TOC editor-in-chief mounts judicial review application against Attorney-General for seeking contempt of court committal order over republication of blog post
In a statement from his law firm Carson Law Chambers on Wednesday (8 Sep), Mr Xu’s counsel Lim Tean said that the Attorney-General’s application “is both unlawful and irrational”, as such an application was only made against Mr Xu and not against the original author of the blog post.
This is despite the author — formerly a Singapore permanent resident and is now living in Australia — having “openly declared that she is willing to be questioned” by the Singapore authorities on the post.
“However, to date, neither the police nor the Attorney-General’s Chambers have contacted (her) to question her or investigate her on her Open Letter. The Open Letter remains on her blog. She had also published the Open Letter on her Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn,” the statement read.
“The authorities did not take any steps to question (her) on her intentions and what she meant to convey when she penned the Open Letter, and yet they saw it fit to prosecute Terry for contempt because he republished it.”
In his judicial review application, Mr Xu is subsequently seeking permission from the court to apply for an order that would prevent Mr Wong, as Attorney-General, from proceeding with his order of committal application.
Mr Xu is also seeking declarations from the court that the Attorney-General’s application is unconstitutional and in breach of Articles 12(1) and 35(8) of the Singapore Constitution.
Article 12(1) provides for equal protections for all before the law, while Article 35(8) constitutes the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney-General.
“We shall provide further updates in due course,” the statement added.
TOC understands that the author has not been asked by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to remove the original blog post.
Mr Lim had earlier asked the AGC to release the statement they filed in court in support of their application pursuant to Order 52, Rule 2(2) of the Rules Of Court so that the public can be appraised of the facts of the case.
Dear fellow Sinkies please do not take it out on the lovely Josephine Teo, I am pretty certain she was only following orders issued by a certain sissy lee-der.
Minister for Communications and Information
Second Minister for Home Affairs
Minister-in-charge of Smart Nation and Cybersecurity
IMDA warns of enforcement against TOC if it can’t give ‘good reasons’ for not declaring funding sources
SINGAPORE — The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) could take enforcement action against The Online Citizen (TOC) if the socio-political website cannot provide good reasons for repeatedly failing to declare all its funding sources in its yearly declaration.
The declaration of funding sources is to prevent sites from falling under foreign influence.
IMDA, which regulates internet content providers, said on Tuesday (Sept 7) that TOC had “repeatedly failed” to declare all its funding sources for its 2020 declaration, despite the many reminders and extensions it had been given.
“TOC has informed IMDA that it does not intend to comply with its obligations under the law,” IMDA said in response to media queries. “IMDA has therefore asked TOC to explain its non-compliance.”
It added: “If TOC is unable to provide good reasons for its non-compliance, IMDA may take appropriate enforcement action.”
The government agency said that there was no reason for TOC not to fulfil the obligation, as other registered internet content providers provide this information so as to be transparent about their sources of funding.
“This is to prevent such sites from being controlled by, or coming under the influence of, foreign entities or funding, and ensure that there is no foreign influence in domestic politics,” IMDA said.
When contacted by TODAY, TOC’s chief editor Terry Xu said that the website was suddenly asked to justify its subscription model.
Mr Xu said: “TOC had declared its funding source since it was asked to register under the licensing regime in 2018.
“It was in 2020 when IMDA suddenly asked TOC to justify its subscription model, where (TOC) stopped its declaration as it asked for the portion of the subscription to be exempted as (IMDA) has no justification to scrutinise the subscription in the manner it is doing.”
IMDA firmly rejected the request, he added.
Mr Xu said that TOC adopted its subscription model since at least 2014, and that subscribers receive a newsletter and no longer get advertisements when they access the site.
In its statement, IMDA said that TOC had complied with the yearly declaration when it first registered in 2018.
Since 2019, however, it has not fully adhered to it.
For instance, in its 2019 declaration, TOC failed to verify a donor and to clarify discrepancies in its foreign advertising revenue, and was issued a warning by IMDA in May this year.
Responding to this, Mr Xu said that in its 2019 declaration, TOC was unable to verify the donor because it could not provide the donor’s National Registration Identity Card number.
He noted, however, that TOC was able to provide the donor’s name.
As for the discrepancy in its foreign advertising revenue, Mr Xu said that there was an error in tabulating the figures and that there was no intention to conceal any discrepancy.
“Publications that are really supported by foreign entities need not worry about IMDA's licensing regime, as (they) can easily park the funds under bona fide advertising agreements,” he said.
