang has contributed to the Chinese community by serving in trade associations, clan associations and the Chinese High School Alumni and helping to restore the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts, made two reservations about him:

42 (i) he has taken extreme positions on some issues such as Chinese language, culture and civilization and (ii) he is emotional and temperamental.

43 30     In his written statement which he affirmed before me, Dr Ow related an incident at a feedback dialogue session held on 7 July 1995 at the Ministry of Community Development. On that occasion Mr Tang stated that the political power in Singapore was concentrated in the English-educated elite whilst the Chinese-educated were left out of the mainstream. He noted that although Christians represented only 14% of the total population, there were too many of them as politicians or senior civil servants. He expressed concern that due to their language and religious backgrounds, the policies set by such politicians and civil servants might not be in the interest of the majority.

44 31     Another of the PAP leaders who was in December 1996 very concerned of Mr Tang entering Parliament was RADM Teo. This was because of some of his personal encounters with Mr Tang. He recalled that on 7 August 1994 he heard Mr Tang expressed Chinese chauvinistic views at the Zheng Yi Association dinner in Mandarin at which he was present. In his speech Mr Tang had highlighted the prominence of English-educated people and Christians in Cabinet and in the Civil Service and that this was a problem which the Chinese- educated would have to deal with. He said that Christians were over-represented in the Government and suggested that they were using their power for the benefit of other Christians.

45 32     RADM Teo told this court that he was taken aback by what Mr Tang said in his speech and felt that those views were very dangerous and disturbing. They contradicted Singapore’s system of meritocracy. RADM Teo recalled that after the speech he clearly told Mr Tang that his speech was quite improper and dangerous and that what he tried to imply was outrageous.

46 33     There was again another occasion in 1993 or 1994 when both Mr Tang and RADM Teo were seated at the same table at a function. RADM Teo recalled Mr Tang expressing extreme views on Chinese culture, language and civilization.

47 34     In April 1996, soon after it was made known that Mr Seng would become a PAP candidate to contest the forthcoming General Election, he received a telephone call from Mr Tang congratulating the former on his entry into politics. In the conversation Mr Tang told Mr Seng that more Chinese-educated people were needed in Parliament and that there were too many Christians in Cabinet.

48 35     There is evidence before me that following Mr Tang’s unsuccessful bid to get into Parliament as an NMP, he was very disappointed and angry. In 1992 BG Lee was a member of the Special Select Committee of Parliament which interviewed but did not nominate him to be an NMP. In fact BG Lee questioned him at some length during the interview. Mr Tang felt that the Chinese language was not given sufficient prominence and that the Chinese speaking did not get sufficient assistance as well as sufficient representation in Parliament. His deep disappointment for not being selected could be seen from his remarks reported in the 20 September 1992 issue of Yazhou Zhoukan.

49 36     In August 1996 he went so far as to say that the Chinese-educated should be the ones sitting on the sedan chair to be carried by others. The above instances have led the PAP leaders to conclude that Mr Tang is an anti-English educated, anti-Christian chauvinist. On the evidence before me, they are amply justified in coming to such a conclusion.

50 37     In the light of what was known of Mr Tang, PM Goh, SM Lee and his Cabinet colleagues decided to expose him. They felt that if his views were allowed to spread and gain influence, they would gravely undermine the very foundation of our multi-racial society. From 26 December 1996, they spoke out against him exposing his extreme views on Chinese language and culture. SM Lee called him an anti-Christian and an anti-English-educated Chinese chauvinist. Mr Tang denied being a Chinese chauvinist and said that the PAP was deliberately running him down to scare the electorate. All these were widely covered by the local media.

51 38     On 28 December 1996 Mr Tang’s solicitors sent a letter to PM Goh and SM Lee demanding a retraction and an apology for calling him a Chinese chauvinist. On 29 December 1996 both PM Goh and SM Lee replied through their solicitors rejecting the demand and inviting him to sue. To date no action has been taken by Mr Tang pursuant to that threat. By not taking any action it seems his threat to sue was merely a ploy to win him the support or sympathy of the voters of Cheng San GRC.

52 39     On 30 December 1996 Mr Tang gave an interview to a Straits Times reporter, Mr Ahmad Osman. It was intended that the interview be published and it was reported in the Straits Times the next day. The interview related to his being labelled by the PAP leaders as an anti-Christian Chinese chauvinist. When asked if he was going to sue, he replied:

53 Of course I am going to sue them. Not only that, I am going to lodge a police report against them for criminal offence. They are telling lies. They are defaming, assassinating my character. They concocted lies and go on television and spread the lies. I am not going to do it now. I have no time. What is the hurry? No need to hurry. [Emphasis added.] 

54 Later in that same interview, he further said:

55 Their logic is if I don’t come to deny, then I am admitting it. What kind of logic are they talking about? I hope voters will understand this kind of situation. The PAP say that they are people of good character. They are resorting to this ‘below-the-belt’ hitting tactic. What character are they talking about. [Emphasis added.]

56 The above slanderous and libellous remarks formed the subject of Suit Nos 2523 to 2525/96. Extracts of the interview were republished in the Business Times, the Lianhe Zaobao and the Berita Harian of 31 December 1996.

57 40     On the same day, 31 December 1996, PM Goh and SM Lee’s solicitors wrote to Mr Tang demanding that he publish a full retraction and apology and pay damages and costs. He was given a deadline by 6 pm on 1 January 1997 to respond. At a WP rally on the evening of 1 January 1997 Mr Tang very proudly told a large crowd that he was not going to apologise.

58 41     In the meantime, on 31 December 1996, Mr Tang, at three separate WP rallies held that day, besides repeating the allegation that they (the PAP leaders) had fabricated a lot of rumours of him being a chauvinist, also raised again the matter of the purchases by SM Lee and BG Lee from HPL. First, at a lunch-time rally at UOB Plaza where there was an estimated attendance of 5,500 people, he said in English:

59 But I believe one of the issues they are afraid that I may raise is, once I enter Parliament, I may raise issue on HPL … so … whether this issue need to be looked in certain aspect like for instance … what is the purpose of offering him the discount? [Emphasis added.]

60 This statement obviously implied that SM Lee and BG Lee acted improperly in relation to the purchases and that they had offered something in exchange for the discounts given by HPL. In other words he was suggesting that both of them had accepted the discount and in exchange would confer some benefit or favour to HPL.

