person more latitude to make defamatory remarks of such personality and to escape
with lesser consequences for the defamation he committed’. This would violate
Article 12 , which states, ‘All persons are equal before the law and entitled to
the equal protection of the law.’
However, it appears that while politicians and public figures are accorded the
same protection as private individuals in relation to defamation laws,^163 in assessing
damages the fact that a plaintiff is a ‘prominent public figure’ may result in
the award of higher damages. InGoh Chok Tongv.Chee Soon Juan (No. 2 ),^164
Kan J noted that the defamation was serious ‘because it constituted a severe
indictment against a senior member of the government for the disposal of a large
sum of the nation’s funds’. Both Chee and Goh, as the secretary-general of an
opposition party and the prime minister respectively, were ‘prominent public
figures’ who had the capacity to damage the reputations of those of whom they
spoke ill, undermining their effectiveness and standing as public officials by
damaging public perception of their integrity. So too, Ang J inLee Hsien Loong
v.Singapore Democratic Party
165
took into account ‘the position, standing and
reputation’
166
of PM Lee and Minister Mentor Lee in deciding what quantum of
damages was needed to vindicate their reputations. The former was awarded
$ 330 , 000 and the latter $ 280 , 000.
167
This quantum of damages would discount the public harm caused by chilling
free speech and would contravene equal treatment under the law. Nonetheless, the
Court of Appeal inLim Eng Hock Peterv.Lin Jian Wei
168
insisted that, compara-
tively speaking, Singapore libel damage awards were not excessive, explaining
the basis for computing damages and justifying the differentiation between categor-
ies of plaintiff for this purpose, while noting that defamation damages ‘appears to be
continually misrepresented or misunderstood by some sections of the public in
Singapore’.^169 Some of the applicable principles are worth highlighting, as is the
Court of Appeal’s observation that in foreign jurisdictions such as Australia,
New Zealand, Canada and the UK, expanded common-law defences of qualified
privilege have not been accompanied by a conscious reduction of damages
awarded to defamed political figures. The assessment of damages in such courts
turns on all case circumstances, with guidelines to ensure that damages represent
neither a ‘cornucopia’ nor a ‘road to untaxed riches’; they must not be lowered to a
point ‘publishers might with equanimity be tempted to risk having to pay’.
170
First, the position, standing and conduct of the plaintiff and defendants are
relevant factors shaping the appropriate quantum of general damages for libel,
whose function is consolation for distress suffered, reparation of reputational harm
(^163) Lee Hsien Loongv.Singapore Democratic Party[ 2007 ] 1 SLR 675 at 692 [ 35 ].
(^164) [ 2005 ] 1 SLR 573 , 581. (^165) [ 2009 ] 1 SLR 642. (^166) Ibid., [ 149 ].
(^167) Ibid., [ 154 ]. (^168) [ 2010 ] 4 SLR 357. (^169) [ 2010 ] 4 SLR 357 at 359 ,[ 2 ].
(^170) [ 2010 ] 4 SLR 357 at 362 ,[ 10 ], referencingGatley,p. 268.