It can be terrifying to know that a person whom you’ve never met or even know existed could be so relentless in his acts of malice towards you, attacking the work you do and down to your personal life.
But for those who, like me, have been a victim of defamation, can rest assured that the Laws of Singapore does not tolerate such behaviours with this Judgement issued by the State Courts that sets an important precedent.
Here’s the full story in its whole truth, and how the person who defamed me was ordered by the Court to:
1. Pay a total of S$104,427.80 in damages and legal costs and
2. An injunction to remove all his past, present defamatory posts made towards me and to refrain from doing so in the future
As some of you may know, after my experience with Revology Bikes that has been resolved after the SCT ruling (you can read the story here), I was subjected to intense defamatory posts online by this unknown person by the name of Mark Yeow (the defendant in this suit. I also later found out that this person was actually brought to Small Claims Tribunal in 2013 by another party which you can read here).
Months after months, he was persistent in his attacks towards me, my work, my clients/sponsors whom I work with and he simply refused to stop.
It was actually rather scary to see someone behave in such a manner like he has some sort of personal vendetta against you, especially when you’ve never met or know this person. Furthermore, he was never a part of the Revology Bikes incident so it was absolutely bizarre seeing him on the loose this way.
When he refused to remove his defamatory posts and continued them, to protect myself as well as the clients that I work with, I felt I had no choice but to take legal actions against him for defamation, in hope to bring his excessively destructive actions to a stop.
As of 15th December 2020, I’m so thankful to share that I’ve been finally vindicated.
Deputy Principal District Judge Wong Peck found the defendant to have acted in malice, and delivered judgment on my case in open court. She ruled that:
1. The defendant’s 4 internet posts were indeed defamatory of me.
2. There was no valid justification or other defence for the defendant’s defamatory posts.
3. The defendant is ordered to immediately remove his 4 defamatory posts and is further ordered not to make such defamatory posts about me in future.
 |
| Quoted from the Judgement |
4. The defendant is to pay me in total of S$104,427.80, with the breakdown as follows:
a. S$40,000 in general damages.
b. In addition, because the defendant’s actions were motivated by malice against me, the defendant is ordered to pay me a further S$20,000 in aggravated damages.
c. Finally, the defendant is ordered to compensate me a further S$38,000 in legal costs and S$6,427.80 in disbursements I have incurred.
The total sum of S$104,427.80 in damages and legal costs that the defendant is ordered to pay does not include interest (which will continue to accrue until full payment is made).
I believe this may be the highest award of damages and legal costs a social media personality has received from the Singapore Courts to date and I’m very very thankful for the due justice that was carried through. I would like to stress that social media personality or not, NO ONE should be subjected to defamation in any form.
I hope this incident helps the defendant realise that there are other less expensive and foolish ways to get a girl’s attention.
I am extremely grateful to be represented by Partner Mr. Suresh Divyanathan and Associate Ms Cherisse Foo from Oon & Bazul LLP who argued my case successfully in Court and ensured that justice was done. Throughout their representation for me, their advice was always prompt and correct.
In my personal opinion, Mr. Suresh Divyanathan has a gift for strategic thinking and clarity of expression that allowed him to accurately present my case to the Judge. It was his extensive knowledge and clear articulation displayed in his oral arguments during the trial that helped me and the Judge to always understand the points he was making, and see the real truth of the matter.
One of the key reasons behind this suit that I took on stands in line with what Mr. Suresh Divyanathan has quoted,
“This judgment sets an important precedent in showing that social media personalities who are wrongfully defamed online can recover substantial damages from the perpetrators. Netizens should take this as a timely warning that their behaviour online should be no less civilized than their behaviour in person because Singapore Courts will not tolerate internet defamation."
The full copy of the Judgement will be available shortly but meantime, you may like to read a copy of the Straits Times’ article on the case here.
Thank you so so much to those who have stood by me through and through (you know who you are), it really means a lot.
Like I said, think twice before you decide to slander someone because at the end of the day, you get served what you deserve.
You're officially #blackmarked.