61 42     Second, at a rally at Hougang Stadium before a crowd of some 22,000 people he uttered the following obviously defamatory words in Mandarin:

62 We will be raising the issue on HPL. This is their death blow. Because of this, they are very excited and nervous. So they have fabricated a lot of rumours saying that I am a chauvinist, that I am against a certain religion. [Emphasis added.]

63 43     Third, at a rally at Hougang Avenue 7 attended by a crowd of about 8,000 he said the following in Mandarin:

64 Why must they still try to stop us from entering Parliament? … They are afraid that we will raise all sorts of problems in Parliament, including the sale of properties from HPL … [Emphasis added.]

65 and the following in English:

66 They are worried that the opposition party gets into Parliament to raise a lot of problems, including the HPL problem.

67 Quite clearly, by the above remarks Mr Tang was alleging that SM Lee and BG Lee had behaved improperly and were anxious, for that reason, to stifle further inquiry into the matter.

68 44     The above quoted remarks made by Mr Tang at the three rallies on 31 December 1996 are the subject matter of the action in Suit No 172/97. The words clearly meant that SM Lee and BG Lee were guilty of corruption or other misconduct in relation to the HPL purchases and thus were afraid that Mr Tang would reopen the matter in Parliament if elected, because such inquiry would reveal wrongdoings on their part and terminate their careers in public life in disgrace.

69 45     On 1 January 1997, the eve of polling day, Mr Tang lodged two police reports at the Kreta Ayer Neighbourhood Police Post. In one of the reports he wrote:

70 … From 25th December 1996, the following persons, namely:

71 (1)         Goh Chok Tong

72 (2)         Teo Chee Hean

73 (3)         Lee Yiok Suan (sic)

74 (4)         Ow Chin Hock

75 (5)         Tony Tan

76 (6)         Ker Sin Tse (sic)

77 (7)         Chin Harn Tong

78 (8)         Ch’ng Jit Koon

79 (9)         Lee Kuan Yew

80 (10)       Seng Han Tong (sic)

81 (11)       Lee Hsien Loong

82 systematically on various occasions and on various dates alleged and made various statements to make or cause the public to believe the following:

83 1       I am an anti-Christian Chinese chauvinist;

84 2       I am anti-English-educated;

85 3       some of my statements will cause social and racial disharmony and disruption in Singapore.

86 The abovementioned statements and allegations are groundless and without factual basis and are intended to harm my reputation and to defame me.

87 As a result of their concerted actions and statements repeated over the mass-media, they:

88 1          1have incited certain groups of people to believe that I am an anti-Christian and anti-English-educated person;

89 2          2are likely to incite religious extremists to hate me and cause harm to me and members of my family;

90 3          3have also repeatedly challenged and provoked me to make statements in public which they say may cause social disorder in Singapore.

91 …

92 I hereby request the police to investigate on an urgent basis …

93 46     In this police report, BG Lee and Dr Tony Tan were brought in because the day before, both of them issued a statement declaring their support for PM Goh in his campaign to expose Mr Tang as a Chinese chauvinist who is anti-Christian and anti-English educated. The police report was released to the media through the Secretary General of the WP at a rally that evening and it was carried in the media on 2 and 3 January 1997. Mr Tang knew and intended that the report would be so published. It was so timed to extract maximum political advantage as polling was on the next day. It is quite clear that by that report he was suggesting:

94 (i)    that the 11 PAP leaders had made groundless and baseless allegations about him and that they intended to defame him dishonestly and for some ulterior purpose;

95 (ii)   that they had committed the offence of criminal conspiracy and/or incitement; and

96 (iii)   that they have committed the offence of criminal defamation.

97 47     This police report formed the subject-matter of Suit Nos 70/97, 76/97 and 82/ 97. The allegations disparaged the integrity and honesty of the respective plaintiffs and were made with a view to obtaining political advantage.

98 48     On 3 January 1997 Mr Tang repeated and aggravated the defamation when he spoke at a post-election press conference, which was reported in an article in the Straits Times as follows:

99 Workers’ Party candidate Tang Liang Hong yesterday repeated his remarks that the Prime Minister, the Senior Minister and six other PAP members were lying when they labelled him an anti-Christian Chinese chauvinist.

100          Speaking to reporters at a post-election press conference, the 61-year-old lawyer said that he had not sought a court injunction to stop the PAP leaders and members from repeating their comments so that he could claim aggravated damages from them later.

101          Asked when he would initiate legal action against Mr Goh Chok Tong, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the others, he said: ‘What is the hurry. They can keep on repeating the same lie. I called it a lie. I am still calling it a lie. They can repeat it.’

102          ‘I believe I will get more damages, that’s all. Why should I go and get an injunction to stop them from repeating it and assure them less damages,’ said the losing candidate for Cheng San GRC …

103 49     On or about 4 January 1997, Mr Tang, instead of suing the PAP leaders for calling him a Chinese chauvinist, quietly slipped out of Singapore. Thereafter he continued to behave recklessly, aggravating on almost a daily basis the defamatory remarks he had earlier uttered. Indeed his words and actions indicated that he was not going to return to Singapore and was out to do maximum damage. I shall now touch on some of the major instances, which gave rise to further actions against him.

104 50     In a telephone interview he gave to a journalist at Kuala Lumpur on 10 January 1997, which he intended should be published in the Straits Times and which was in fact published on 11 January 1997, the following, inter alia, appeared:

105 Mr Tang Liang Hong said last night that besides fearing for his safety, he fled Singapore because he was concerned that he would be arrested by the authorities.

106 ‘They were building up this case against me. I could see where it was all heading. I wanted to leave Singapore and be given a chance to tell the world that I am not who they say I am.’

107 ‘Once I go back to Singapore, there is a possibility that I may be locked up and not be given a chance to defend myself’, he said.

108 The Workers’ Party candidate for Cheng San GRC made these points in a telephone interview.

109          He again declined to reveal his whereabouts, adding that he might return to Singapore in a few days.

110          When told that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had given an assurance that he would not be arrested, he laughed, adding: ‘Do you think I should believe him?’

111          He said that many years ago, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew had given some Nanyang University students a similar assurance. A few days later, some of them were arrested. Mr Tang, 61, said that he did not discount being arrested under the Internal Security Act, especially since he had been accused of playing international games. [Emphasis added.]

