Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Xu Yuanchen

Cabinet Ministers Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan and Tan See Leng sued Xu Yuanchen, chief editor of The Online Citizen (TOC), in HC/OC 13/2025 and HC/OC 14/2025 over a TOC article published on or around 12 December 2024 about Good Class Bungalow transactions. The article referred to Mr Tan's reported purchase of a bungalow and to Mr Shanmugam's sale of one through a trust, and spoke of lawmakers partaking in opaque dealings. Each minister pleaded that the passage meant, falsely, that he had exploited legal mechanisms for privacy in an opaque system to keep his transaction secret and avoid scrutiny, and so acted improperly. The article was spread on TOC's website and social media channels, and Mr Xu linked to it in four further articles between 23 December 2024 and 3 January 2025.

On 19 December 2024 the ministers' solicitors demanded removal, an apology and compensation for charity. A government Factually article on 23 December 2024 also addressed the statements. Mr Xu refused, maintaining the article was true and justified. He was served in Taiwan but did not respond, and on 26 August 2025 the claimants obtained default judgment with damages to be assessed and an injunction against repeating the allegations. Mr Xu told the Registry he did not submit to the court's jurisdiction. Audrey Lim J heard the two assessments together.

1. What weight should be given to the gravity of the defamation and the parties' standing.
2. How extensive the publication and republication of the article was.
3. Whether the defendant's conduct and malice justified aggravated damages.
4. What quantum of general and aggravated damages should be awarded to each claimant.

Because Mr Xu filed no defence, the pleaded meaning and facts stood admitted, as held in Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang [2024] 5 SLR 194, though damages still had to be assessed. The judge found the allegations very grave: they attacked the ministers' personal integrity and their standing in office, and courts award higher damages to public leaders because defamation also harms the institutions they serve. TOC presented itself as a news site with a large following, which made its publications more believable.

Publication was substantial. The article was freely available online, was pushed through TOC's channels, and was kept in view by four follow-up articles and later videos, while third-party reposts were given little weight for lack of evidence of their reach.

Aggravation was found. Mr Xu refused to apologise or remove the article when asked, kept drawing attention to it after the claims were filed, and left it online despite the injunction. The judge also found malice: after being told of the falsehoods by letter and by the Factually article, he made no inquiries and maintained his position, so he published recklessly without caring whether the statement was true.

On quantum, the case was compared with Lee Hsien Loong v Xu Yuan Chen [2022] 3 SLR 924, where $210,000 was awarded, and with the $200,000 award in the Lee Hsien Yang case. The defamation here was graver than in the earlier Xu case, the reach was comparable, and the conduct similar.

The court allowed the claims for damages and awarded each claimant $210,000, made up of $160,000 in general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages. Costs in both claims were to be heard later.