IMDA said that the threat of foreign interference in Singapore’s politics has “always been present”.
For instance, the country was a target of two operations in the 1970s involving newspapers The Eastern Sun and the Singapore Herald.
“These newspapers received funding from foreign sources and ran articles that sought to undermine Singapore’s nation-building efforts,” IMDA said.
It added that there have also been reports from other countries that foreign players and their agents had tried to influence their politics by buying off political parties and politicians.
“We need to be cautious, as the prevalence of the internet and social media platforms makes it easier to influence large numbers of people.”
The Infocomm Media Development Authority (“IMDA”) has received a number of queries regarding its Show Cause Notice to The Online Citizen Pte Ltd (“TOC”).
LOL zhun bo? Who were the folks that sent in queries? Pinky and Shan ge?
Aiseh his fundraising campaign is happening at a blistering pace, he might perhaps even reach the targeted amount in a shorter time than what Uncle Leong took previously
PM Lee awarded S$210,000 in damages after winning defamation suits against The Online Citizen editor and writer
SINGAPORE — The High Court on Wednesday (Sept 1) awarded Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong a total of S$210,000 in damages, after he won two defamation lawsuits against the chief editor and a writer from sociopolitical site The Online Citizen (TOC).
The lawsuits stemmed from an article published in TOC in August 2019 about Mr Lee’s family home at 38 Oxley Road.
In a 60-page judgement, Justice Audrey Lim found that the article was defamatory.
The judge also agreed that TOC’s editor Terry Xu had acted maliciously and recklessly in publishing the article, and so aggravated damages were warranted.
Mr Lee had sought an unspecified amount of damages including aggravated damages, an injunction to restrain Mr Xu from publishing or disseminating the allegations and legal costs.
Justice Lim ruled that Mr Xu and the article writer, Ms Rubaashini Sunmuganathan, are to be “jointly and severally” liable for S$160,000 as the article was a “joint enterprise” between the pair.
Mr Xu also has to pay S$50,000 in aggravated damages.
Ms Rubaashini was found liable for damages when she did not respond to a writ of summons within the stipulated time. She was then deemed to have admitted to all the allegations brought against her.
Mr Xu had told Ms Rubaashini, a Malaysian, to write the article and said at the time that he needed “some creative writing”.
The judge also granted Mr Lee the injunction he had sought. She will next hear parties on costs in both suits.
In response to media queries, the Mr Lee's press secretary Chang Li Lin said: “As usual, PM Lee intends to donate to charity the damages he has been awarded.”
Mr Xu said in a Facebook post that he and his lawyer, Mr Lim Tean, were very disappointed and are considering their next steps, such as appealing against the judgements.
THE ARTICLE
The article published in TOC was titled: “PM Lee’s wife Ho Ching weirdly shares article on cutting ties with family members”.
Madam Ho had earlier shared on her Facebook page a link to an article titled: “Here is why sometimes it is okay to cut ties with toxic family members”.
Since 2017, Mr Lee has been embroiled in a dispute with his siblings — Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang — over the fate of their family home at 38 Oxley Road after their father Lee Kuan Yew’s death in 2015.
The TOC article, Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s lawyers said, repeated false allegations that had previously been made by his siblings that gravely injured his character and reputation.
Mr Xu removed the article after Ms Chang wrote to him. But he published it again three days later with a qualifier, an additional paragraph about the Prime Minister’s Office’s letter of demand, and the letter itself.
The prime minister sued both Mr Xu and Ms Rubaashini for defamation shortly after.
In a court affidavit, Mr Lee said that a “very significant number of persons” had viewed the article. It was read about 114,000 times within about three months of its publication and a post on TOC’s Facebook page containing the link had reached about 40,000 people within the same period.
Mr Lee, through his lawyers, claimed that five paragraphs in the article were defamatory.
He argued that these paragraphs would cause readers to believe that he had misled his father into thinking that 38 Oxley Road had been gazetted as a heritage building and it was futile to demolish it, which then led Lee Kuan Yew to change his will to bequeath the house to Mr Lee.
Mr Lee also noted that the article alleged that his father had removed him as an executor and trustee of his will after learning in late 2013 that the property had not been gazetted.
Mr Lee’s position is that his father had decided as early as July 2011 to remove him as executor.
Justice Lim accepted Mr Lee’s argument that an ordinary reasonable person reading the article, using his general knowledge and common sense, would understand these to be the “natural and ordinary meaning” of these paragraphs — the standard test for defamation.
