[1996]_SGHC_293

648 Singapore Law Reports [1997] 1 SLR

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

Chiam See Tong v Ling How Doong & Ors

HIGH COURT — SUIT NO 219 OF 1996TS SINNATHURAY J5–8, 12–15, 18–22, 25 NOVEMBER, 2–3, 26 DECEMBER 1996

Tort — Defamation — Libel — Whether statement defamatory — Whether first, fourth andeleventh defendants vicariously liable for other defendants’ defamation

Tort — Defamation — Libel — Fair comment — Whether words statements of fact orcomment — Whether sufficient substratum of facts to support comment — Whetherdefendants actuated by express malice

Tort — Defamation — Libel — Assessment of damages — Factors to be considered inassessment of damages

FactsThe plaintiff, Chiam, was the Member of Parliament for Potong Pasirelected under the banner of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). He wasalso formerly the secretary-general of the SDP. The defendants weremembers of the SDP’s Central Executive Committee (CEC). In particular,Ling was the chairman, Wong was the vice-chairman and Chee was thesecretary-general of the SDP.

In November 1995, following a debate in Parliament in which Chiamvoted in support of a motion by the ruling party to censure the SDP, therewas an exchange of press statements which was republished in the media.On 4 November, the CEC issued a press statement in which certainaccusations were levelled against Chiam, and which called for Chiam’sresignation from the SDP. On the same day, Chiam responded with his ownpress statement, challenging Chee to stand against him in a by-election inPotong Pasir.

On 6 November, the CEC issued another press statement. It stated thatChee would accept the challenge if Chiam joined the People’s Action Party(PAP) and stood as a PAP candidate. It continued, ‘Of late, Mr Chiam hasbeen highly praised by the PAP and he has also been very supportive of theruling party in attacking the SDP. That being the case, he should join thePAP … As a matter of principle and honour, Mr Chiam must leave the Partyhe disagrees with so much.’ In the following paragraph, it stated, ‘Mr Chiamalmost killed the SDP when he abruptly and irresponsibly resigned assecretary-general. The CEC will not allow him to destroy the party again …Mr Chiam is now showing his spite and jealousy that the SDP has been ableto progress without him.’ The statement went on to say that, ‘If Mr Chiamwishes to lead the SDP again, he is welcome to do so. But first he must setout his vision and programme for the party … Up until now, all he hasshown is a craze for personal political power …’. The press statement wasextensively republished by the media.

On 18 January 1996, Chiam’s solicitors wrote to the defendants allegingthat the 6 November statement was defamatory of Chiam in that the words

[1997] 1 SLR Chiam See Tong v Ling How Doong (TS Sinnathuray J) 649

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

were understood to mean that Chiam was a puppet, stooge and/or lackey ofthe PAP; and that Chiam had compromised his political principle andintegrity as an opposition MP because of his quest for personal politicalpower and his resentment against the SDP, to the extent of even attemptingto destroy his own party. It demanded a public apology and damages. On27 January, Wong replied on behalf of the CEC denying that the 6November statement was defamatory of Chiam in the manner suggested andthreatened to counterclaim for an alleged breach of a deed signed by Chiam.On 1 February, Chee told the press that the SDP would not apologise for theCEC’s remarks.

Chiam sued the defendants for libel. Ling, who had initially acted for theother defendants as their solicitor in this action, denied that he had anythingto do with the 6 November press statement, but admitted in court that he wasbound to endorse and ratify the press statement. The fourth and eleventhdefendants adopted Ling’s stand. The other defendants denied that the pressstatement was defamatory of Chiam. In the alternative, they pleaded faircomment.

Held, allowing the plaintiff’s claim:(1) The test of whether a statement was defamatory was stated in Lewis v

Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234. In deciding what the natural andordinary meaning of the words were, the court was required to takeinto account an ordinary man’s general knowledge of worldly affairs(see ¶ 46–47); Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 followed.

(2) It was not disputed that the facts leading to the publication of the 6November press statement were so well known amongst ordinarypersons in Singapore as to constitute common knowledge. For thisreason, these facts could not be ‘special facts’ which went to supportan innuendo (see ¶ 48).

(3) To be defamatory, a statement had to lower Chiam in the estimationof others, or expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, and in thiscontext, the views of the community as a whole had to be considered,and not just that of a limited class. The mere allegation that Chiam hasbeen very supportive of the PAP was not defamatory, for beingsupportive of the PAP per se could not lower him in the eyes of rightthinking members of the public; Berry v Irish Times [1973] IR 368and Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818 followed (see ¶ 50).

(4) The sting of the defamation was that Chiam had been very supportiveof the ruling party in attacking the SDP and that in doing so, Chiamwas motivated by his spite and jealousy against the CEC and a crazefor personal political power, to the extent that he intended to destroyhis own party. In doing so, the statement also imputed that Chiam wasdisloyal to his party for very selfish reasons and that therefore he wasnot a man of honour or principle (see ¶ 55).

(5) The statement that ‘Mr Chiam almost killed the SDP when heabruptly and irresponsibly resigned as secretary-general’ wasdefamatory of him as it was defamatory to say of someone that whenhe was in a position of responsibility he had acted irresponsibly (see¶ 60).


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

(6) In the light of Ling’s admission that he was bound by the CEC’sdecision to issue the statement, that he had to endorse and ratify it, andthat the meeting which issued the statement was properly convened,Ling, the fourth and eleventh defendants were held to be vicariouslyliable for the defamation (see ¶ 63, 65).

(7) There was no reason why the court might not have had regard to whatwas within the common knowledge of the reasonable reader whendeciding whether a defamatory statement was one of fact or comment.It was after all the same material which the court had to and did takeinto account in determining the natural meaning of the wordscomplained of (see ¶ 68–69); Telnikoff v Matusevich [1992] 2 AC 343and Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Wright Norman & Ors[1994] 3 SLR 760 distinguished.

(8) It was not necessary for the facts relied on to support the comment tobe set out in the defamatory statement itself, provided that they havebeen adequately referred to in the statement. On the facts, there wassufficient substratum for the comments that Chiam was actuated byspite or jealousy and that his intention was to destroy the SDP whenhe voted for the motion to censure his own party (see ¶ 71, 73);Kemsley v Foot & Ors [1952] AC 345 followed.

(9) As Wong, Chee, the fifth to the tenth and twelfth defendants werefound to be actuated by express malice when they published the pressstatement, their defence of fair comment failed (see ¶ 74–75).

(10) In assessing damages, the court had to consider the commonknowledge that the offending press statement was issued in the courseof an internal political squabble between Chiam and the CEC whicheach carried out in the media. It was a natural reaction for a reader todiscount what was said disparingly of a man when he knew that thewords were said by the man’s enemies. This reduced the injury toChiam’s feelings (see ¶ 78–79).

(11) Damages were given for injury to Chiam’s reputation as an advocateand solicitor for the imputation that Chiam was not a man of principleor honour. However, as the libel was in relation to Chiam’s politicallife, and would be so understood by the ordinary reader, it could notbe aggravated damages (see ¶ 83).

(12) Although the claim for aggravated damages for failure to apologisedid not arise on the facts, the court gave some damages for the failureto apologise (see ¶ 84).

(13) Having regard to s 18 of the Defamation Act, the common law rule inCassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027 that damages were to beassessed according to the lowest common denominator amongstdefendants was not applicable in Singapore. Section 18 was onlyworkable if the highest point was taken as the starting point. Ifmitigation was claimed by some of the defendants, then the onus wason them to make an application under s 18. None of the defendantshad applied for damages to be assessed separately (see ¶ 85).

