In our daily interactions, reputation is invaluable. It influences how we are seen by others in our personal and professional lives. The law recognizes the importance of protecting one’s reputation through the concept of defamation, which addresses harm caused by false and damaging statements.
What is Defamation?
At its core, defamation is the act of making or publishing a false statement about someone that harms their reputation. This need not be a direct, outright accusation – it can be done through various means.
Defamation occurs when someone, through words (either spoken or written), signs, or visual representations, makes or publishes an accusation about another person.
What does it mean to “harm one’s reputation”?
A statement is considered harmful if, in the eyes of others, it:
- Lowers a person’s moral or intellectual character.
- Damages a person’s character in relation to their job or profession.
- Causes people to believe that a person’s body is in a loathsome or disgraceful state.
Defamation applies not only to living individuals, but also to companies, associations, and even deceased persons if the statement is intended to hurt the feelings of their family.
A defamatory statement can be made in writing, on electronic platforms, or in other media. It can even be conveyed ironically or as a hypothetical alternative. For example, sarcastically saying, “Z is an honest man; he would never steal ” with the intention of making people believe Z is actually a dishonest man, and would actually commit theft, is a form of defamation. Similarly, simply pointing at someone when asked who committed a theft, or drawing a picture of them doing so, can also be defamatory.
The Three Key Elements of a Defamation Claim
For a person to successfully bring a defamation claim, three elements must be made out. First, the statement complained of must be defamatory in nature. Second, the statement must refer to the complainant. Third, the statement must be published.
- The Statement Must Be Defamatory in Nature
A statement is considered defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of “right-thinking members of society generally,” cause them to be shunned or avoided, or expose them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
When determining the meaning of a statement, the Court will not simply look at the literal words used. Rather, Courts look at the “natural and ordinary meaning” of the statement, which includes any reasonable inferences an ordinary person would draw from the words. This is an objective test – it is not about what the publisher intended to say, or what the person claiming defamation understood. The question is what a reasonable person, using general knowledge and common sense, would understand the words to mean. This hypothetical reasonable reader is able to “read between the lines” and is not naive but also not overly suspicious.
The Court will also consider the implied or inferred meaning of a statement, not just the dictionary definition of the words used.
For example, in Review Publishing Co Ltd v Lee Hsien Loong [2009] SGCA 46, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore at the time, and Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Minister Mentor at the time, sued Review Publishing Co Ltd (“Review Publishing”) and its editor on a defamatory article which was published in the Far Eastern Economic Review in 2006.
The article in question contained several paragraphs that, when read together, were found to be defamatory. First, the article quoted an opposition politician’s theory that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had “skeletons in his closet”. The article proceeded to detail a scandal involving the National Kidney Foundation (“NKF”) and its CEO, T.T. Durai, focusing on financial impropriety (“the NKF scandal”).
Although the article did not contain an outright accusation of financial impropriety, the Court found that at the time of publication, the general public was already aware that the NKF scandal was about “grave financial impropriety, abuse of power and/or dishonest practices,” which fall “readily within the ambit of corruption”.
When the theory of “skeletons” in Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s closet was read with the NKF scandal, the article clearly imputed that Mr Lee Kuan Yew was corrupt. This allegation would lower Mr Lee Kuan Yew in the estimation of right-thinking members of society and was therefore defamatory in nature.
- The Statement Must Refer to the Complainant
The complainant who alleges defamation must prove that the defamatory statement was about them. Importantly, the statement need not mention the complainant by name. The key test is whether an ordinary, reasonable person with knowledge of the circumstances would understand that the statement was referring to the complainant.
For instance, in the Review Publishing case, the defamatory portions of the article used broad terms such as “the government“, “Singaporean officials“, and “Singapore’s great and good“. Review Publishing argued these terms did not specifically refer to the complainants.
However, the court rejected this argument by looking at the context of the entire article.
With regards to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the article explicitly identified him as the “strongman Lee Kuan Yew” (in other sections of the article that were not defamatory) and stated that many believed he “still runs Singapore“. Given this context, the Court concluded that a reasonable reader would understand that references to “the government” were referable to Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Furthermore, Review Publishing’s own counsel conceded that the phrase “Singaporean officials” would be understood by an ordinary person to refer to Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
Although Mr Lee Hsien Loong was not explicitly named in the most damaging paragraphs, he was explicitly named elsewhere in the article as the “Prime Minister“. Crucially, a key defamatory section referred to Mr Lee Kuan Yew having “skeletons in his closet” and stated that “when he is gone, his son… will have a price to pay“. The Court reasoned that the ordinary reasonable person would know that Mr Lee Hsien Loong is Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s only son serving in the Government. Thus, the direct reference to “his son” in a defamatory context was sufficient to identify Mr Lee Hsien Loong as a subject of the defamatory claims.
- The Statement Must Be Published
“Publication” in the legal sense simply means that the statement was communicated to at least one other person besides the complainant. This is a crucial element because defamation is about harm to reputation in the eyes of others.
For example, in the case of Foo Diana v Woo Mui Chan [2025] SGHC 54, the Defendant published the following public review on the Google page of the Law Society of Singapore: “I was being bullied by a lady lawyer, Name Diana Foo from Tan See Swan & Co.” The only interactions that the Google review received was a single ‘thumbs up’ reaction as well as a comment from one ‘Yew Woo’ that stated ‘go report her lah’.
However, this interaction was sufficient to prove that the statement was communicated to and read by someone other than the complainant and the defendant. Thus, the legal requirement of publication was satisfied.
Remedies for Defamation
When a defamation claim is successful, the primary remedy is an award of damages, which is intended to be compensatory. The court may award several types of damages.
- General damages are presumed to be the natural and probable consequence of the defamatory statement. This serves three main purposes: to repair the injury to the complainant’s reputation, to vindicate the complainant’s name, and to provide consolation for hurt feelings. In determining the quantum of general damages, the court considers several factors, including the nature and gravity of the defamation, the position and standing of both the plaintiff and defendant, and the mode and extent of the publication.
- Special damages cover losses that are not presumed and arise from the specific circumstances of the case, such as a loss of earnings, business, or clientele. Such claims must be specifically pleaded and proven with evidence.
- In addition to monetary compensation, the complainant may also seek an injunction to restrain the defendant from repeating or further publishing the defamatory allegations. However, an injunction may be declined if the defendant has already removed the statement and is deemed unlikely to repeat the defamation in the future.
Defamation can have serious consequences for both individuals and businesses, affecting reputation, livelihood, and trust.
If you believe you have been defamed, or if you are facing a defamation claim, our lawyers are able to advise you on your rights and options.
This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice. It is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking any action(s) based on this publication. We shall not be responsible for, nor do we accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance on this publication.
