Reputation is thus tied to social standing and contribution to the public welfare,
and the worth of one’s reputation affects the quantum of damages awarded in
defamation cases. The Singapore public-figure/-leader doctrine does not enhance
the scope of free speech, but goes to a higher quantification of damages for harming
reputation.
Nonetheless, a possible future development which might moderate damages
for political libel lies in the Court of Appeal’s suggestion inReview Publishingv.
Lee Hsien Loong^179 to apply the House of Lords test of ‘responsible journalism’ as
articulated inReynoldsv.Times Newspaper,^180 not as a defence against liability,
but as a mitigating factor.^181
Thus any ‘new balance’ to be struck does not ‘necessarily entail excusing or
immunising the defendant from liability’. Responsible journalism would apply to
adjust the quantum of damages ‘with the exact amount to be paid in each case being
calibrated by the court in proportion to the degree of care which the defendant has
taken (or failed to take)’ to ensure the fitness and accuracy of the publication. This
balance would deter irresponsible journalism, there being ‘no reason’ why a defend-
ant who satisfied the responsible-journalism test ‘should be allowed to get off scot-
free for injuring the plaintiff’s reputation’,
182
and serve to promote the objective of
free speech in a democratic society, which is not served by misinformation.
iv. conclusion
Singapore may be described as a ‘paternal democracy’ (not paternalistic),^183 which
denotes an evolving relationship between parent and child, as the child grows up
and attains maturity. This has been accompanied by demands for greater public
participation in government, yielding institutional schemes like the NCMP and
NMP, as well as the development of an autochthonous public jurisprudence by the
courts, which zealously protect a proceduralist rule of law, reflecting the dominant
strain of political constitutionalism which reposes faith in political checks and in
the elected branches of governments in directing legal reform. As Singapore
matures, the tensions between drawing from global standards and forging an
autochthonous constitutional order will continue to define the fundamental law
as Singapore works out its unique brand of constitutional salvation, in a third space
between the polar extremes of liberalism and illiberalism.
184
(^179) Review Publishingv.Lee Hsien Loong[ 2010 ] 1 SLR 52 at 187 – 8 ,[ 297 ].
(^180) [ 2001 ] 2 AC 127.
(^181) Review Publishing Co. Ltdv.Lee Hsien Loong[ 2010 ] 1 SLR 52 at 187 – 8 ,[ 297 ].
(^182) Review Publishingv.Lee Hsien Loong[ 2010 ] 1 SLR 52 at 188 ,[ 297 ].
(^183) Thio Li-ann,A Treatise on Singapore Constitutional Law,p. 122.
(^184) See Li-ann Thio, ‘Constitutionalism in illiberal polities’, in Andras Sajo and Michel
Rosenfeld (eds.),Oxford Handbook on Comparative Constitutionalism(Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2012 )p. 133.