(14) As Chiam was entitled to claim compensatory damages, the courttook into consideration all the relevant factors, including the conduct


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

of the defendants, and awarded him $120,000 to assuage his injuredfeelings and restore his reputation (see ¶ 77, 90).

Case(s) referred toBerry v Irish Times [1973] IR 368 (folld)Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818 (folld)Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027 (distd)Chew Chin Tong Ernest & Anor v Chee Soon Juan (Suit No 955/93)

(unreported) (refd) Kemsley v Foot & Ors [1952] AC 345 (folld)Lee Kuan Yew v Vinocur & Ors [1996] 2 SLR 542 (distd)Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 (folld)Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Wright Norman & Ors [1994] 3 SLR

760 (distd)S Vasoo v Chee Soon Juan (Suit No 936/93) (unreported) (refd) Telnikoff v Matusevich [1992] 2 AC 343 (distd)

Legislation referred toDefamation Act (Cap 75) s 18

LawyersHarry Elias, Tan Chee Meng and Doris Chia (Harry Elias & Partners) forthe plaintiff.Vinod Kumar Dube (Dube & Co) for the defendants.

Cur Adv Vult

TS Sinnathuray J: This is an action for libel. The plaintiff, Chiam See Tong(Chiam), is an advocate and solicitor of over 20 years standing and was, untilParliament was prorogued ten days ago, a Member of Parliament (MP) for theconstituency of Potong Pasir where he was first elected in 1984. Chiam waselected under the banner of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). The SDP is anopposition party.

2 The defendants are members of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) ofthe SDP, except that the 11th defendant’s defence was that he had resigned fromthe CEC on 30 October 1995. The first defendant, Ling How Doong (Ling), is thechairman of the SDP and was the MP for Bukit Gombak in the last Parliament. Heis also an advocate and solicitor. The second defendant, Wong Hong Toy (Wong),is the vice-chairman and the third defendant, Chee Soon Juan (Chee), is thesecretary-general. The seventh defendant, Cheo Chai Chen (Cheo), was the MPfor Nee Soon Central. Chiam, Ling and Cheo together held three out of fouropposition seats in the last Parliament.

3 On 6 November 1995, a press statement was issued by the CEC. It was signedby Wong for the CEC. There was no dispute that this press statement wasextensively republished by the mass media in Singapore. It was broadcast by theTelevision Corporation of Singapore (TCS) on its news broadcast and its InTVteletext service on the same day. On the next day, it was republished by the Straits


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

Times which is the main English newspaper, the Lianhe Zaobao which is the mainChinese newspaper and the Berita Harian which is the only Malay newspaper inSingapore.

4 The text of the 6 November press statement is as follows:

The SDP has asked Mr Chiam See Tong to resign from the Party. Mr Chiam has saidthat he would do so under one condition: that Dr Chee Soon Juan stands against him ina by-election in Potong Pasir. Dr Chee accepts the challenge under one condition: thatMr Chiam joins the PAP and stands as a PAP candidate. Of late, Mr Chiam has beenhighly praised by the PAP and he has also been very supportive of the ruling party inattacking the SDP. That being the case, he should join the PAP.

The SDP has shown tolerance and restraint in the face of Mr Chiam’s repeatedattacks against the party. But Mr Chiam has mistaken kindness for weakness. As amatter of principle and honour, Mr Chiam must leave the party he disagrees with somuch.

Mr Chiam almost killed the SDP when he abruptly and irresponsibly resigned assecretary-general. The CEC will not allow him to destroy the party again. Mr Chiampredicted that the collective leadership would not last. Today not only has this collectiveleadership lasted, but we have become stronger and has a firm sense of direction.Mr Chiam is now showing his spite and jealousy that the SDP has been able to progresswithout him.

The SDP is not about Chiam See Tong, Chee Soon Juan or any one individual; it isabout a democratic party whose main interest is to serve the people of Singapore in themost effective manner. The SDP has made plain our manifesto and has workedextremely hard in the last two years to win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans. Ourtrack record is a matter of public record and we are willing to let Singaporeans judge usfor what we are and what we have done.

If Mr Chiam wishes to lead the SDP again, he is welcome to do so. But first he mustset out his vision and programme for the party and let the party members decide if theywant him as their leader. Up until now, all he has shown is a craze for personal politicalpower. This is not what we, as a collective leadership, want for the SDP or forSingapore. We will remain disciplined and concentrate on fighting for the people’srights and interests.

Once more, we call on Mr Chiam to join the PAP and to stand as a PAP candidateand we will contest him in Potong Pasir in a by-election.

(Sgd)The Central Executive CommitteeDated 6 November 1995

The letters ‘PAP’ in the press statement refer to the People’s Action Party, theruling party in Singapore.

5 Chiam alleged that the 6 November press statement is defamatory of him. Thedefence of the second, third, fifth to tenth and twelfth defendants was that thestatement is not defamatory and in any event, they relied on fair comment. Thefirst, fourth and eleventh defendants denied having anything to do with the6 November press statement in their pleaded defences.

The background

6 It is the case for Chiam that because the CEC had in the 6 November pressstatement referred to events that occurred in the SDP going back to 1993 he hadto give evidence of the history of the SDP. The SDP was founded in 1980 and


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

Chiam was one of its founding members. He was its secretary-general from13 September 1980 till 17 May 1993, for over 12 years. In his evidence, Chiamsaid that he drafted the party’s constitution and its manifesto. Chee did not denythat Chiam had a hand in the drafting of the SDP’s constitution and its manifestobut said that he did not know whether other persons had helped Chiam.

7 Sometime in 1988, Wong, who had just resigned from the Workers’ Party ofwhich he was chairman, joined the SDP. According to Wong, he was approachedby Chiam to do so. Chiam sought to deny that he brought Wong into the SDP, butadmitted that he met with Wong to negotiate the terms under which the latterwould join the SDP. At that time, Chiam already knew about Wong’s previousconvictions.

8 In the early part of 1993, Chee’s employment with the National University ofSingapore was terminated on account of his alleged misapplication of $200 ofresearch funds. At that time Chee was already a CEC member and was theassistant secretary-general of the SDP. There was an occasion when Chiamdefended Chee in Parliament.

9 In April of that year Chee went on a hunger strike. Chee’s evidence was thathe took full responsibility for the hunger strike. Chiam in a press statement on5 April said that he and the SDP had ‘full confidence’ in Chee’s action and that‘The SDP sympathises and respects the deep conviction and belief of Dr Chee inhis present course of action’. Chiam’s evidence was that he tried to dissuade Cheefrom it. He, however, did not deny that he had suggested to Chee that if he wereto go on a hunger strike, he should do so in a public place, namely at a block offlats in Potong Pasir.

10 Chiam then became concerned as to what the hunger strike would do to theimage of SDP. On 17 May, Chiam attempted to table a motion in the CEC tocensure Chee for the hunger strike. He was unanimously outvoted by the CEC andthe motion was not allowed to be put. Chiam took this as a vote of no confidenceagainst him. There and then he wrote out his resignation as the secretary-generalof the SDP, stating that it was to be ‘forthwith’ and walked out of the meeting.

11 Chee in his evidence said that he, together with some other members of theCEC went after Chiam to persuade him to return. Chiam’s testimony was that hedid not remember this. However, it was not disputed that the CEC didsubsequently send delegations to make overtures to Chiam to persuade him toremain as the party’s secretary-general, but the number of such meetings and thecomposition of the delegations, in particular whether Chee was one of themembers, was in dispute.

12 In any event, Chiam laid down certain conditions for him to withdraw hisresignation, in particular that Wong must resign from the CEC. This condition wasnot acceptable to the CEC because they felt that it was not for any individual todictate who should or should not be in the CEC which is an elected body. In themeantime neither side announced Chiam’s resignation and the parties appeared tohave carried on negotiations.

