Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Apex court dismisses blogger’s counterclaim alleging PM Lee’s libel action abused court process

SINGAPORE — In the latest development in an ongoing legal tussle between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and financial adviser and blogger Leong Sze Hian, the highest court of the land dismissed an appeal made by Mr Leong over an earlier High Court ruling, effectively putting an end to his attempt to sue Mr Lee for abuse of the court process.

Financial adviser and blogger Leong Sze Hian lost an appeal in Singapore's highest court on Sept 27, 2019, in relation to his ongoing legal tussle with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Financial adviser and blogger Leong Sze Hian lost an appeal in Singapore's highest court on Sept 27, 2019, in relation to his ongoing legal tussle with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE — In the latest development in an ongoing legal tussle between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and financial adviser and blogger Leong Sze Hian, the highest court of the land dismissed an appeal made by Mr Leong over an earlier High Court ruling, effectively putting an end to his attempt to sue Mr Lee for abuse of the court process.

Mr Leong had counter-sued Mr Lee after the PM initiated a libel suit against him for sharing an article on Facebook alleging that Mr Lee had helped Malaysia’s former premier Najib Razak to launder money from the country’s state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

With the failed appeal, the court ordered Mr Leong to pay Mr Lee costs of S$20,000.

The court session on Friday (Sept 27) started with Mr Leong’s lawyer, Mr Lim Tean, arguing that Mr Lee was using “state machinery” to silence his client — whom he described as a “prominent” government critic — and not to vindicate his (Mr Lee’s) reputation.

When asked to substantiate his claims before a three-judge panel at the Court of Appeal, Mr Lim — who happens to lead People’s Voice, an opposition party which Mr Leong has joined — said the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) was involved in issuing a notice to Mr Leong last November, among other government resources that were used.

“My client, out of thousands (of people who shared the article), was served notice at 11pm. Close to 10,000 people shared that link, but no others got that notification from IMDA,” said Mr Lim.

“And the respondent (Mr Lee) had not pursued claims against any other person who shared the link except for my client,” he added, as he asserted that Mr Lee had practised “the highest form of selectivism” in determining who should be the target in his libel case.

MR LEONG’S LAWYER SPARS WITH JUDGES OVER PM LEE’S RIGHT TO SUE

Mr Lee’s suit was therefore brought to serve “collateral purposes”, namely to “chill the freedom of expression” ahead of the next General Election, Mr Lim told the court. Mr Lee is “in effect, using this libel action to gag political speech”, he said.

“(Mr Lee) has not brought this action — for want of a better phrase — in good faith,” Mr Lim added.

The three judges, however, found Mr Lim’s arguments problematic.

At one point, Justice Of Appeal Andrew Phang, who presided over the hearing with Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justice Of Appeal Judith Prakash, invited Mr Lim to “return to first principles” and answer why defamation law exists.

Mr Lim argued that the “not-so-nice” explanation is that it is a “weapon” by the powerful to silence their critics, while another way to look at it is to protect a person against “another’s speech” which attempts to sully his or her reputation.

Justice Phang sought clarification on whether Mr Lim was referring to “free speech”, and Mr Lim said that he was.

“If (one’s) reputation is sullied, he is entitled to bring action,” Justice Phang said, as Mr Lim said: “Provided that he is bringing it for a legitimate and proper purpose”.

Cutting in, Chief Justice Menon said: “The plaintiff chooses what to go against. You seem to think that there is something sinister, but the plaintiff chooses how to conduct his litigation. You know that.”

Justice Phang added: “For some reason, if (the plaintiff feels) merciful or what, it is (his) choice.”

Standing his ground, Mr Lim said: “Yes I agree but… I don’t think it is that simple… 10,000 libelled you, and you choose one and go after him. Can you turn around (to say) that, really, you are protecting your reputation? Why not sue the writer of that (article)?”

‘WE ARE NOT COURT OF POLITICS’, JUDGE SAYS

After more back and forth along similar lines, Justice Phang said: “We are not the court of politics. We are the court of justice and law. You seem to be conflating extralegal with legal purposes.”

He went on: “Anyone who claims to have been defamed has the right to bring action whoever you are – ever so high and ever so low, the court is fair to anyone. That’s freedom of another kind, and that is justice… Everyone is equal before the law, Mr Lim.”

Mr Lim said that Mr Lee constitutes a “public person with a public function” with certain state machineries at his disposal “that can chill”, then Justice Phang asked him: “How can it be?”

Pointing to Mr Lee’s lawyer, Mr Davinder Singh, who was not required to respond to Mr Lim’s assertions in court on Friday, Justice Phang said: “Mr Singh, I don’t think, belongs to government machinery. I think he has been paid his fees. How is he part of the public machinery?”

In delivering the judgement, Chief Justice Menon said that allowing Mr Leong’s counterclaim could deter genuine litigants with a potentially valid claim from pursuing a suit for fear of being sued in return, while he noted that the court cannot limit the rights of injured parties to access the court, “even if they happen to be public figures”.

He added that the legal tort of abuse of process is not recognised in Singapore law.

Next to come in the legal tussle is a hearing of the defamation suit against Mr Leong brought by Mr Lee. Dates for the trial have not been set, according to a spokesperson from Mr Singh’s law firm, Davinder Singh Chambers.

The article Mr Leong had shared, which forms the basis of the defamation suit, was titled Breaking News: Singapore Lee Hsien Loong Becomes 1MDB’s Key Investigation Target – Najib Signed Several Unfair Agreements With Hsien Loong In Exchange for Money Laundering.

It was originally published by online site States Times Review on Nov 5 last year and carried on Malaysian website The Coverage on Nov 7. Mr Leong shared the Malaysian site’s version on his Facebook page the day it was published without any accompanying caption.

Related topics

Leong Sze Hian Lee Hsien Loong defamation blogger court crime

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.