112 51     There are quite clearly two defamatory remarks in that report. First against PM Goh, that he is not a trustworthy person, and that he does not keep to his word. This formed the subject matter of Suit No 244/97. Second, that SM Lee is also an untrustworthy person because he had lied and deceived some Nanyang University students when he had them arrested. It is a lie on Mr Tang’s part to allege that SM Lee (then the Prime Minister) had breached that assurance. There were contemporaneous media reports which clearly showed that that allegation was wholly false. This formed the subject matter of Suit No 182/97.

113 52     I should mention that in the defence filed to Suit No 244/97, Mr Tang pleaded that the remarks were not defamatory. PM Goh applied to have the defence struck out on the ground that there was no defence as the remarks were clearly defamatory. On 22 April 1997 the court struck out the defence and entered judgment and ordered that damages be assessed.

114 53     In the next two weeks Mr Tang continued to make statements to the media saying that the suits taken by the PAP leaders against him were just ‘tactical moves’ or a ‘game of table tennis’ and accused them of bad faith and of using the court process not for the genuine purpose of seeking redress to clear their names but as a ‘tactical weapon to silence criticism and political opposition’. He also said the ruling party was trying to ‘drown him with litigation’.

115 54     On 23 January 1997 Mr Tang gave a telephone interview to Mr Ahmad Osman where he said he was applying to strike out Suit Nos 2523 to 2525/96 instituted by the PAP leaders on the ground that they constituted an abuse of the process of the court and accused the PAP leaders of using:

116 … (defamation) as a political weapon to squeeze me out from the political area and to try and bury me with litigation politically, to bury me politically and financially.

117 55     He intended that the interview be reported and it was reported in the Straits Times on 24 January 1997, and the relevant parts read:

118 Defeated Workers’ Party candidate Tang Liang Hong has applied for a court order to strike out three defamation suits filed against him by the Senior Minister, the Prime Minister …

119 He described the suits against him for calling the PAP leaders liars during the recent General Election as an abuse of the court process claiming that the suits were being used as a political weapon to squeeze him out of the political area and to ‘bury him politically and financially’.

120 This report was also carried in the other local media.

121 56     It is clear that the above quoted remarks constituted another grave attack on the integrity of PM Goh, SM Lee and the six plaintiffs in Suit No 2525/96. They undoubtedly suggest:

122 (i)     that the plaintiffs in Suit Nos 2523 to 2525/96 are using these proceedings for a collateral purpose, namely, to destroy Mr Tang both politically and financially;

123 (ii)   that in pursuance of the conspiracy the plaintiffs in Suit Nos 2523 to 2525/96 have commenced those actions knowing that they do not have a meritorious claim; and

124 (iii)    that by instituting those processes, the PAP leaders have abused the process of court.

125 57     Those remarks are the subject of Suit Nos 181/97, 187/97 and 188/97. In his defence Mr Tang admitted to making those remarks to Mr Ahmad Osman and causing the re-publication of those remarks but pleaded justification. As the application to strike out Suit Nos 2523 to 2525/96 was wholly without merit it was dismissed.

126 58     On 27 January 1997 the PAP leaders (in the 12 actions) obtained a worldwide Mareva injunction against Mr Tang and his wife, in whom their home at No 75 Hua Guan Avenue is vested. The grounds upon which that injunction was issued were dealt with by Lai Kew Chai J in his grounds of decision dated 30 January 1997 [see [1997] 2 SLR 819]. I need not repeat them. On 29 January 1997, the Straits Times reported the defendant to have accused the PAP leaders of using unfair and unnecessary measures against him. The next day Straits Times reported him to have said, ‘by slamming me with a Mareva injunction, they have totally incapacitated me in fighting them’. Of course Mr Tang deliberately did not tell the whole truth. The injunction does not prohibit him from spending a reasonable sum on legal advice and representation.

127 59     From then on Mr Tang not only mocked the Mareva injunction but went on a campaign to actively smear the PAP leaders in the local and international media. I shall now give some instances. At around that time Mr Tang gave an interview to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which interview was broadcasted on 28 January 1997 wherein he said that the PAP leaders ‘smeared (him) and accused (him) of being anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-English education, anti- English educated and so on … all these are not true …’

128 60     In another interview with the BBC that was broadcasted on the same day, he said, inter alia, that the Mareva injunction was ‘definitely going to incapacitate (his) ability to resist their actions’, ‘the method they used to stop me from entering Parliament is to defame me’. He also complained that the PAP leaders even seized assets belonging to his wife and asked why was it that the tax authorities only moved against him now. He further said,

129 As an individual you cannot have unlimited funds or resources of finance to fight legal battles like that and this is one of the purposes they mount actions after actions, try to incapacitate me financially as well as ability and time and energy so that I may give up.

130 61     In an interview with Radio Australia programme ‘Dateline’ he alleged that the PAP leaders branded him a Chinese chauvinist after they noticed that his first WP rally attracted a large attendance and that this was their method of preventing him from getting into Parliament. He denied being a Chinese chauvinist. He said in that interview that that was the reason why he told the Straits Times that he would not only sue them for defamation but would also be making a police report against them for having committed offences. He also added:

131 What I fear most is that they may put me under the Internal Security Act which can detain a person without trial for indefinite period. This is most frightful. It is not losing your money. I don’t mind losing my entire fortune to fight them … But are they allowing me to fight them? By slamming me with Mareva injunction, they have totally incapacitated me in fighting them.

132 62     In an interview with Cable News Network (CNN), which was reported in the local media, Mr Tang again maliciously alleged that the Mareva injunction ‘totally incapacitated’ him from resisting the legal actions. He hoped that one of these days ‘the law will not permit politicians to use the slightest ground to start defamation action against all the opposition politicians because this is not healthy. This inhibits any free discussion’. He also said that the various suits were ‘more about revenge than about any legal transgression’.

133 63     In another interview with the BBC (also reported in the local media) he repeated the lie that the Mareva injunction prevented him from defending the suits. He expressed confidence in defending himself and said he would have to commence action against them to ‘clear (his) name all over the world because their propaganda against him has spread far and wide’. Such remarks in their natural meaning suggest that the PAP leaders’ suits against him are wholly unfounded.