13 In June Chee met Chiam in the latter’s office. Chiam said that he had toldChee that the permit for the party’s newspaper, the Demokrat, had to be renewed,and that he could not sign the relevant forms as the SDP’s secretary-general as he


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

had resigned on 17 May. Chiam said that he gave Chee till the end of June to reply.Chee did not dispute that there was a discussion about the permit. He, however,maintained that he went to see Chiam not on that subject but to persuade him towithdraw his resignation.

14 On 18 June, the CEC made a press release announcing that Chiam had‘stepped down’ as secretary-general of the SDP. Apparently, the CEC had givenChiam until 4pm that day to retract his resignation. Chiam claimed that Chee, whohad been delegated the task of informing him of the deadline, had failed to do soand had subsequently admitted to the omission. Chee denied this, but could giveno clear evidence on this point.

15 Chiam also said that he was not shown a copy of the press statement before itwas released to the press and that he had to read it under the lights of a street lampwhen shown a copy by a reporter. Wong’s evidence was that he and AshleighSeow, who was at that time a member of the CEC, had faxed a copy of the pressstatement to Chiam’s office.

16 Regardless of what had really happened, Chiam formed the impression thatthe press statement read like his political ‘epitaph’. He also took the view, thoughit was he who had tendered his resignation, that the press statement was a ‘faitaccompli’. Chiam told the reporters, and this was published the next day, that hehad not ‘stepped down’ but had resigned over differences with the CEC. Later, inearly July, Chiam said to the media that Chee had ‘usurped’ his position assecretary-general of the SDP. Chee claimed that, as the assistant secretary-general, he had only stepped into Chiam’s shoes under the provisions of the SDPconstitution.

17 On 16 July, Chiam gave a talk to the Singapore Press Club, which wasfollowed by a question and answer session. Chiam was reported to have said, andhe admitted saying, that ‘the opposition needed members who were credible, cleanand trustworthy’, that Wong ‘had a criminal past’ and Chee was ‘sacked over$200’. He had also asked rhetorically, ‘Why should people join a party where aleader goes on a hunger strike and does foolish things like that or you have a vice-chairman who has been jailed … Who wants to join his party?’

18 Chiam’s stand in the witness box was that he had merely ‘criticised’ the CEC.The CEC evidently thought otherwise, for they commenced disciplinaryproceedings against Chiam. On 6 August, Chiam appeared before a disciplinarycommittee comprised of the CEC members which eventually decided to expel himfrom the SDP. This was followed by meetings between members of the CEC andChiam to see whether a compromise could be reached by Chiam withdrawingwhat he said at the Press Club. It suffices to say that these came to nought and theminutes of the CEC meeting on 16 August recorded that the CEC had come to theconclusion that ‘further overtures would be fruitless’ and that the expulsion shouldtake effect from 20 August.

19 On 20 August, Chee wrote a letter to Chiam telling him that he had beenexpelled ‘forthwith’ but that he could appeal to the SDP’s ordinary partyconference. On the same day, Chee wrote to the Speaker of Parliament informing


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

him that Chiam had been expelled. A press statement was also issued that day bythe CEC to that effect.

20 The next day, Chiam wrote to the Speaker saying that his expulsion wasinvalid. At about the same time, some cadre supporters of Chiam twicerequisitioned for an ordinary party conference in accordance with the SDP’sconstitution. The first requisition was rejected by the CEC purportedly on theground that some of the signatures were dubious. None of the defendants couldexplain why the second requisition was ignored.

21 Be that as it may, Chiam sought and obtained a declaration in the High Courtfrom Warren LH Khoo J on 10 December 1993 that the expulsion was invalid. Thelearned judge found that Chiam had not been fairly heard. Chiam also obtained aninjunction restraining the SDP from taking any steps to expel him. However,Khoo J rejected his allegation of bad faith or bias on the part of the CEC.

22 Thereafter, it would appear that there was an uneasy calm between the parties.There was no direct communication between Chiam and the CEC and they spoketo each other through the press. Chiam’s evidence was that he and the CEC werenot on speaking terms. Chiam said that he refused to speak to them. Wong andChee’s evidence was otherwise. Both of them said they had even invited him togo with them on a trip to Australia. Chiam’s evidence on this was equivocal.

23 In January of 1995, the SDP held its biennial open party conference. Cheewas elected as the party’s secretary-general. Chiam declined to run for the post,claiming that the defendants had ‘packed’ the party membership with ‘their ownmen’.

24 In May 1995, a motion was moved in Parliament by nominated MP KanwaljitSoin (1) to ask the government to explain its refusal to stay Flor Contemplacion’sexecution and (2) to reaffirm Parliament’s confidence in Singapore’s criminaljustice system. Before this, the SDP had made a press statement on 23 March onthis subject, and on 10 April Ling had written a letter to President Ramos of thePhilippines in his capacity as Chairman of the SDP and ‘Unofficial OppositionLeader’.

25 At the end of the debate Chiam voted for the motion but Cheo abstained andLing was not present when the vote was taken. Ling, Wong and Chee in thewitness box did not take issue with the way Chiam voted, but they testified thatthey were of the view that Chiam’s speech, in the context of the speeches made,was an oblique attack by Chiam on the SDP. Whatever may be the case, itappeared that no action was taken by the CEC on that occasion.

The immediate facts

26 In September, the Prime Minister of Singapore was invited to WilliamsCollege in Massachusetts, USA, where an honorary degree was conferred on himby the Prime Minister’s alma mater. Some faculty members of Williams Collegeopposed the conferment of the degree and held an ‘alternative panel’ discussion atWilliams College to state their opposition. Chee was invited by the organisers ofthe alternative panel to attend the discussion, which he accepted. He went therewith Wong and another member of the SDP.


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

27 At the alternative panel discussion, speeches were made by various persons,including Francis Seow (Seow) and Christopher Lingle. There was no dispute thatin his speech Seow had made a baseless attack on the independence and integrityof the Singapore judiciary. Chee made two speeches. His first speech was a shortresponse to the speech of Seow. Amongst other things, Chee said:

I’ve heard a lot of comments and questions about Singapore and Singapore’sgovernment this evening and I must say that I do agree very much with many things thatMr Seow and Dr Lingle have said and that even as we speak, me and my colleagues thatare here this evening are going through some of these difficulties.

28 Because it was thought that Chee had, in his speech, endorsed the attack bySeow on the judiciary of Singapore, there was a debate in Parliament which I shallrefer to as ‘the Williams College debate’. On 2 November, a motion was tabled inParliament by a PAP MP, Dr Ow Chin Hock which (1) regrets Chee’s attendanceat the alternative panel and his endorsement of Seow’s attacks, and (2) ‘deploresthe SDP’s support for a baseless attack by a fugitive from justice on theindependence and integrity’ of Singapore’s judiciary and legal system. The CECwas of the view that this was a censure of the SDP. Chiam testified that he thoughtotherwise.

29 Both parties in these proceedings have referred extensively to Hansard forwhat happened during the Williams College debate on the motion. Chiam in hisrather lengthy speech, amongst other things, referred to the SDP being run by ‘amegalomaniac’, made an oblique reference to the CEC as being ‘completelydishonest’, and said that Chee was a man who, ‘Whatever he can get, he gets,whether it is $100 or $200’. Chiam also said that by voting for the motion, he was‘not running down the SDP’ but was only against ‘those who are now in charge ofthe SDP’. At the conclusion of the debate the next day, the PAP members andChiam voted for the motion. Ling and Cheo voted against the motion, becausethey took the stand that the SDP did not endorse or support Seow’s speech. Theother opposition MP, Low Thia Khiang of the Workers’ Party, abstained.

