Ben Leong’s recent announcement of the formation of Lionheart Advocates, a non-governmental organisation aimed at assisting victims of “frivolous lawsuits,” may seem like a step in the right direction.
After all, protecting ordinary individuals from being buried under baseless legal claims is a noble goal.
But there’s a flaw in Leong’s approach: Singapore’s problem isn’t the proliferation of frivolous lawsuits—it’s the way defamation laws operate in this country.
Leong’s framing of the issue assumes that the legal system is being abused by opportunistic individuals filing meritless suits.
He suggests that Lionheart Advocates can serve as a shield against these cases, providing financial support and legal expertise to defendants.
However, the irony is glaring. The lawsuit Leong currently faces from Iris Koh, founder of the anti-vaccine group Healing the Divide, is not an example of the legal system being exploited by a random individual.
It is an example of how Singapore’s defamation laws create an environment where lawsuits that would be dismissed in other jurisdictions are allowed to proceed.
Koh’s case against Leong highlights the real issue. In countries with stronger safeguards for freedom of speech and press, such as Taiwan or the United Kingdom, this lawsuit would likely have been dismissed outright.
Take, for example, British billionaire Sir James Dyson, who recently lost a libel suit against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN). Despite describing a January 2022 article as “a personal attack” and “highly distressing,”
Sir Dyson’s claim was dismissed because he failed to prove any financial loss from the publication.
Singapore’s legal framework, however, allows such claims to gain traction because it does not place sufficient burdens on plaintiffs to prove actual harm or malicious intent. I have firsthand experience with this.
In December last year, I received legal threats from Dr Tan See Leng, Minister for Manpower, and Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Law.
They demanded a retraction and apology for a TOC article on their property transactions, despite the article being factually accurate and explicitly acknowledging the legality of the transactions.
Their claims focused on how the article could be perceived, rather than on any factual inaccuracies—demonstrating how Singapore’s defamation laws target perception, not truth.
This is precisely what makes Lionheart Advocates’ approach only partially effective. While individuals like Iris Koh do file questionable lawsuits for personal agendas, these cases are symptoms of a broader problem.
The legal system itself creates an environment where such lawsuits can thrive and, more importantly, where powerful figures can weaponise defamation laws to target critics.
These are not frivolous cases in the traditional sense—they are calculated legal actions designed to exploit the low threshold for defamation claims and suppress dissent.
Unlike jurisdictions such as the United States or the UK, where public figures must prove actual malice or harm caused by false statements, Singapore’s laws place the burden on defendants to prove their innocence.
This imbalance creates a chilling effect on free speech, discouraging potential defendants from speaking out due to the risk of costly legal battles.
Had Leong faced Koh’s lawsuit in a country with stronger protections for free speech, it likely would have been thrown out before reaching court.
The fact that it is being taken seriously in Singapore illustrates the core issue: it is not the filing of baseless suits that is the main problem, but the legal system itself, which enables and legitimises these claims.
Without addressing this systemic imbalance, Lionheart Advocates will be stuck treating both symptoms: the opportunistic lawsuits filed by individuals like Koh and the more damaging legal intimidation tactics used by those in power.
My decision not to participate in the ministers’ lawsuits against TOC reflects this reality.
I have made it clear that I will not lend legitimacy to legal proceedings that rely on subjective interpretations rather than factual disputes.
As I stated in December, the ministers’ claims are not about correcting factual errors but about controlling how the truth is framed. Contesting such a case in Singapore’s courts would be futile, given the legal framework.
What Lionheart Advocates fails to address is that even when defendants have a strong case, they face an uphill battle in Singapore’s legal environment—not to mention the burden of legal fees, as demonstrated in the unfortunate case of Geno Ong.
The financial support Leong’s NGO provides is helpful, but it does not address the root of the problem: a legal system skewed in favour of powerful plaintiffs.
If Leong truly wants to protect victims of legal intimidation, he should advocate for reforms to Singapore’s defamation laws.
Without such changes, Lionheart Advocates will be limited to treating symptoms, not the disease. Financial aid and pro bono legal assistance can only go so far when the system itself is tilted against the very people Leong hopes to defend.
In a comment on CNA’s Facebook page, Koh asked:
“If I called PAP a ‘terrorist organisation’ and kena sued by PAP, would Minister of State for Law Murali Pillai tell CNA it’s a vexatious lawsuit? Can Lionheart Advocates NGO help me to defend against PAP? Ben Leong, hope you can answer so more people will know what your new NGO is about.”
Koh’s pointed question underscores this flaw.
By asking whether Lionheart Advocates would defend an ordinary citizen sued by People’s Action Party (PAP) ministers, Koh raises a valid concern: is the NGO truly about protecting all victims of legal intimidation, or is it narrowly focused on cases that align with Leong’s personal interests?
As it stands, Lionheart Advocates has yet to clarify if it would support cases where ordinary individuals are sued by government officials under Singapore’s defamation laws.
Without addressing this question, Leong’s initiative risks being perceived as self-serving.
His own legal battle with Koh benefits from the very financial and legal resources the NGO provides, but whether the same support will be extended to others—especially those facing powerful figures like ministers—remains unclear.
If Lionheart Advocates wants to make a meaningful impact, it must push for changes that will protect not just individual defendants, but the broader freedom of expression that is under siege in Singapore.
