and vindication of reputation.
171
It is appropriate to consider the deterrent effect, in
awarding damages, which distinguishes libel cases from personal-injury damages.
Second, unlike English law, Singapore law did not consider the award of
symbolic or token damages sufficient to vindicate the claimant’s reputation.^172
Third, a distinction is to be drawn between ‘public leaders’ and ‘ordinary
individuals’; where the former are defamed, higher damages are awarded, because
of the ‘greater damage’ done not only to them personally but also to the institution
where they have membership. The Court of Appeal stated that public leaders were
generally entitled to higher damages because of their ‘standing in Singapore society
and devotion to public service’. ‘Public leaders’ include both political and non-
political leaders in the public sector and private-sector leaders ‘who devote their
careers and lives to serving the State and the public’. ‘Public leaders’ does not refer
to people ‘famous in the public eye’, like footballers, entertainers or singers. It does
cover ‘prominent figures in business, industry and professions’ insofar as ‘the
relevant outputs serve to augment public welfare’.
173
With respect to political
leaders, any libel or slander suffered ‘damages not only their personal reputation
but also the reputation of Singapore as a State whose leaders have acquired a
worldwide reputation for honesty and integrity in office and dedication to the
service of the people’.
174
Defaming political leaders is a ‘serious matter in Singapore’ as it damages the
‘moral authority’ needed to govern and lead the people. In the way that the
reputation of a clerk for financial honesty or a solicitor for integrity was ‘in a
relevant sense, his whole life’,
(^175) the court likened the reputation of Singapore
public leaders to being their ‘whole life’. Strong criticism for incompetence,
insensitivity, ignorance and any number of other human frailties was permitted,
but not where it impugned ‘their integrity, honesty, honour, and such other
qualities that make up the reputation of a person’.^176
Because of the great weight accorded to reputation as an interest, the court
concluded that damages awarded to defamed public figures were ‘rather moderate’,
compared to damages awarded plaintiffs ‘of lesser public standing’ in other
Commonwealth jurisdictions.^177 For instance, to date, damages awarded to minis-
ters in a single suit have not exceeded $ 500 , 000 ; members of parliament, whether
opposition or government, have not been awarded more than $ 210 , 000. In relation
to professionals, damage awards have ranged from $ 45 , 000 (architect) to $ 150 , 000
(lawyer). Comparatively, authors like Jeffrey Archer in the UK have been awarded
£ 500 , 000 and MPs have received £ 150 , 000.
178
(^171) Arul Chandranv.Chew Chin Aik Victor[ 2001 ] 1 SLR(R) 86.
(^172) Referencing Patrick Milmo and W.H.V. Rogers et al. (eds.),Gatley on Libel and Slander,
11 th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2008 ); [ 2010 ] 4 SLR 357 at 360 ,[ 6 ].
(^173) [ 2010 ] 4 SLR 357 at 362 ,[ 12 ]. (^174) [ 2010 ] 4 SLR 357 at 363 ,[ 12 ].
(^175) Cramptonv.Nugawela( 1996 ) 41 NSWLR 176. (^176) [ 2010 ] 4 SLR 357 at 363 ,[ 13 ].
(^177) [ 2010 ] 4 SLR 357 at 363 ,[ 15 ]. (^178) [ 2010 ] 4 SLR 357 at 365 ,[ 19 ].