30 In court, it was put to Chiam that it was not necessary for him to have saidwhat he did in Parliament and for him to have voted for the motion. Chiammaintained that he felt that it was necessary as this was a national issue and he isa loyal Singaporean. He admitted, however, that he decided to ‘air his views’about Chee.

31 The CEC took strong exception to Chiam’s speech and for the way he voted.The next day, they issued a press statement signed by Wong on behalf of the CEC.The defendants’ evidence was that it was drafted by Chee with ‘input’ from otherCEC members.

32 In order to understand the state of affairs that existed between Chiam and theCEC, it is necessary to set out in full the press statement of 4 November 1995:

The CEC notes with regret Mr Chiam See Tong’s remarks in Parliament. Mr Chiam didnot point out how the SDP endorsed Mr Seow’s attacks on the judiciary. Instead, helaunched a personal attack on the party leadership and Dr Chee Soon Juan.

In the past, the SDP has shown restraint in attacking Mr Chiam because it was stillwilling to work out a compromise with him. But in the past year, Mr Chiam hasrepeatedly attacked the SDP even while he continued to use the party’s name to hang


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

on to his MP’s position. On several occasions in the recent past, Mr Chiam has not takenissue with many of the PAP’s policies but has used these occasions to help the PAPattack his own party. The last straw came when Mr Chiam, together with the PAP,attacked the SDP in Parliament yesterday.

Mr Chiam when he was secretary-general:

• made CEC members sign a deed not to criticise the party and its leadership whenthey left office. But he has repeatedly broken this solemn oath that he swore afterhe resigned as secretary-general,

• failed to honour his MP’s pledge of $500 a month,• never set a vision or a platform for the SDP,• hardly did any research to counter the PAP’s propaganda,• declined to participate in the Cost Review Committee,• did not coordinate with the SDP MPs in Parliament and• neglected the party’s newspaper.

Under his leadership, the SDP was just a collection of individuals who did not have acommon direction. In public, Mr Chiam espoused democratic practices. Within theparty, however, Mr Chiam was an authoritarian. Since Mr Chiam’s departure assecretary-general, the SDP has become more purposeful. We have been willing to pointout and engage the PAP’s propaganda. But after not getting his way within the PartyMr Chiam now joins in the PAP chorus to attack the SDP.

If Mr Chiam feels so strongly against the present leadership and its policies, then hemust be principled enough to resign as an SDP member and join another party. Butinstead, he has chosen to hang as an SDP MP but not perform his role as part of theopposition in Parliament in accordance with the SDP’s policies. Mr Chiam knows thatthere is a court injunction ‘restraining the SDP whether by themselves or agents fromexpelling the plaintiff from the SDP or taking any steps to do so.’ Since the SDP cannottake action against Mr Chiam in this regard, he should be decent enough to resign froma party he has denounced. Mr Chiam talked about human decency and honour. If heclaims to be so decent, then why doesn’t he resign from a party he obviously dislikes somuch? Any honourable politician would do that.

Residents of Potong Pasir voted for an SDP candidate and now find that their SDPMP supports the PAP to try to wreck his own party. The SDP calls on Mr Chiam SeeTong to declare his real interests and intentions and to resign from the SDP.

Central Executive CommitteeDated 4 November 1995

33 That same day, Chiam responded to the CEC’s 4 November press statementby issuing his own press statement. The contents of this was substantiallyrepublished by the Sunday Times on 5 November. He threw a challenge to theleaders of the SDP, in particular he called on Chee to stand against him in a by-election in Potong Pasir with conditions attached which Mr Elias described as‘Winner takes all’. It appears from his press statement that Chiam also entertainedthe pious hope that the Prime Minister would agree to hold a by-election in theconstituency to help resolve the internal squabbles of the SDP. Again, toappreciate the turn of events, I set out this press statement in full:

I shall come straight to the point. The CEC of the SDP wants me to resign from the partywhich I have founded. From the first day I took part in opposition politics I haveannounced that the type of opposition I intend to build must be constructive honest andsincere and I have not deviated from that intention. I founded the SDP so that it couldbe a vehicle for nation building and that is what I still want the SDP to do. On the other


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

hand, the present CEC wants to use the SDP on an agenda which I do not agree. As longas I am in politics I shall not allow them to do so. They want me out of their way. Theywant me to resign from the party. The present CEC wants people to hear only their brandof politics. They do not want competition, they do not want an alternative voice withinthe SDP. Whilst preaching to the people of Singapore that there must be open debate yetthe current SDP leadership does not want to debate with the alternative voice which Irepresent with the party. Is that the type of openness, is that the type of democracy whichthey proclaim to uphold?

I am saddened by the way the SDP is run and the present SDP CEC knows that I havea greater moral claim to the leadership than anyone of them, either individually or as agroup, collectively. I tell the present collective leadership I want the leadership of theparty back. On their part they want me out of the party. I want the people of Singaporeto decide. The SDP has the largest number of Members of Parliament in Parliament. Itis the most influential opposition party in Singapore. Whatever happens to theleadership or the direction taken by the SDP the effect of which must concernSingaporeans. To me the question of the leadership of the party must not be decided bythe current CEC. The current CEC has been condemned by Parliament which representsthe majority of the people of Singapore and as a result the current SDP CEC has no moremoral authority to decide on the leadership of the SDP. To me, the people of Singaporemust decide on who they want to lead the SDP. Therefore, I want the people ofSingapore to decide on the choice of their leaders in the SDP. Accordingly, I am takingup the challenge of the current CEC of the SDP. I shall resign from the SDP. The termsand conditions for me to do so are as follows:

1 When I resign from the SDP I shall also automatically lose my Parliamentary seatin Potong Pasir. I want the present secretary-general, Chee Soon Juan to standagainst me in Potong Pasir. Should Chee wins, he shall remain the leader of theSDP, and the current CEC remains intact, but should he loses then the wholecurrent CEC and all the cadres shall immediately resign their posts as CEC andcadre members and I shall resume the secretary-general post and I shall pick myown CEC members which in turn shall select a whole new set of cadre members.

2 The above suggestion is, of course, conditional to a by-election being held atPotong Pasir. If the current CEC agrees to my proposal then I undertake to write tothe Prime Minister to hold a by-election in Potong Pasir upon my resignation fromthe SDP.

3 The decision to resign from the SDP and to contest the consequent by-election atPotong Pasir is not lightly taken by me. To me politics is not about individualinterests. To me politics is about national interest. The step I am taking now is forthe good of Singapore and I call upon the people of Singapore to support me in mythis momentous decision to resign from the party which I have been associatedwith the past 15 years.

34 The defendants’ evidence of their reaction to this press statement was thatnine members of the CEC, that is, excluding Ling, the fourth defendant and theeleventh defendant, met at a coffee shop around 12 noon on 6 November todiscuss Chiam’s press statement. The result of the meeting was that the pressstatement of 6 November, the subject matter of this action, was issued. It wasdrafted by Chee, again with input from other CEC members. It was maintained byWong and Chee that their press statement was a counter challenge to that ofChiam. The following question and answer of Wong explains the stand of theCEC:

Q: Are you suggesting that the plaintiff should actually join the PAP?A: No. Plaintiff challenged the CEC that if he was to resign from the SDP, Dr Chee


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

will have to stand for election at Potong Pasir against him. Plaintiff said if Dr Cheefailed the CEC members must resign and so must the cadre members which meansthe entire CEC and cadre members will have to resign. It will mean that the entireparty will no longer be in existence. Therefore, it was an unreasonable conditionwhich can never be met. Therefore, I too imposed a condition which could not beaccepted by the plaintiff.