134 64     Because Mr Tang and his wife did not comply with the Mareva injunction, the plaintiffs in the 12 suits applied for the appointment of a receiver over the assets of the defendant and his wife. A receivership order was made on 17 February 1997 which required, inter alia,: 

135 (i)    that they deliver all their assets and indicia and documents of title to such assets to the receiver except the property;

136 (ii)    that they furnish the receiver with a list of all their assets within five days; and

137 (iii)   if the defendants should fail to comply with any terms of the receivership order, the plaintiff be at liberty to apply for an order that the defence filed in the actions be struck out and judgment be entered for damages to be assessed.

138 65     There was deliberate non-compliance with the Mareva injunction and the receivership order even though extensions of time were granted to enable Mr Tang and his wife to comply with the same. As a result the plaintiffs applied for an order to strike out the defence filed and to enter judgment against the defendant for damages to be assessed. This was granted on 10 March 1997 after his then counsel informed the court that he had no instructions on the application and applied to be excused.

139 66     The defendant and his wife refused to cooperate with the receiver even though the receiver tried to help the wife comply with the order and tried to help her obtain money from the bank. She refused the offer of assistance. Yet he falsely accused the receiver of refusing to let him use his money to pay for legal fees and his wife’s daily expenses and of not discharging the receiver’s duties fairly and properly.

140 67     On 3 March 1997 the defendant applied to disqualify Lai Kew Chai J from hearing the 12 suits and quash the orders made by Lai Kew Chai J on the ground of bias. It seems to me clear that this was a move intended to delay proceedings as he was to file his affidavit of assets by that very day, which he failed to do. Instead he filed the disqualification application. His affidavit in support of the application contained attacks on the honour and integrity of Lai Kew Chai J. It scandalised the court. His instructions to his counsel to ask that the application be heard in open court were made with the sole intention of giving publicity to the attacks. Lai Kew Chai J adjourned the hearing for a week and ordered the defendant to appear in court to substantiate the allegations in his affidavit. He ignored the order and failed to attend. The application, which was motivated by malice, was dismissed. [See [1997] 2 SLR 233.]

141 68     Following the High Court decision on 10 March 1997 to strike out his defence in the 12 actions, the defendant gave a press conference in Johor Bahru, which was reported in the media on 12 March 1997, where he launched a wide and scathing attack on the Judiciary, the Cabinet and the police and showed utter contempt for the judgment of the court. He referred to the ‘instant justice of the PAP judicial process’. He questioned if PAP leaders were ‘more equal than others before Singapore courts’. He alleged that the PAP leaders ‘can easily get instant judgment on preset terms, instant justice’. He also accused the PAP of being ‘big bullies’, who had used their political clout to target both his wife and children. He said ‘they are always trying to get judgment in default because their case is not proven’.

142 69     On 12 March 1997 the defendant gave another press conference in Johor Bahru, reported in the Straits Times on 13 March 1997, where he said he was going to sue the PAP leaders outside Singapore ‘if the law of the place permits me’.He also said that when the Singapore High Commission in London made a statement that he is anti-Christian, anti-English-educated, he wrote to the High Commissioner asking him to waive diplomatic immunity so that he could sue the latter in London but there was no response. The Straits Times report noted:

143 He spent much of the two-hour press conference describing the legal battle here as ‘just one of the means of his struggle against PAP bullies’. There would be ‘other battles’, including legal battles, outside Singapore, he said. 

144 70     At about that time, he again raised with the local and international media (i) the matter of the HPL purchases, clearly suggesting that there must be some serious wrongdoing with regard to the purchases from HPL and (ii) his assertion that he was being politically persecuted by the PAP. He even said he was not worried if, in the process, he had made some defamatory statements.

145 71     On 9 April 1997 the Straits Times carried a report of a TV interview which Mr Tang gave in Australia where he said, inter alia, that the PAP leaders were ‘using the law of defamation to kill the opposition. They are running Singapore as a police state. They call it an eastern democracy and want to export it as a world model’. He alleged that SM Lee was the mastermind behind all the law suits.

146 72     In an affidavit filed on 17 April 1997 in support of his application to consolidate the various actions Mr Tang alleged yet again (inter alia) that the various actions were commenced for an ulterior purpose, namely, to ruin him politically.

147 73     On 30 April 1997 the BBC broadcasted an interview it had with Mr Tang. When asked how was he financing his defence as his assets were frozen, he replied:

148 Well, they are frozen in Singapore and I’m having various investment all over the world, so why should I be deprived of this? They say that I am in contempt of court. Well, I have not been a pauper all these years.

149 This shows again his total disregard of the Mareva injunction and the receivership order.

150 74     Finally I would refer to Mr Tang’s barrage of attacks following Lai J’s decision granting SM Lee’s application to delete certain statements from SM Lee’s affidavit (in support of the Mareva injunction). Relevant excerpts of the report carried in the Straits Times of 30 April 1997 are:

151 He had fled to Johor, he said, because Mr Lee was out to ruin him and he feared for his safety and that he would be arrested if he remained in Singapore.

152          Responding in a 45-minute telephone interview from the Johor office of his lawyer friend Razak Ahmad yesterday, Mr Tang likened Mr Lee’s suggestion that he should have gone to the Singapore police for protection to ‘asking a chicken to run to a musang’, or a fox.

153          ‘Which rational man in Singapore will expect me to run to the police to seek protection?’ he asked, adding that he did not have confidence in the Singapore police.

154          Asked about Mr Lee’s statement that he had been ‘liberal in his libel’ he replied that he was telling the truth when he charged that Mr Lee and the other PAP leaders who were suing him for defamation had concocted false evidence to portray him an anti- Christian, anti-English-educated Chinese chauvinist.

155          He contended that it was Mr Lee who had forced him to leave Singapore, by persecuting him, and by ‘personally supervising the persecution’.

156          He also accused People’s Action Party members of bullying his wife, called them ‘cowards’ and urged them to examine their consciences (sic).

157          ‘I don’t trust the Prime Minister’s, Lee Kuan Yew’s statements that nothing will happen to me,’ he said.

158          ‘When people look at the Singapore judiciary and the way that it grants costs against me, the question arises, who is running down the judiciary, me or SM Lee, or Mr Lai Kew Chai himself?’

