IF FACEBOOK POST WAS Properly Derogatory
Judge Chiah noted that in order to decide on the applicants ‘ request for an interim injunction, he had to determine whether Mr. Cheng’s remarks were blatantly defamatory and whether there was no way for him to challenge his claim.
The judge took into account the circumstances that led to the Facebook post in order to decide whether Mr. Cheng’s remarks were obviously disparaging.
These included social media posts by Ms Koh and Mr Ng about Mr Cheng “promoting” COVID-19 vaccines, a statement by the People’s Power Party ( PPP ) on vaccine-related injuries, and a statement by the health ministry rebutting PPP’s statement.
Goh Meng Seng, an opposition politician, was the author of the PPP speech, who was featured alongside Ms Koh and Mr Bowyer in Mr. Cheng’s reported derogatory Instagram post.
This framework was set out in Mr Cheng’s Facebook article, which included recommendations to PPP’s speech and the health ministry’s speech.
The judge took note of Mr. Cheng’s claim that Ms. Koh and Mr. Bowyer were “literally” putting the lives of those who believe their COVID-19 says at risk.
The judge determined that Mr. Cheng’s claim that Ms Koh and Mr. Bowyer” may be stopped from advising the people never to get vaccinations” was true in the Facebook post.
Judge Chiah remarked,” It cannot be said that the reported slanderous statements are obviously slanderous” from the foregoing.
On that grounds, the applicants ‘ request for an interlocutory order failed. The prosecutor then looked into whether Mr. Cheng might have any legal defenses.
Mr. Cheng argued that his Instagram post was a response to Ms. Koh and Mr. Bowyer’s public outcry on social media, which harmed his popularity and integrity.
The judge and Mr. Cheng agreed that he could have both the right to defend his right to privacy and the right to fair opinion on matters of public fascination.
Judge Chiah more determined that there was no proof that Mr. Cheng intended to replicate the reportedly disparaging comments or threatened to do so, which is a prerequisite for granting the applicants ‘ request for an order.
The claims ‘ program so “fails on all sides” and is “wholly misconceived”, the prosecutor said in dismissing it.
WHO WAS IN THE” BUNCH OF CLOWNS”
Mr. Cheng filed a separate program to remove Mr. Tey, Mr. Chan, and Mr. Koh’s spouse Mr. Ng from the defamation lawsuit.
The three plaintiffs claimed in a Jun 21 Facebook post that Mr. Cheng used the conditions” these people” and “bunch of clowns” to argue that they had legitimate standing to sue him for libel because they claimed they were witnesses.
With these thoughts, Mr Cheng drew” a distinct connection with people who had been part of the public conversation around COVID-19 vaccinations”, which included the three of them, they argued.
However, Judge Chiah and Mr. Cheng both agreed that the three people are not specifically or indirectly mentioned in the Facebook post.
The judge questioned the size of the group mentioned in the comments, and the claims did not specifically define the “bunch of clowns” ‘ members.
For instance, if “bunch of idiots” referred to the members of Healing the Divide’s Telegram network, therefore account of this team would reach 4, 000.
If “bunch of clowns” referred to people who opposed and refused vaccinations, finally by Ms Koh’s individual judgment, the account may number 60, 000, the determine said.
So, Judge Chiah determined that the “bunch of idiots” team was “large and indeterminate” and that the three claimants had not established how well this group may be referred to as.
A fair readers may not be able to interpret the phrase “bunch of clowns,” the judge continued. It was a generalization that included Mr. Ng, Mr. Tey, and Mr. Chan.
So, he rejected Mr. Cheng’s defamation claims.
Judge Chiah even ordered the claims to give Mr Cheng costs of S$ 8, 000 and S$ 2, 500 for their unsuccessful order app and his successful striking-out program respectively.