35 In the event, the defendants have been brought to court for libel in the pressstatement as they had not confined themselves to the counter challenge. Lingmaintained that he knew nothing about the meeting of 6 November nor of thecontents or the release of the press statement. Wong and Chee acceptedresponsibility for it. Wong said that the first paragraph was his contribution. Cheetook the stand that the purpose of the press statement was to call on Chiam toresign from the SDP, but he denied that it was to embarrass him.

36 On the same day, 6 November, Chiam issued a press statement in reply. In it,he stated that the CEC had tried to ‘slander me by insinuating that I had crossedover to the side of the PAP which they know I shall never do’. He also said that,‘They have trivialised the whole matter by setting impossible conditions’. On10 November, he wrote in his firm’s letterhead to the chairman of the SDP sayingthat he had not waived his rights to sue the CEC members in respect of the pressstatement of 6 November.

37 On 18 January 1996, Chiam’s solicitors wrote individually to the defendantsalleging that the 6 November press statement was defamatory of Chiam in that thewords were understood to mean:

(1) our client is a puppet, stooge and/or lackey of the PAP and responds and reactsaccording to the praise or otherwise of the PAP; and

(2) our client has compromised his political principle and integrity as an oppositionMember of Parliament because of his quest for personal political power and hisresentment against the SDP, to the extent of even attempting to destroy his ownparty.

The letter then went on to allege that these allegations had ‘brought our client intopublic scandal, odium, contempt and ridicule.’ It demanded a public apology anddamages, including aggravated damages for the republications that occurred.

38 On 27 January 1996, Wong replied to Chiam’s solicitors on behalf of theCEC. The CEC denied that the 6 November statement was defamatory of Chiamin the manner suggested. Wong and Chee testified that they were so advised byLing. The letter also asserted that in so far as it was alleged that the defendants hadsaid that Chiam had compromised his political principle and integrity, there wassufficient truth to the claim. The CEC threatened to counterclaim for Chiam’salleged breach of ‘the deed executed by your client.’

39 On 1 February, Chee told reporters that the SDP ‘will not apologise to Chiamfor CEC’s remarks’. This was reported in the Straits Times on the next day.

40 Two days later, Chiam’s solicitors issued a writ against the defendants forlibel. In the amended statement of claim, Chiam alleged that the 6 Novemberstatement, in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood tomean that:


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

a the plaintiff is a puppet and/or stooge and/or lackey of the People’s Action Party;b the plaintiff has compromised his principle and integrity as an opposition Member

of Parliament because:

i he has aligned himself with the PAP;ii he responds and reacts to the praise of the PAP and not as a result of

independent thought;

c the plaintiff, if invited to do so by the PAP, will betray the cause of the oppositionby joining the PAP;

d the plaintiff has persistently and unjustly criticized the SDP because of:

i the reasons set out in paragraphs 5(a) and (b) hereof; and/orii his spite and jealousy that SDP was able to carry on without him as its

Secretary-General; and/oriii his desire to destroy the SDP.

e the plaintiff had suddenly and without regard for the SDP’s interests abandoned theSDP by his resignation as secretary-general of the SDP in May 1993;

f the plaintiff had resigned as the secretary-general of the SDP in May 1993 in orderto destroy the SDP;

g all the plaintiff’s actions and/or criticisms were motivated by his quest for personalpolitical power;

h the plaintiff is not fit to be an opposition Member of Parliament;i the plaintiff is not a man of honour and principle by remaining in a party which he

does not share the same ideology.

41 In the alternative, Chiam alleged that the 6 November statement bore thosemeanings by way of innuendo. He pleaded, by way of particulars to support theinnuendo, the events leading to the issue of the 6 November press statement.

42 The original defences were justification and fair comment, in addition to aninsufficiently pleaded denial of defamatory meaning. However, the defence ofjustification was struck out before the case came to trial on the application ofChiam’s solicitors. Together with Ling, the fourth and the eleventh defendantspleaded that they took no part in the issuance of the 6 November 1995 pressstatement and that they were not responsible for it. In addition, they pleaded faircomment.

43 During the trial, Ling indicated that he was not going to give evidence insupport of his pleaded defence save for the paragraph denying knowledge orresponsibility for the statement. The remaining paragraphs of his defence wereaccordingly struck out. After Chee had given evidence, the fourth and eleventhdefendants decided that they would adopt Ling’s stand at the trial. They confirmedthis in the witness box and accordingly, the corresponding parts of their defenceswere similarly struck out.

44 As for the fifth to tenth and the twelfth defendants, it was also agreed betweenthe parties that they would adopt Wong and Chee’s stand and evidence, and beliable to the same extent (including malice, if any) as Wong and Chee would be ifthe 6 November press statement were to be found libellous. Their evidence wastherefore restricted to their confirmation of this agreement in the witness box.


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

Was the 6 November press statement defamatory?

45 The contents of the 6 November press statement has been set out above, ashas the manner in which it was alleged to be defamatory of Chiam. The test ofwhether a statement is defamatory of a person was not disputed. It was alsocommon ground that in Singapore, the natural and ordinary meaning of the wordscomplained of is decided by the court.

46 In the well-known case of Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234, LordReid succinctly stated the test at p 259:

Ordinary men and women have different temperaments and outlooks. Some areunusually suspicious and some are unusually naive. One must try to envisage peoplebetween those two extremes and see what is the most damaging meaning they would puton the words in question.

47 In deciding what the natural and ordinary meaning of the words are, the courtis required to take into account an ordinary man’s general knowledge of worldlyaffairs. As was stated by Lord Reid at p 258:

There is no doubt that in actions for libel the question is what the words would conveyto the ordinary man: it is not one of construction in the legal sense. The ordinary mandoes not live in an ivory tower and is not inhibited by a knowledge of the rules ofconstruction. So he can and does read between the lines in the light of his generalknowledge and experience of worldly affairs …

What the ordinary man would infer without special knowledge has generally beencalled the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. But the expression is rathermisleading in that it conceals the fact that there are two elements in it. Sometimes it isnot necessary to go beyond the words themselves, as where the plaintiff has been calleda thief or murderer. But more often the sting is not so much in the words themselves asin what the ordinary man will infer from them, and that is also regarded as part of theirnatural and ordinary meaning.

48 In the present case, it was not disputed that the facts leading to the publicationof the 6 November press statement were so well known amongst ordinary personsin Singapore as to constitute common knowledge. Chiam said as much in hispleadings, in the particulars in support of innuendo, though for the same reason,these facts cannot be ‘special facts’ which go to support an innuendo.Accordingly, the claim by Chiam of innuendo must fail.

49 Reading the press statement as a whole, as I must, the first statement whichChiam takes objection to is, ‘Of late, Mr Chiam has been highly praised by thePAP and he has also been very supportive of the ruling party in attacking the SDP.That being the case, he should join the PAP.’ At the submission stage, it wasagreed that the words ‘of late’ refer to the Williams College debate. Thus, thestatement means that Chiam in the Williams College debate had been verysupportive of the PAP in attacking his own party.

50 Chiam gave evidence that he was not being supportive of the PAP in thatdebate in attacking his own party. Assuming for the moment that he was correct,an untrue statement is not necessarily a defamatory statement. In order to bedefamatory, a statement must lower Chiam in the estimation of others, or exposehim to hatred, contempt or ridicule, and in this context, the views of the


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

community as a whole must be considered, and not just that of a limited class; seeBerry v Irish Times [1973] IR 368 and Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818.

51 In my view, the mere allegation that Chiam has been very supportive of thePAP is not defamatory, for being supportive of the PAP per se cannot lower himin the eyes of right thinking members of the public. Moreover, it was his case thatwhether he did support the PAP to attack the SDP must depend on the issue athand. In the Williams College debate, in the words of Chiam, ‘National interestmust rise above party interest.’ For this reason, I am of the view that it is notdefamatory of Chiam to say that he had been very supportive of the PAP inattacking the SDP.