MR XU’S ARGUMENTS
Conversely, she rejected Mr Xu’s defence that the article did not draw a link between the removal of Mr Lee as an executor and when his father allegedly learnt that the property had not been gazetted.
The judge noted that Mr Xu did recognise the possibility of this misinterpretation and had admitted it in court, which was why he had added a qualifier to the article when he posted it online a second time.
Mr Xu had also argued that the article was merely recounting allegations by the prime minister’s siblings and did not suggest the allegations were true.
But Justice Lim said this did not change the defamatory meaning of the article, which also did not give the prime minister’s version of events.
The TOC editor also contended that the article meant it was ironic for Mdm Ho to be sharing a story about toxic family members. This was because he felt Mdm Ho, and not her husband, was the toxic member in the Lee family.
Justice Lim rejected this, saying that an ordinary reasonable reader would not have understood it that way.
PUBLISHER SHOULD ‘EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE’
In assessing the damages, Justice Lim said the libel was “grave and serious” and alleged dishonesty on the prime minister’s part. The courts have also consistently given higher damages to public leaders due to the greater damage inflicted on them.
She added: “The defamatory remarks do not merely attack his personal integrity, character and reputation, but that of the prime minister, and damage his moral authority to lead Singapore.
“TOC’s wide viewership and role lends credence to the publication, thereby rendering it more believable to the ordinary reader. This factor hence weighs in favour of higher damages.”
The judge also found that by repeating allegations made by the prime minister’s siblings and adding his own, Mr Xu had magnified their reach and added the weight of his own authority to them.
In finding that Mr Xu acted with malice, the judge agreed with Mr Lee’s lawyers that he used Mdm Ho’s post as a peg to attack Mr Lee. She also described the editor’s conduct as “reckless and irresponsible”.
“A publisher of such grave allegations should exercise due diligence and responsibility in verifying the veracity of the facts and assertions in the article. This is all the more so as Xu is the chief editor of TOC, which holds itself out as a news organisation.
“Yet, he did not. On the contrary, he instructed (Ms Rubaashini) to do some ‘creative writing’ containing one-sided allegations against (Mr Lee) and uploaded the draft within 10 minutes of receiving it without any edits.”
The judge further noted that Mr Xu did not have personal knowledge of whether the allegations were true and did not independently verify them before publishing the article. He also did not subpoena Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang to testify on the matter.
In awarding the prime minister aggravated damages, Justice Lim said that far from keeping quiet about the suit before it concluded, Mr Xu used “various social media and news platforms… to paint a narrative of how (Mr Lee) used his position and resources to bring libel suits to intimidate and silence his opponents”.
CLARIFICATION: An earlier version of this article stated that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was awarded S$370,000 in damages. The Supreme Court has since clarified that he was awarded S$210,000 in total damages. Either Mr Xu or Ms Rubaashini will have to pay S$160,000 to Mr Lee for damages, but not both of them. On top of that, Mr Xu has to pay S$50,000 in aggravated damages.
According to Lim Tean, Terry Xu has paid every single cent of the S$297 832.93 owed to Pinky Loong.
JUST IN.
Mission accomplished! Congratulations Terry! :)
$13K left to raise.....
The Online Citizen has become The Offline Citizen liao :P
Terry is almost there.....
$156,573.20 has been raised as of today 3pm!
IMDA warns of enforcement against TOC if it can’t give ‘good reasons’ for not declaring funding sources
SINGAPORE — The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) could take enforcement action against The Online Citizen (TOC) if the socio-political website cannot provide good reasons for repeatedly failing to declare all its funding sources in its yearly declaration.
The declaration of funding sources is to prevent sites from falling under foreign influence.
IMDA, which regulates internet content providers, said on Tuesday (Sept 7) that TOC had “repeatedly failed” to declare all its funding sources for its 2020 declaration, despite the many reminders and extensions it had been given.
“TOC has informed IMDA that it does not intend to comply with its obligations under the law,” IMDA said in response to media queries. “IMDA has therefore asked TOC to explain its non-compliance.”
It added: “If TOC is unable to provide good reasons for its non-compliance, IMDA may take appropriate enforcement action.”
The government agency said that there was no reason for TOC not to fulfil the obligation, as other registered internet content providers provide this information so as to be transparent about their sources of funding.
“This is to prevent such sites from being controlled by, or coming under the influence of, foreign entities or funding, and ensure that there is no foreign influence in domestic politics,” IMDA said.
