The High Court has ordered Lee Hsien Yang to pay ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan S$200,000 each after finding Lee's remarks on a Facebook post on their Ridout Road rentals defamatory.

In a Facebook post published on Jul. 23, 2023, Lee alleged that the ministers acted corruptly and received preferential treatment from the Singapore Land Authority.

High Court judge Goh Yihan wrote in a judgment dated May 24 that Lee's allegations were "of the gravest kind" as they concerned their personal integrity, professional reputation, and core personality attributes.

He also noted that despite being ordered to do so, Lee did not remove the allegations until Nov. 10, 2023 — over three months later — and additionally wrote in a comment that he "stand[s] by what [he] said".

Shanmugam previously said that they would donate damages received to charity.

You cannot expect the court to clear you automatically if you don't defend yourself: Judge

The judge noted that it was "clear" that Lee had not responded to the suit in any manner.

While he noted that every defendant has the "right to defend a civil claim" and also the "right to choose not to defend a claim brought against him", the defendant "cannot expect that a court will automatically dismiss the claimant's case against him".

"This is because a claimant also has the right to pursue his claim against a defendant of his choosing.

In our system of adversarial justice, it is incumbent on a defendant to respond to such a claim.

If a defendant does not do so, then a claimant will have an easier, though not certain, route to a favourable judgment."

The judge further explained that if a defendant had chosen not to defend himself through the court proceedings, while it does not generally automatically result in a claimant prevailing against a defendant, it does make it "easier" for a claimant to prevail.

"If a defendant persistently chooses not to respond to a claim, he cannot complain that he could not defend himself against such a claim."

Aggravated damages

In this case, the judge noted that Lee had been kept informed of each step of the proceedings, and in the absence of any countervailing material Lee could have adduced, he could only decide on the basis of the claimants' case.

He noted that the defamatory allegations against the claimants, which affect their personal integrity, professional reputation, honour, and core personality attributes, were "of the gravest kind".

The judge also accepted the claimants' argument that Lee is well-known in Singapore and active on social media, hence "greater the impact of the defamation".

He also accepted that the defamatory remarks were "substantially published" in Singapore based on the shares and reactions to the Facebook post.

The judge also noted that Lee continued to refer to and "draw attention" to the defamatory claims in subsequent Facebook posts.

He said it was also significant that Lee did not apologise and/or remove the Facebook post despite being given an opportunity to do so.

"Instead, the evidence is that he doubled down in a 'comment' posted on his Facebook post of Jul. 25, 2023, and said that the Correction Direction he had received was 'misleading' and that 'I stand by what I said'," Goh noted.

Finally, the judge found that Lee had acted with malice by publishing his remarks "recklessly" and/or without considering or caring whether they were true or not.

The judge also believed that Lee would not be able to defend himself by claiming he "genuinely did not know" the remarks were untrue, as he would have been aware through a Correction Direction he was issued with.

He added that these multiple reasons justified the award of not only higher damages but also aggravated damages.

In total, the judge awarded each minister S$200,000 in damages: S$150,000 in general damages and an additional S$50,000 in aggravated damages.

Related stories

Top image from Lee Hsien Yang/Facebook and SLA