52 However, it is defamatory to say of Chiam that in doing so, he is ‘nowshowing his spite and jealousy that the SDP has been able to progress withouthim.’ That statement imputes that Chiam sided with the SDP’s political opponentto attack the SDP, not because it was a matter of principle, but because he wasmotivated by spite and jealousy. It also imputes that Chiam was not loyal to hisparty because of his own selfish reasons, namely his spite and jealousy against theCEC.

53 In my view, this imputation is very clear, for in the same paragraph, thestatement says, ‘The CEC will not allow him to destroy the Party again,’ therearising the further imputation that it was Chiam’s intention to destroy his ownparty when he supported the PAP to attack the SDP. It is made even more manifestwhen the statement later states, ‘Up until now, all he has shown is a craze forpersonal political power.’

54 It is in this context that the words, ‘As a matter of principle and honour, MrChiam must leave the party he disagrees with so much’ should be read. Theimputation is that Chiam is not a man of principle and honour. I have earlier saidthat it was common knowledge that the CEC had in the past called for Chiam’sresignation from the SDP and furthermore, that the SDP had expelled him exceptthat that action of the CEC was unsuccessful. So, a reasonable reader would inferfrom the above statement that Chiam was not a man of honour and principle forremaining in the party he disagrees with.

55 On this issue, therefore, I am clearly of the view that the 6 November pressstatement is defamatory of Chiam. The sting of the defamation is that Chiam hadbeen very supportive of the ruling party in attacking the SDP and that in doing so,Chiam was motivated by his spite and jealousy against the CEC and a craze forpersonal political power, to the extent that he intended to destroy his own party.In doing so, the statement also imputes that Chiam was disloyal to his party forvery selfish reasons and that therefore he was not a man of honour or principle.

56 The question then is whether the sting goes further, to the extent of saying, asChiam alleged, that he was a ‘puppet and/or stooge and/or lackey’ of the PAP. Thewords ‘puppet’, ‘stooge’ and ‘lackey’ are derogatory words meaning someonewho does the bidding of another without the will to exercise his own independentthought. These words do not appear in the 6 November press statement and thequestion I have to decide is whether an ordinary reader could infer that this is whatis said of Chiam in the statement.


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

57 For it to be so understood, Chiam also relied on the statements that ‘Mr Chiamhas been highly praised by the PAP’ and that he had been ‘very supportive of theruling party in attacking the SDP’ as being false. But I do not see how anyreasonable reader would infer that someone who is ‘highly praised by the PAP’and who has also been ‘very supportive of the ruling party in attacking’ his ownparty is one who responds and reacts to the praise of the PAP. Nor would areasonable reader infer that he is someone who has not acted as a result ofindependent thought, and is therefore a puppet, stooge or lackey of the PAP. Inorder to arrive at the imputation alleged by Chiam, the reader will have to hold theview that the PAP only praises its ‘puppet’, ‘stooge’ or ‘lackey’. That, in my view,is not a reasonable reader of the 6 November press statement.

58 Nor do I see how a reasonable person will infer that Chiam ‘will betray thecause of the opposition’ (whatever that means) by joining the PAP. There is nosuch allegation in the press statement, except that there is a challenge made toChiam to join the PAP. In my view, any reasonable reader, possessed of thecommon knowledge of the events leading to the publication of this pressstatement, will come to the conclusion that it was issued in response to Chiam’schallenge of 4 November and that it carried an impossible condition. There wasno imputation of any kind in the call for Chiam to join the PAP.

59 For these reasons, there is likewise no imputation that Chiam is not fit to bean opposition MP, which in any event, is a difficult allegation to understand.Chiam had not put his case so high as to allege that the statement imputed that heis not fit to be an MP; nor can there be any such imputation. However, Chiamwould seem to suggest that there is a higher objective ‘cause for the opposition’but there was no suggestion by Chiam as to what this ‘cause’ is. These allegedimputations of Chiam being unfit to be an opposition MP or that he will ‘betraythe cause of the opposition’ are therefore, in my view, without substance. I do notconsider that the words in the 6 November press statement are capable of bearingthese meanings.

60 Chiam also complained that the statement ‘Mr Chiam almost killed the SDPwhen he abruptly and irresponsibly resigned as secretary-general’ was defamatoryof him. I agree. It is defamatory to say of someone that when he was in a positionof responsibility he had acted irresponsibly. However, I do not agree that the libelgoes as far as to impute that Chiam had resigned as secretary-general in order todestroy the SDP. That statement is evidently a statement of opinion as to the resultof Chiam’s action in resigning as secretary-general of the SDP. It is to take a longleap from there to say that it is an imputation of intention. I do not think that areasonable reader will draw that kind of inference.

The defence of the first, fourth and eleventh defendants

61 I have already stated that Ling’s defence was a complete denial ofresponsibility or knowledge of the press statement. Ling’s evidence was that hedid not take part in the meeting of 6 November, that he did not authorise themaking or release of the statement and that he knew nothing about it despite beingthe chairman of the SDP. He even contended that the statement was not a CECstatement. He went so far as to say that until he was cross-examined in court, heformed no view in relation to the statement. This was despite the fact that he had


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

acted as solicitor for the defendants, that he had advised the other defendants thatthe statement was not defamatory and that he had raised the defences ofjustification and fair comment. To get a flavour of Ling’s evidence, it is necessaryto reproduce an extract of his cross-examination:

Q: Do you support the press statement?A: You see the decision was arrived at by some members of the CEC. I don’t know

what transpired at the meeting. If I know what had taken place, probably I wouldcome to the conclusion whether this statement is supportable or not.

Q: As you sit in court today, do you support it?A: Yes.Q: When did you take that decision the first time?A: Now.Q: When did you first see the press statement?A: Probably one or two days after the publication.Q: From that day to this date, you have taken no view on the press statement?A: As I said earlier, I had nothing to do with that publication, so I didn’t bother to take

a view of the press statement. In fact, I did not read the Straits Times thoroughly.Q: When did you first read the press statement thoroughly?A: I believe when we received the letter from the plaintiff — I believe it was when the

plaintiff made the press statement saying that the statement was insinuating andfollowed by if we dare to say it in the open.…

Q: That would be the letter dated 10 November 1995 from the plaintiff to you?A: Yes.Q: Did you approve of the press statement then?A: I had not made up my mind yet and I believe this letter was referred to a lawyer

friend of ours. So, at that time I did not approve of the press statement.Q: Did you concur with it?A: I never thought about it. My reason is this letter of the plaintiff is not an indication

that action will be commenced.Q: Did you at that time concur with it?A: No.Q: Did you at that time ratify it?A: No.Q: Did you look at the statement to see who signed it?A: Actually as I said I went through the press statement. It was none of my business.

I read it.

62 Mr Elias submitted that this evidence coming from Ling, as an officer of thecourt, as an advocate and solicitor, as a Member of Parliament, and as thechairman of the SDP, flew in the face of commonsense, and was unbelievable. Iagree.

63 Ling gave evidence in the witness box for 3 days. To a large extent this wasbecause of the kind of evidence he gave, which necessitated Mr Elias’ extensivecross-examination in order to get straight answers from him. It was only aftermuch vacillation that Ling finally agreed that the CEC meeting which authoredthe statement was a valid one. He then conceded that under the ‘Westminster’style of party politics which he claims to practise, he is ‘by convention’ bound bythe CEC’s decision to issue the statement, that he must endorse and ratify it andthat it did not matter whether he attended the meeting.