159          ‘Does Lee Kuan Yew need to save a few thousand dollars and push the cost to me at the expense of the reputation of the Singapore judiciary? Does he really need to do that? Who is really hurting the legal profession?’ he asked.

160 The law

161 75     Let me now set out the principles of law on how damages for defamation should be assessed. Such damages, except for exemplary damages, are assessed on a compensatory basis. In 28 Halsbury’s Law of England (4th Ed) para 235 the learned authors stated that:

162 In actions for libel and slander, damages are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for (1) the injury to his reputation; and (2) the hurt to his feelings. Such damages are compensatory and are at large. They operate to vindicate the plaintiff to the public and to console him for the wrong done; they are better viewed as a solatium than as monetary recompense for harm measurable in money terms. The general compensatory damages may be increased to take into account the defendant’s motives in uttering the words complained of, or his conduct before or during the action; such ‘aggravated damages’ (which must be distinguished from exemplary damages) are meant to compensate the plaintiff for the additional injury, going beyond that which would have flowed from the words alone, caused by the presence of the aggravating factors.

163 76     The full spectrum of factors which a judge or a jury will take into consideration are, and here I quote from Gatley on Libel and Slander (8th Ed) at pp 592–593:

164 The conduct of the plaintiff, his position and standing, the nature of the libel, the mode and extent of publication, the absence or refusal of any retraction or apology and the whole conduct of the defendant from the time when the libel was published down to the very moment of their verdict. They may take into consideration the conduct of the defendant before action, after action, and in court at the trial of the action … They should also take into account the evidence led in aggravation or mitigation of the damages.

165 77     However, it is obvious that damage to a person’s reputation cannot be measured in the same way as harm to a tangible thing is measured. In Cassell & Co v Broome [1972] AC 1027 at p 1071 Lord Hailsham LC pointed out the difficulties in assessing damages for defamation as follows:

166 In actions of defamation and in any other actions where damages for loss of reputation are involved, the principle of restitutio in integrum has necessarily an even more highly subjective element. Such actions involve a money award which may put the plaintiff in a purely financial sense in a much stronger position than he was before the wrong. Not merely can he recover the estimated sum of his past and future losses, but, in case the libel, driven underground, emerges from its lurking place at some future date, he must be able to point to a sum awarded by a jury sufficient to convince a bystander of the baselessness of the charge. As Windeyer J well said in Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd 117 CLR 115, at p 150:

167 ‘It seems to me that, properly speaking, a man defamed does not get compensation for his damaged reputation. He gets damages because he was injured in his reputation, that is simply because he was publicly defamed. For this reason, compensation by damages operates in two ways — as a vindication of the plaintiff to the public and as consolation to him for a wrong done. Compensation is here a solatium rather than a monetary recompense for harm measurable in money.’

168 78     In Carter-Ruck on Libel & Slander (4th Ed) the learned authors state (on p 168) that such aggravation ‘makes it appropriate for the jury to increase the compensatory damages to some degree’. They also say:

169 A plaintiff is always entitled to give in evidence in aggravation of damages that the defendant was actuated by express malice. He is entitled to prove that the defendant knew the libel to be untrue, or that he was culpably negligent in failing to ascertain that it was untrue. He can prove that the defendant published the libel with the deliberate intention of causing him injury. Thus, intention, though irrelevant on the question of liability except where the statutory defence of unintentional defamation is relied on, is nevertheless very pertinent to the question of damages.

170 79     In McCarey v Associated Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1965] 2 QB 86 Pearson LJ described some of the factors of aggravation, as follows (p 104):

171 … and if there has been any kind of high-handed, oppressive, insulting or contumelious behavior by the defendant which increases the mental pain and suffering caused by the defamation and may constitute injury to the plaintiff’s pride and self-confidence, those are proper elements to be taken into account in a case where the damages are at large.

172 The expression ‘at large’ just means that the figure cannot be arrived at by any purely objective computation.

173 80     In Jeyaretnam JB v Lee Kuan Yew [1979] 2 MLJ 282 at p 285; [1978–1979] SLR 197 at p 202, it was held that where a plea of fair comment is not an honest one, that is an aggravating factor.

174 81     But it is important not to lose sight of the fact that ‘damages remain a civil, not a criminal remedy even where an exemplary award is appropriate’, per Lord Hailsham in Cassell v Broome. Of course exemplary damages do not arise in our present case. I must, however, hasten to add that Lord Hailsham had also expressed the view that (at p 1073) in awarding aggravated damages:

175 The natural indignation of the court at the injury inflicted on the plaintiff is a perfectly legitimate motive in making a generous, rather than a more moderate award to provide an adequate solatium … that is because the injury to the plaintiff is actually greater, and, as the result of the conduct exciting the indignation, demands a more generous solatium. [Emphasis added.]

176 Though later (at p 1081) he also gave a caution that ‘judges should make sure in their direction to juries that the jury is fully aware of the danger of an excessive award’.

177 82     While the law governing assessment of damages is the same in Singapore as in the United Kingdom, in the latter, damages for defamation are assessed by the jury who will decide as it deems fit without regard to precedents, in Singapore the judge assesses these damages and he is bound to have regard to precedents although it is true that each case will be decided on its facts: see Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam JB [1990] 3 MLJ 322 at p 334; [1990] SLR 688 at p 709; Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam JB[1979] 1 MLJ 281 at p 288; [1978–1979] SLR 429 at p 442. Indeed the Court of Appeal in Jeyaretnam JB v Lee Kuan Yew [1992] 2 SLR 310 clearly indicated that damages awarded should fall in line with previous awards, but always having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.

178 83     Mr Elias has cited to me English awards to contend that the awards by Singapore courts in the past are low. He has asked me to leapfrog. But Mr Shanmugam quite rightly pointed out that English awards, which are made by juries and may therefore lack consistency, should be viewed with caution. It is recognised that awards made by juries lack a sense of scale and logic: see CS Wu v Wang Look Fung & Ors [1981] 1 MLJ 178, affirmed on appeal in the same report at p 182; [1980–1981] SLR 169 at p 177. In John v MGN Ltd [1996] 2 All ER 35 Thomas Bingham MR noted the problem when he said (at p 48–49):

179 Judges, as they were bound to do, confined themselves to broad directions of general principle, coupled with injunctions to the jury to be reasonable. But they gave no guidance on what might be thought reasonable or unreasonable, and it is not altogether surprising that juries lacked an instinctive sense of where to pitch their awards. They were in the position of sheep loosed on an unfenced common, with no shepherd.