When contacted by TODAY, TOC’s chief editor Terry Xu said that the website was suddenly asked to justify its subscription model.
Mr Xu said: “TOC had declared its funding source since it was asked to register under the licensing regime in 2018.
“It was in 2020 when IMDA suddenly asked TOC to justify its subscription model, where (TOC) stopped its declaration as it asked for the portion of the subscription to be exempted as (IMDA) has no justification to scrutinise the subscription in the manner it is doing.”
IMDA firmly rejected the request, he added.
Mr Xu said that TOC adopted its subscription model since at least 2014, and that subscribers receive a newsletter and no longer get advertisements when they access the site.
In its statement, IMDA said that TOC had complied with the yearly declaration when it first registered in 2018.
Since 2019, however, it has not fully adhered to it.
For instance, in its 2019 declaration, TOC failed to verify a donor and to clarify discrepancies in its foreign advertising revenue, and was issued a warning by IMDA in May this year.
Responding to this, Mr Xu said that in its 2019 declaration, TOC was unable to verify the donor because it could not provide the donor’s National Registration Identity Card number.
He noted, however, that TOC was able to provide the donor’s name.
As for the discrepancy in its foreign advertising revenue, Mr Xu said that there was an error in tabulating the figures and that there was no intention to conceal any discrepancy.
“Publications that are really supported by foreign entities need not worry about IMDA's licensing regime, as (they) can easily park the funds under bona fide advertising agreements,” he said.
IMDA said that the threat of foreign interference in Singapore’s politics has “always been present”.
For instance, the country was a target of two operations in the 1970s involving newspapers The Eastern Sun and the Singapore Herald.
“These newspapers received funding from foreign sources and ran articles that sought to undermine Singapore’s nation-building efforts,” IMDA said.
It added that there have also been reports from other countries that foreign players and their agents had tried to influence their politics by buying off political parties and politicians.
“We need to be cautious, as the prevalence of the internet and social media platforms makes it easier to influence large numbers of people.”
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/imda-warns-enforcement-against-toc-if-it-cant-give-good-reasons-not-declaring-funding
$136,811.04 has been raised as of yesterday 11.59pm!
More than 100K has been raised as of today 3pm!
$76,531.05 has been raised as of today 3pm!
$44,846.07 has been raised as of today 3pm!
PM Lee awarded S$210,000 in damages after winning defamation suits against The Online Citizen editor and writer
SINGAPORE — The High Court on Wednesday (Sept 1) awarded Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong a total of S$210,000 in damages, after he won two defamation lawsuits against the chief editor and a writer from sociopolitical site The Online Citizen (TOC).
The lawsuits stemmed from an article published in TOC in August 2019 about Mr Lee’s family home at 38 Oxley Road.
In a 60-page judgement, Justice Audrey Lim found that the article was defamatory.
The judge also agreed that TOC’s editor Terry Xu had acted maliciously and recklessly in publishing the article, and so aggravated damages were warranted.
Mr Lee had sought an unspecified amount of damages including aggravated damages, an injunction to restrain Mr Xu from publishing or disseminating the allegations and legal costs.
Justice Lim ruled that Mr Xu and the article writer, Ms Rubaashini Sunmuganathan, are to be “jointly and severally” liable for S$160,000 as the article was a “joint enterprise” between the pair.
Mr Xu also has to pay S$50,000 in aggravated damages.
Ms Rubaashini was found liable for damages when she did not respond to a writ of summons within the stipulated time. She was then deemed to have admitted to all the allegations brought against her.
Mr Xu had told Ms Rubaashini, a Malaysian, to write the article and said at the time that he needed “some creative writing”.
The judge also granted Mr Lee the injunction he had sought. She will next hear parties on costs in both suits.
In response to media queries, the Mr Lee's press secretary Chang Li Lin said: “As usual, PM Lee intends to donate to charity the damages he has been awarded.”
Mr Xu said in a Facebook post that he and his lawyer, Mr Lim Tean, were very disappointed and are considering their next steps, such as appealing against the judgements.
THE ARTICLE
The article published in TOC was titled: “PM Lee’s wife Ho Ching weirdly shares article on cutting ties with family members”.
Madam Ho had earlier shared on her Facebook page a link to an article titled: “Here is why sometimes it is okay to cut ties with toxic family members”.
Since 2017, Mr Lee has been embroiled in a dispute with his siblings — Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang — over the fate of their family home at 38 Oxley Road after their father Lee Kuan Yew’s death in 2015.