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

64 Notwithstanding all this, Mr Dube submitted on Ling’s behalf that hisevidence was that the press statement was not binding on him because the CECmeeting leading to the issuance of the press statement was not a valid one.Obviously, Mr Dube had misunderstood the effect of Ling’s evidence, for Lingwas driven to unreservedly accept that the CEC meeting on 6 November wasvalid. This can be seen from the following extract of the cross-examination:

Q: So in issuing the statement in your absence, the second defendant was perfectlyentitled to sign it?

A: Yes.Q: So, in the light of that answer, how does it offend cl X(e) (of the SDP constitution)?A: Your Honour, when I refer to the clause, I’m going on the technicality aspect of it

… but as I (am) saying the fact that because there was more than a quorum, youknow, more than a quorum, they have nine of them, the CEC meeting is you knowa valid one in that sense because more than a quorum there. It’s a valid one.

65 When reminded of this evidence, Mr Dube accepted that if the meeting wasproperly convened, then in the light of Ling’s evidence, Ling, the fourth andeleventh defendants would be vicariously liable for the defamation. So, on thefacts I have stated, I hold the said three defendants liable for the libel.

Fair comment defence of Wong, Chee, the fifth to tenth and twelfth defendants

66 The defence of Wong, Chee, the fifth to tenth and twelfth defendants was thatthe defamatory portions of the 6 November press statement was fair comment ona matter of public importance. As for the law on this, it was accepted that this wasas stated by Chao Hick Tin J in Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v WrightNorman & Ors [1994] 3 SLR 760 at p 770:

I now turn to consider the defences and, first, fair comment. The burden of proving faircomment rests on the defendants. To succeed on this defence, the defendants mustestablish these four elements:

(1) the words complained of are comments, though it may consist of or includeinference of facts;

(2) the comment is on a matter of public interest;(3) the comment is based on facts; and (4) the comment is one which a fair-minded person can honestly make on the facts

proved.

So far as the ingredient of public interest is concerned, it was common ground thatthe subject matter of the press statement satisfies this requirement.

67 In the re-re-amended defence, the said defendants relied on only threestatements of facts in the press statement, namely that Chiam resigned abruptly asthe secretary-general of the SDP, that Chiam criticised the SDP and that Chiamwas highly praised by the PAP. It was alleged that the rest of the press statementwas comment.

68 In Telnikoff v Matusevich [1992] 2 AC 343, it was held that in determiningwhether a defamatory statement is one of fact or comment, reference may not bemade to an outside document. This principle was approved in Overseas-ChineseBanking Corp Ltd v Wright Norman & Ors (supra). As I understand these two


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

cases, the reason why an outside document could not be referred to was that therewere ordinary readers of that libel who might not have read that document, or ifthey had read it, did not have its terms fully in mind. Thus, it was said by LordKeith in Telnikoff v Matusevich at p 352 as follows:

The question then arises whether it is permissible to have regard to the whole terms ofthe plaintiff’s article, not only the sentence from it quoted in the letter, in determiningwhether paras 6 and 7 of the letter contain statements of fact or are pure comment. Inmy opinion the letter must be considered on its own. The readers of the letter must haveincluded a substantial number of persons who had not read the article or who, if they hadread it, did not have its terms fully in mind. If to such persons the letter appeared in paras6 and 7 to contain statements of fact about what the plaintiff had written in his article,which as I have already indicated might well be the case, then in the eyes of thosepersons the plaintiff would clearly be defamed. The matter cannot turn on the likelihoodor otherwise of readers of the letter having read the article. In some cases many readersof a criticism of some subject matter may be familiar with that subject matter but in othercases very few may be, for example where that subject matter is a speech delivered to alimited audience. The principle must be the same in either case.

69 In the present case, it seems to me that there is no reason why I may not haveregard to what is within the common knowledge of the reasonable reader whendeciding whether a defamatory statement is one of fact or comment. It is after allthe same material which I have to and did take into account in determining thenatural meaning of the words complained of.

70 I now turn to apply what I have said to this issue of fair comment. First,looking at the press statement again as a whole, I want to itemise, as I view them,the statement of facts from the comments:

(a) The statement that Chiam was highly praised by the PAP is a statement of factwhich I have already found is not defamatory, even if it is untrue.

(b) As for the statement that Chiam ‘has also been very supportive of the rulingparty in attacking the SDP’, it was submitted for Chiam that the entirestatement is one of fact. I am unable to agree. In the context in which thesewords were written, I am of the view that the statement that Chiam hadattacked the SDP is a statement of fact, but the statement that Chiam had beenvery supportive of the ruling party in doing so is a comment on that fact.

(c) Of the statement that ‘Mr Chiam almost killed the SDP when he abruptly andirresponsibly resigned as secretary-general’, the first part is clearly commenton Chiam, and the second part that he abruptly and irresponsibly resigned assecretary-general of the SDP, is a statement of fact. Further, it is not possibleto separate the words ‘abruptly’ from ‘irresponsibly’, as the defendantssought to do. The two words used in such a close context must have been useddeliberately by the drafter. In my view, they are both allegations of factswhich I have held are defamatory of Chiam.

(d) The statement ‘The CEC will not allow him to destroy the party again’, isclearly a comment on the actions of Chiam: on his attack on the SDP in theWilliams College debate.

(e) Likewise, too, the allegation that ‘Mr Chiam is now showing his spite andjealousy that the SDP has been able to progress without him’ is a comment.

(f) Lastly, on the statement ‘Up until now, all he has shown is a craze for


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

personal political power’ it is necessary to read these words in the context ofthe paragraph in which they were found. In that paragraph, it was said thatChiam is welcome to lead the SDP again, but that he must first do certainthings. It then alleged that ‘up until now’, Chiam had only done things thathave shown his ‘craze for personal political power.’ It concluded that that isnot what the leaders of the SDP want. In the circumstances, it seems quiteclear that a reasonable reader will interpret the statement ‘Up until now, allhe has shown is a craze for personal political power’ as a statement of fact onwhich comments were made in the rest of the paragraph.

As one of the main stings of the libel I have found was that Chiam had attackedhis own party because of his craze for personal political power, the defendants areliable for this defamatory statement of fact.

71 Secondly, there is the question of whether there is sufficient substratum offacts to qualify the defamatory comments as fair comment. In this respect, the lawis set out in Kemsley v Foot & Ors [1952] AC 345. It is not necessary for the factsrelied on to support the comment to be set out in the defamatory statement itself,provided that they have been adequately referred to in the statement.

72 From the three particulars of facts pleaded to support the comments, it is clearthat the defendants were relying on the factual matrix of the Williams Collegedebate to found their comments. To the extent that the defendants relied onChiam’s allegedly abrupt and irresponsible resignation as secretary-general, thiscannot form part of the substratum, for it was a defamatory statement of fact whichthe defendants have not sought to justify. As for the statement of fact that Chiamwas highly praised by the PAP, even if it was true, I fail to see how this can formthe substratum for the defamatory comments. So, this leaves only the WilliamsCollege debate.

73 I have noted that the motion for the Williams College debate was proposedby a PAP MP. And, in that debate Chiam voted in favour of the motion to censurehis own party. So, there can be no doubt that there is sufficient substratum of factsfor the comment that Chiam had been ‘very supportive of the ruling party inattacking the SDP.’ As the motion to censure the SDP can legitimately beconstrued as an attack on the SDP, the stand taken by the defendants that Chiamhad attacked the SDP is true. Therefore, it could be said that there was sufficientsubstratum for the comments that Chiam was actuated by spite or jealousy and thathis intention was to destroy the SDP.