180 In Jeyaretnam JB v Lee Kuan Yew [1982] 1 MLJ 239 at p 242; [1982–1983] SLR 1 at p 7 the Privy Council said that assessment of damages was peculiarly dependent upon, inter alia, ‘local tariffs’.

181 84     Defamation is a tort. For other torts, our courts have not adopted English awards as precedents. We have our own awards which the courts here have sought to apply. I cannot see any reason why a different approach should be adopted for defamation. I think it would be wrong in principle.

182 Assessment

183 85     From the account given above, two aspects of the defendant’s conduct stand out clearly. One, at every turn Mr Tang would repeat and, thus aggravate the various defamations; two, he has no qualms at all in treating the orders of court with utter contempt and in uttering scandalous and contemptuous remarks about the courts, all because he felt he was beyond the reaches of the courts, being outside Singapore. Such conduct from a person who is an advocate and solicitor of 28 years standing, deserves the strongest condemnation. Indeed, his conduct is that of a man who intends to flee to avoid legal responsibilities, not one who intends to vindicate his own name, as he claims. He is not concerned with the legal proceedings in the High Court here He has a different agenda. To borrow the words of his counsel, it is clear that he is ‘playing on a different chess-board’. He has not taken a single step in the vindication of his name. In fact, it appears that vindication of his name is furthest from his mind. I agree with the submission of Mr Davinder Singh that Mr Tang ‘in his ferocious and venomous crusade to arouse hatred and anger against the plaintiffs, has disingenously marginalised the legal issues and sensationalised the political dimension’.

184 86     On the authorities I have cited it is clear that in assessing damages I should take into consideration, inter alia, the following:

185 (i)     the nature of the defamatory remark;

186 (ii)     the conduct, position and standing of the plaintiff;

187 (iii)    the mode and extent of the publication;

188 (iv)   the defendant’s conduct from the date the defamatory remarks were made right up to judgment, including the absence or refusal of any retraction or apology;

189 (v)    other aggravating or mitigating circumstances; and

190 (vi)    malice.

191 87     Counsel for the plaintiffs have referred me to practically all the cases which have come before our courts in the last twenty years to assist this court in making the assessment in the present thirteen suits. I propose to refer to some of the more pertinent ones.

192 88     In Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam JB [1979] 1 MLJ 281; [1978–1979] SLR 429 the slander uttered at an election rally suggested that the plaintiff was guilty of abusing his office as Prime Minister and was wanting in honesty and integrity by procuring preferential treatment for his brother and/or wife to his own and/or their personal financial advantage. The slander was made for political gain. There was no retraction or apology. The trial was protracted. The court awarded $130,000, which was upheld on appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council.

193 89     In Lee Kuan Yew v Seow Khee Leng [1989] 1 MLJ 172; [1988] SLR 832 an opposition candidate at an election rally during the 1984 General Election accused SM Lee, who was then the Prime Minister, of being guilty of corruption and of corrupt and/or criminal and/or dishonourable conduct in the discharge of his office. There was substantial aggravation, though at the trial the defendant admitted to having defamed PM Lee and made an apology and withdrew the defamatory allegations. The court felt that the slanders were of a particularly vicious nature. There was malice It warded $250,000.

194 90     In Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam JB [1990] 3 MLJ 322; [1990] SLR 688, $260,000 was awarded against the defendant for defamatory remarks made during an election speech which alleged that SM Lee (then Prime Minister) was guilty of dishonourable and/or criminal conduct in the discharge of his office (as Prime Minister) in respect of the suicide of the former Minister for National Development.

195 91     In Lee Kuan Yew v Derek Gwyn Davis & Ors [1990] 1 MLJ 390; [1989] SLR 1063 the action related to certain remarks made in the Far Eastern Economic Review, a reputable and influential publication with worldwide circulation, touching on the arrest of 16 persons, most of whom were church workers, in connection with a clandestine communist network. They imputed dishonourable and discreditable conduct and motive on the part of SM Lee (then Prime Minister); they imputed an attack by SM Lee on the Catholic Church and a dishonourable and improper use by him of the powers under the Internal Security Act. Certain other words also imputed that the Archbishop of the Catholic Church in Singapore was improperly pressurized by SM Lee and was tricked into attending press conferences in relation to the arrest of the 16 persons. The court found there was express malice. There was no retraction or apology. Another point of aggravation which the court took into account was the defendants’ counsel’s repeated attempts to cross-examine the plaintiff on irrelevant matters. The plaintiff was awarded $230,000.

196 92     In Lee Kuan Yew v Vinocur [1995] 3 SLR 477 the libellous allegation was published in the International Herald Tribune imputing nepotism and corruption against the three top ministers of the government — ‘Dynastic politics is evident in communist China already, as in Singapore, despite official commitments to bureaucratic meritocracy’. Apology was tendered and read in open court. $350,000 was awarded to PM Goh. SM Lee and BG Lee were each awarded $300,000.

197 93     In Lee Kuan Yew v Vinocur [1996] 2 SLR 542, the allegation made in the International Herald Tribune was that SM Lee had relied on a compliant judiciary to obtain judgment against political opponents and bankrupt them irrespective of the merits of the claim. There was no apology and there was evidence of malice and aggravation. The court awarded $400,000.

198 94     From the submissions of counsel and the list of suggested damages which they have tendered to me it is clear that the two most serious defamatory remarks are those related to the HPL purchases and the allegation of lies and conspiracy against PM Goh, SM Lee and the six other PAP leaders (in Suit No 2525/96). I propose to highlight some aspects of these two matters. It is not in dispute that as between the 13 suits there are many common factors eg no retraction or apology and repeated aggravations.

199 Suit Nos 1116 of 1996 and 172 of 1997

200 95     The offending remarks of Mr Tang published in Yazhou Zhoukan clearly meant that both SM Lee and BG Lee:

201 (i)     were guilty, or were reasonably suspected of corrupt or otherwise criminal conduct in respect of their purchases of the apartments;

202 (ii)   that they had conducted themselves such as to warrant an investigation by the Commercial Affairs Department and/or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau; and

203 (iii)   that they had managed to cover their tracks and avoid any criticism or adverse finding in the inquiry by Dr Richard Hu and Mr Koh Beng Seng because the inquiry had been conducted with insufficient competence or skill by the said Dr Hu and Mr Koh.

