The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has reiterated that abusing court processes to file unmeritorious claims intended to oppress others or extract settlements constitutes contempt of court.
The statement, issued on 21 November 2024, came in response to media queries about a defamation suit filed against Associate Professor Ben Leong of the National University of Singapore (NUS).
The defamation case was initiated by Iris Koh, founder of the anti-vaccine group Healing the Divide, over a Facebook post made by Prof Leong in 2021.
Koh alleged defamation in the post, prompting Prof Leong to share his concerns about the financial burden of defending himself in such lawsuits.
Prof Leong explained in a Facebook post on 16 November that engaging a lawyer for the case would cost between S$50,000 and S$70,000, while any compensation for legal costs if he wins would likely be capped at around S$12,000.
He wrote, “Basically, my situation is that I cannot lose this case… Even if I win the case (and with high likelihood I will), I still stand to lose money and waste time no matter what.”
MinLaw, while confirming it had received feedback from Prof Leong, declined to comment on his specific case, citing the possibility of ongoing legal proceedings.
MinLaw’s broader warning against abuse of legal processes
MinLaw’s statement also addressed the misuse of court processes, emphasising that the recent amendments to the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act (AOJPA) now explicitly classify such abuses as contempt of court.
This includes filing claims that are baseless but intended to harass or pressure defendants into settlements.
Minister of State for Law Murali Pillai had underscored the importance of these amendments during parliamentary debates on 13 November, stating that “egregious abuse of our court system” could erode public trust over time.
He added, “We also have a duty to ensure that our processes are not weaponised or abused.”
Under the AOJPA, those found guilty of contempt of court can face significant penalties.
In State Courts, fines can go up to S$20,000 or imprisonment for up to one year, while in the High Court or Court of Appeal, fines can reach S$100,000, with jail terms of up to three years.
Low bar for defamation suits in Singapore
Iris Koh’s suit against Prof Ben Leong has drawn attention to Singapore’s defamation laws and their relatively low bar for initiating claims.
Plaintiffs are not required to prove tangible damages to their reputation, and defences are limited—typically relying on justification, where the defendant must prove the truth of the allegedly defamatory statement.
This was evident in a recent case involving two Singapore ministers who successfully sued Lee Hsien Yang, son of the late Lee Kuan Yew, over a Facebook comment about their Ridout Road rentals in July last year, alleging that his remarks constituted defamation against them.
Lee Hsien Yang argued that his comments were based on publicly available information and did not allege corruption or personal gain.
Nevertheless, the ministers were awarded a combined S$400,000 in damages, with Lee Hsien Yang also ordered to pay over S$200,000 in legal fees and costs.
Critics argue that such outcomes illustrate how defamation laws in Singapore can be leveraged, making it financially and strategically challenging for defendants to mount a defence.
They note that in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, cases like this might have been dismissed by the courts.
For example, in the case of Sir James Dyson, a UK court threw out a defamation suit on the grounds that damages to reputation or financial losses could not be proven.