74 However, on the facts I have stated I have little doubt that Wong, Chee, thefifth to the tenth and the twelfth defendants were actuated by express malice whenthey published the press statement. There is clear evidence that by the time of theWilliams College debate there was bad blood between Chiam and the CEC, inparticular Wong and Chee. Similarly too, the offending press statement was inresponse to Chiam’s press statement of 4 November in which Chiam hadchallenged Chee (and the CEC) to stand against him in Potong Pasir. The CECconsidered Chiam’s challenge a ridiculous one, and so they issued a counter-challenge which Chiam said had ‘trivialised’ his challenge ‘by setting impossibleconditions’.


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

75 So, the irresistible inference must be that the offending press statement wasreleased to embarrass Chiam for the challenge he made on 4 November. In thewords of Mr Elias for Chiam, the press statement was made to ‘down’ Chiam. Inmy view, this was an improper motive for the issue of the offending pressstatement. This constitutes express malice. This is why the defence of faircomment must, in any event, fail.

76 For all these reasons, Wong, Chee, the fifth to tenth and the twelfthdefendants are also liable for the libel contained in the 6 November pressstatement.

Damages

77 It remains for me to assess damages. On the facts I have found, the damagesChiam can claim are compensatory. It is trite law that the quantum of the damagesmust be sufficient to vindicate his reputation and to compensate him for hisinjured feelings.

78 In assessing the damages, in addition to the general matters referred to bycounsel in their submissions, in this case there are the following facts to be bornein mind. One, the common knowledge that the offending press statement wasissued in the course of an internal political squabble between Chiam and the CECwhich each carried out in the media. In the circumstances, a reasonable readerwould more likely to be sceptical about what was stated in the offending pressstatement. It is a natural reaction for a reader to discount what is said disparaginglyof a man when he knows that the words were said by the man’s enemies.

79 Two, for the same reasons, the injury to Chiam’s feelings would also be less.That this was the case is clearly shown in Chiam’s press statement of the same dayin reply to the offending press statement stating that he was ‘disappointed’ withthe stand taken by the CEC who had ‘trivialised the whole matter by settingimpossible conditions’, and further that the CEC ‘tries to slander me byinsinuation’. As Mr Dube submitted for the defendants, his initial reaction was notof a man who was gravely injured in his feelings to the offending press statement.However, it must also be said the next day Chiam gave notice to the chairman ofthe SDP, Ling, that he reserved his ‘legal rights to sue for damages in relation tothe said press statement’.

80 Three, when it came to legal proceedings, Chiam put his case so high as toallege that the defendants in defaming him were imputing that he is a stooge,lackey or puppet of the PAP and that he is unfit to be an opposition MP. It wouldappear that Chiam considered this to be the main sting of the libel. As I haveexplained, this I cannot find on the facts.

81 Four, I cannot agree with Chiam when he said that the conditions he hadimposed in his 4 November press statement challenging Chee (and the CEC) tostand against him in a by-election in Potong Pasir were not impossible to perform.Neither Chiam nor Mr Elias on his behalf could make clear to me how thechallenge would be successfully implemented. Leaving aside the internal strifethat would erupt, of calling all the CEC and cadre members to resign, thechallenge thrown by Chiam was a ridiculous one.


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

82 In my view, the challenge was flawed. As I see it if Chiam resigns from theSDP and runs against Chee in a by-election, he obviously cannot run under theSDP’s banner. So even if he wins and accepting his evidence that the mechanismis in place for him to resume the helm of the SDP, the simple fact is that Chiamcannot take his seat in Parliament for he did not win the election under the SDPbanner. I therefore cannot see how he can be heard to say that he was gravelyinjured in his feelings when his challenge was trivialised.

83 Five, Mr Elias claimed damages for Chiam for injury to his reputation as anadvocate and solicitor. In my view, damages would have to be given for theimputation that Chiam is not a man of principle or honour. However, as the libelwas in relation to Chiam’s political life, and would be so understood by theordinary reader, it cannot be aggravated damages.

84 Six, a claim for aggravated damages was sought for Chiam on the failure onthe part of the defendants to apologise. In this context, it must be borne in mindthat Chiam’s solicitors’ letter of 18 January had demanded that the defendantsapologise for imputing that Chiam was a stooge, lackey or puppet of the PAP andthat he had compromised his integrity and principle as an opposition MP. As thishas not been made good in the trial, the claim for aggravated damages for failureto apologise does not arise. However, the defendants on their part could havereplied to say that the press statement was not defamatory in the manner allegedbut that it could be defamatory in a lesser way, and offered to apologise for that.Instead, Chee made a statement to the press that the SDP will not apologise. So, Iwould give some damages in this regard.

85 Seven, having regard to s 18 of the Defamation Act, I am of the view that thecommon law rule in Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027 that damages isassessed according to the lowest common denominator amongst defendants is notapplicable in Singapore. It seems to me that s 18 is only workable if the highestpoint is taken as the starting point. This means taking into account all thecircumstances and determining how much the person most culpable is liable for.If mitigation is claimed by some of the defendants, then the onus is on them tomake an application under s 18, so that the court can consider the relevant mattersconcerning them. In this action, none of the defendants have applied for damagesto be assessed separately.

86 Eight, I must take into account the conduct of the defendants in theseproceedings. On Ling, I have earlier, in considering his liability for the libel,touched on his evidence. His evidence that as chairman of the SDP, he knewnothing about the offending press statement and had taken no stand on it wasludicrous, bearing in mind that he had also acted as solicitor for the otherdefendants. Here I would add that except, where from a line of questions, he wascompelled to concede or admit to material facts, and even then grudgingly, he wasoften evasive in the witness box and his evidence left much to be desired. I wouldsay that his conduct on the matters thrown up in this case, considered as a whole,was deplorable. In my view, the kind of evidence he gave in court had the effectof exacerbating the libel.

87 Nine, as for Wong and Chee, I have to take into account that they had soughtto justify the libel even when they were in the witness box. In particular, Wong


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

had maintained that Chiam was a man of no political principles. Chee had alsosaid that Chiam had jumped on the PAP’s bandwagon. Both of them had also triedto give the impression that they had been very accommodating of Chiam up tillthe time of the libel and that it was Chiam who had rebuffed their attempts.However, it is clear to me on the evidence that by 16 August 1993 neither of themregarded Chiam as a member of the SDP.

88 Ten, it is of course a serious libel to say of an opposition MP that he is alackey, stooge, or puppet of the ruling party, and if this is on a balance ofprobabilities proved, I would agree with Mr Elias that the damages would be moresubstantial than I am going to award. However, for reasons I have given, thisimputation has not been proved.

89 Now, on the authorities for damages cited to me, this case is unlike that in LeeKuan Yew v Vinocur & Ors [1996] 2 SLR 542, where the libel on the SeniorMinister was published by a reputable publication and had appeared to have beenwritten by an unbiased observer. I also do not find Chew Chin Tong Ernest & Anorv Chee Soon Juan (Suit No 955/93) (unreported) and S Vasoo v Chee Soon Juan(Suit No 936/93) (unreported) useful as I was only given the formal judgments.

90 On the findings I have made on the evidence, and taking into considerationall the factors I have enumerated above, I am of the view that the sum of $120,000will assuage the injured feelings and restore the reputation of Chiam.

91 The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of this action. As regards apportionmentof costs against the defendants, I am of the view that this court can express itsdisapproval of the conduct of some of the defendants. But any order that I canmake will depend on whether there is an application by the several defendants. So,I give liberty to the defendants to make an application if they want to on a date tobe fixed by the registrar.

Plaintiff’s claim allowed.

Reported by Cheung Phei Chiet

[1996]_SGHC_293

Documents

chinese banking

lee kuan yew

personal political

lowest common

wright norman

internal political

chiams political

common law