204 96     It cannot be open to doubt that the remarks were calculated to disparage both SM Lee and BG Lee. They were wholly unprovoked. I accept SM Lee and BG Lee’s evidence that they were and are greatly distressed and embarrassed by the report and that it had gravely injured their feelings because, in the words of SM Lee it ‘hit at the very heart of (his) political credo’. It was undoubtedly a vicious attack. In Lee Kuan Yew v Seow Khee Leng [1989] 1 MLJ 172 at p 176; [1988] SLR 832 at p 838, FA Chua J said: ‘allegations of corrupt and criminal conduct are very grave charges’. For the entire 38 years of his political career, SM Lee has advocated and emphasised the need for honest government. Mr Tang’s attack undermined what SM Lee has stood for all these years.

205 97     As I have outlined above, there is evidence before me to show that this attack was made with malice because while Mr Tang was put up to be a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) he was not selected. Thus he bore a grudge against SM Lee. He also bore a grudge against BG Lee as the latter questioned him at length during his appearance before the Special Selection Committee of Parliament. Furthermore, being a self-appointed champion of the Chinese language and culture, he felt that SM Lee had appointed too many individuals who are English educated and Christians into positions of government and/or as senior civil servants.

206 98     While in his pleadings Mr Tang purported to disavow any suggestion that SM Lee and BG Lee had acted corruptly or improperly in their purchases from HPL, there are at least two reasons why this disavowal cannot be truthful. First, in the note which Mr Tang gave to the Yazhou Zhoukan correspondent leading to the publication on 2 June 1996 he asked the question: ‘why only local reporters were allowed to be present at the press conference called by Ong Beng Seng of HPL and whether it is due to the fear that foreign reporters would ask embarrassing questions’. It is obvious what he was aiming at although this question was ultimately not published in the Yazhou Zhoukan. Second, at three separate WP rallies held on 31 December 1996 he raised the HPL matter repeatedly. At one he said ‘we will be raising the issue on HPL. This is their death blow’. At another he said again ‘But I believe one of the issues they are afraid that I may raise is when I enter Parliament, I may raise issue on HPL matter’. And at a third he said twice ‘they are afraid that we will raise all sorts of problems in Parliament, including the sale of properties from HPL’.

207 99     All these show beyond any doubt that he did intend to defame when he spoke to the correspondent of Yazhou Zhoukan. Such intention was in his mind all along. I hold that he intended to defame SM Lee and BG Lee in the interview given to Yazhou Zhoukan (Suit No 1116/96) and at the three WP rallies held on 31 December 1996 (Suit No 172 of 1997), knowing that he had no basis for making those allegations which were prompted, no doubt, wholly by spite, malice and a desire to obtain political advantage (in relation to the utterances at the three election rallies).

208 100    As Mr Tang is a very senior lawyer, people would think he would not make the allegations unless they were true. Thus the hurt and injury caused to SM Lee and BG Lee are all the greater.

209 101     I would refer to another example to show that Mr Tang is not truthful. In subpara 6(1) of the re-amended defence in Suit No 1116/96 Mr Tang specifically stated that he was not alleging that SM Lee or BG Lee was corrupt or guilty of any impropriety. He said that the words reported in Yazhou Zhoukan only meant that SM Lee and BG Lee would have been better served if professional bodies like the CAD and the CPIB had investigated the purchases and cleared them of impropriety. He did not and does not suggest that there should be any further investigation or report on the matter. Yet in his affidavit filed on 3 March 1997 to disqualify Lai Kew Chai J from hearing the Mareva proceedings, he stated that ‘one of the issues which would be raised at the trial of (Suit No 1116 of/96) will be the large discounts given to persons of high positions in government or other public authorities’.

210 102    His application to have the disqualification application heard in open court was intended to give further publicity and to cause further embarrassment to SM Lee (besides the court) and BG Lee. This underscores his deep-rooted malice towards SM Lee and BG Lee.

211 103    In the light of the foregoing, quite clearly the amount to be awarded in the two suits should be substantial and significantly more than the highest awards given to date, having regard to the extreme nature of the aggravation. But there is a difficulty which I must address in relation to Suit No 1116/96 and Suit No 172/97 because the defamation complained of in both suits relate to the same matter — the HPL purchases. In law every defamatory utterance, even though it may be a repeat of the same, could be the subject of a separate action. A plaintiff who chooses not to sue on the second utterance is of course entitled to rely on that as a ground for aggravated damages. But, in the case of a plaintiff who chooses to sue on the second utterance, having regard to the principle of overlap, there is some merit in the view that the second utterance should not cause the same degree of hurt and damage as to merit an award of the same or higher amount than for the first utterance. However, in the present case, Suit No 172/97 concerned not only one subsequent utterance but four and expressed in three separate rallies. So any reduction on account of overlap should be minimal. This court is not inclined to sanction any proposition which would allow a person to repeatedly defame another person and get away cheaply just because there was an earlier action on the same defamatory remark. In so saying I am conscious of s 16 of the Defamation Act, which provides:

212 In any action for libel or slander, the defendant may give evidence in mitigation of damages that the plaintiff has recovered damages or has brought actions for damages, for libel or slander in respect of the publication of words to the same effect as the words on which the action is founded, or has received or agreed to receive compensation in respect of any such publication.

213 Suit Nos 2523 to 2525 of 1996

214 104 It is clear that the offending remarks which Mr Tang made to Mr Ahmad Osman on 30 December 1996, and which he caused to be published the next day, is defamatory. They meant by their natural and ordinary meaning or by innuendo that:

215 (i)     PM Goh, SM Lee, and the six plaintiffs in Suit No 2525/96 had lied;

216 (ii)   they had committed and were guilty of the offence of criminal defamation;

217 (iii)   they had conspired to concoct and spread lies about the defendant’s character;

218 (iv)   they had committed and were guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy; and

219 (v)    they had sought by illegal means to damage the defendant’s prospect of being elected a Member of Parliament; and

220 (vi)   they are not people of integrity.