The TOC article, Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s lawyers said, repeated false allegations that had previously been made by his siblings that gravely injured his character and reputation.
Mr Xu removed the article after Ms Chang wrote to him. But he published it again three days later with a qualifier, an additional paragraph about the Prime Minister’s Office’s letter of demand, and the letter itself.
The prime minister sued both Mr Xu and Ms Rubaashini for defamation shortly after.
In a court affidavit, Mr Lee said that a “very significant number of persons” had viewed the article. It was read about 114,000 times within about three months of its publication and a post on TOC’s Facebook page containing the link had reached about 40,000 people within the same period.
Mr Lee, through his lawyers, claimed that five paragraphs in the article were defamatory.
He argued that these paragraphs would cause readers to believe that he had misled his father into thinking that 38 Oxley Road had been gazetted as a heritage building and it was futile to demolish it, which then led Lee Kuan Yew to change his will to bequeath the house to Mr Lee.
Mr Lee also noted that the article alleged that his father had removed him as an executor and trustee of his will after learning in late 2013 that the property had not been gazetted.
Mr Lee’s position is that his father had decided as early as July 2011 to remove him as executor.
Justice Lim accepted Mr Lee’s argument that an ordinary reasonable person reading the article, using his general knowledge and common sense, would understand these to be the “natural and ordinary meaning” of these paragraphs — the standard test for defamation.
MR XU’S ARGUMENTS
Conversely, she rejected Mr Xu’s defence that the article did not draw a link between the removal of Mr Lee as an executor and when his father allegedly learnt that the property had not been gazetted.
The judge noted that Mr Xu did recognise the possibility of this misinterpretation and had admitted it in court, which was why he had added a qualifier to the article when he posted it online a second time.
Mr Xu had also argued that the article was merely recounting allegations by the prime minister’s siblings and did not suggest the allegations were true.
But Justice Lim said this did not change the defamatory meaning of the article, which also did not give the prime minister’s version of events.
The TOC editor also contended that the article meant it was ironic for Mdm Ho to be sharing a story about toxic family members. This was because he felt Mdm Ho, and not her husband, was the toxic member in the Lee family.
Justice Lim rejected this, saying that an ordinary reasonable reader would not have understood it that way.
PUBLISHER SHOULD ‘EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE’
In assessing the damages, Justice Lim said the libel was “grave and serious” and alleged dishonesty on the prime minister’s part. The courts have also consistently given higher damages to public leaders due to the greater damage inflicted on them.
She added: “The defamatory remarks do not merely attack his personal integrity, character and reputation, but that of the prime minister, and damage his moral authority to lead Singapore.
“TOC’s wide viewership and role lends credence to the publication, thereby rendering it more believable to the ordinary reader. This factor hence weighs in favour of higher damages.”
The judge also found that by repeating allegations made by the prime minister’s siblings and adding his own, Mr Xu had magnified their reach and added the weight of his own authority to them.
In finding that Mr Xu acted with malice, the judge agreed with Mr Lee’s lawyers that he used Mdm Ho’s post as a peg to attack Mr Lee. She also described the editor’s conduct as “reckless and irresponsible”.
“A publisher of such grave allegations should exercise due diligence and responsibility in verifying the veracity of the facts and assertions in the article. This is all the more so as Xu is the chief editor of TOC, which holds itself out as a news organisation.
“Yet, he did not. On the contrary, he instructed (Ms Rubaashini) to do some ‘creative writing’ containing one-sided allegations against (Mr Lee) and uploaded the draft within 10 minutes of receiving it without any edits.”
The judge further noted that Mr Xu did not have personal knowledge of whether the allegations were true and did not independently verify them before publishing the article. He also did not subpoena Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang to testify on the matter.
In awarding the prime minister aggravated damages, Justice Lim said that far from keeping quiet about the suit before it concluded, Mr Xu used “various social media and news platforms… to paint a narrative of how (Mr Lee) used his position and resources to bring libel suits to intimidate and silence his opponents”.
CLARIFICATION: An earlier version of this article stated that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was awarded S$370,000 in damages. The Supreme Court has since clarified that he was awarded S$210,000 in total damages. Either Mr Xu or Ms Rubaashini will have to pay S$160,000 to Mr Lee for damages, but not both of them. On top of that, Mr Xu has to pay S$50,000 in aggravated damages.
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pm-lee-awarded-s370000-damages-after-winning-defamation-suits-against-online-citizen