221 105    Mr Tang knew that the remarks would be read by a large number of people in Singapore. He made the remarks to extract political gain without caring what distress it would cause or what harm they would inflict on the personal and political reputation of the plaintiffs. Those remarks cast very serious aspersions on the character and integrity of PM Goh, SM Lee and the others; if not challenged and put right would cause great harm to their reputation. It is an extremely serious matter to accuse anyone of being guilty of criminal conduct, all the more so if he is the Prime Minister or Senior Minister of the land. It affects their moral authority to govern.

222 106    In his defence filed he did not deny that he said those words to the Straits Times journalist with a view to having them published. But he sought to give a different meaning to the words complained of. He denied being a Chinese chauvinist or anti-Christian or anti-English-educated. He also pleaded justification and qualified privilege. There was no retraction or apology.

223 107    As I have stated above, there is ample material for one to come to the conclusion that Mr Tang is an anti-English educated, anti-Christian Chinese chauvinist. Let me refer to a piece of evidence that does not come from the 11 PAP leaders. This is the evidence of Mr Jason Leow, a Straits Times journalist, who reported that at a gathering in August 1996, the defendant said that ‘Chineseeducated Singaporeans should sit in the sedan chair’ and that others should carry the sedan chair. Mr Leow deposed to this in an affidavit. The defendant denied saying that. Yet he opted not to cross-examine Leow. It would be fair to infer that he has no conviction to face up to Leow.

224 108    A multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual community like Singapore is always susceptible to communal conflicts. Communal appeals evoke primeval responses which are spontaneous and dangerous.

225 109    I may add that the allegations made against the PAP leaders in his police report of 1 January 1997 are of the same nature as that made by the defendant in his statement to Mr Ahmad Osman on 30 December 1996.

226 Substantial damages

227 110   It is quite clear from the authorities cited to me that the courts here have awarded substantial damages against defendants who had attacked the honesty, integrity or character of public figures. On the authorities the highest award given by our courts was $400,000 in Lee Kuan Yew v Vinocur [1996] 2 SLR 542. It is beyond doubt that the level of aggravation in Vinocur was nowhere near that of the present cases. I have already alluded to some of the aggravating circumstances. It cannot be disputed that in terms of aggravation, these 13 cases have no equal. Therefore I ought to take the very high level of aggravation into account in assessing quantum. Nevertheless in law, damages awarded for defamation are to compensate, not to punish. As stated in Duncan and Neill on Defamation (2nd Ed) at para 18.14:

228 When the behaviour of the defendant has increased the injury to the plaintiff’s feelings flowing naturally from the publication of the defamatory matter itself, the jury are entitled to include in their award an element of aggravated damages. It is, important to emphasise, however, that the sum to be awarded is a simple sum and that aggravated damages are intended as compensation for the plaintiff and not as a form of punishment of the defendant. [Emphasis added.]

229 111 Taking into consideration the position and standing of the parties, the extent of the publication and republication, and all the factors of aggravation into account, namely,

230 (i)          presence of express malice,

231 (ii)          absence of apology,

232 (iii)         repetition of the defamation over and over again and the numerous outrageous utterances to the local and international media,

233 (iv)          defences raised in the suits (justification, fair comment),

234 (v)          contemptuous disregard of the Mareva injunction and the receivership order and

235 (vi)        overall conduct of Mr Tang in the proceedings before this court (eg delaying proceedings, misrepresenting the scope of Mareva injunction and falsely accusing the courts of not giving his wife an urgent date for her application to set aside the Mareva injunction),

236 they no doubt warrant an award much higher than the highest award thus far, because the injury, embarrassment and hurt caused are much greater. The more enormous, outrageous, scandalous or scurrilous the defamation and/or aggravation, the greater the damages. This court must show its indignation at the injury inflicted on the plaintiffs.

237 112 However in making the awards set out in the schedule hereto I have also borne in mind the following: 

238 (i)    that in all the utterances, Mr Tang’s main targets were PM Goh and SM Lee;

239 (ii)   the awards in previous defamation cases; and

240 (iii)  that I should not move away from the realm of compensation into the realm of punishment. Whether Mr Tang should be dealt with for scandalising the court is a matter which may have to be taken up at some other time.

241 SCHEDULE OF DAMAGES

242          Plaintiff                               Damages                                                  Suit No

243                                                       (S$)

244 1 Goh Chok Tong                       600,000                                   2524/96 (lies, conspiracy etc)

245                                                    450,000                                   187/97 (abuse of process)

246                                                    350,000                                   244/97 (ISA, PM’s assurance a lie)

247 2 Lee Kuan Yew                         550,000                                   2523/96 (lies, conspiracy etc)

248                                                    400,000                                   181/97 (abuse of process)

249                                                    300,000                                   182/97 (Nanyang U, SM’s assurance a lie)

250                                                    550,000                                   1116/96 (HPL 1: $450,000 already paid by

251                                                                                                    other defendants)

252                                                    500,000                                    172/96 (HPL 2)

253 3 Lee Hsien Loong                      500,000                                    1116/96 (HPL 1: $450,000 already

254                                                                                                      paid by other defendants)

255                                                    450,000                                     172/97 (HPL 2)

256                                                    350,000                                     70/97 (police report)

257 4 Tony Tan Keng                        350,000                                     76/97 (police report)

258 Yam

259 5 Lee Yock Suan                        300,000                                     82/97 (police report)

260 6 Teo Chee Hean                       300,000                                      2525/96 (lies, conspiracy etc)

261                                                   250,000                                      188/97 (abuse of process)

262 7Ch’ng Jit Koon                         250,000                                      2525/96 (lies, conspiracy etc)

263                                                   200,000                                       188/97 (abuse of process)

264 8 Ow Chin Hock                        250,000                                      2525/96 (lies, conspiracy etc

265                                                   200,000                                       188/97 (abuse of process)

266 9 Chin Harn Tong                       200,000                                       2525/96 (lies, conspiracy etc)

267                                                   150,000                                       188/97 (abuse of process)

268 10 Ker Sin Tze                           200,000                                       2525/96 (lies, conspiracy etc)

269                                                   150,000                                       188/97 (abuse of process)

270 11 Seng Han                              150,000                                        2525/96 (lies, conspiracy etc)

271 Thong                                        125,000                                        188/97 (abuse of process)

272 Order accordingly.

273 Reported by Anita Teo