Ng Kai Hoe Raymond v Wong Peng Kong [2026] SGDC 136

[Insouciant]

​

​

Ng Kai Hoe Raymond v Wong Peng Kong [2026] SGDC 136​

DC/AD 16/2026 — Assessment of Damages​

Imagined Transcript of Hearing before Deputy Registrar Navin Anand​

Date: 9 April 2026 | Venue: State Courts, Chambers Before: DR Navin Anand Present: Mr Ng Kai Hoe Raymond (Claimant, in person); Ms Iris Koh Hsiao Pei (Witness) Absent: Wong Peng Kong (Defendant, unrepresented)

I. Opening and Preliminaries​

DR Anand: This is DC/AD 16/2026, the assessment of damages in Originating Claim 1154 of 2025, Ng Kai Hoe Raymond v Wong Peng Kong. Default judgment on liability was entered on 13 August 2025. The Claimant is present in person. The Defendant is absent. Mr Ng, the Defendant was notified by registered post on 24 March 2026?

Mr Ng: Yes, Your Honour. The AR card is at Exhibit C-1. He has not responded to anything — not the originating claim served on 25 July 2025, not the notice of this hearing.

DR Anand: Adequate notice. I'll proceed in his absence. You are aware that even on a default, the quantum of damages falls to be assessed on evidence. You carry the burden.

Mr Ng: I accept that, Your Honour.

DR Anand: You have filed your AEIC dated 26 December 2025, a supplementary AEIC dated 20 March 2026, and Ms Koh has filed her AEIC dated 2 January 2026. Both of you will affirm those today?

Mr Ng: Yes, Your Honour.

Ms Koh: Yes.

II. Opening Submissions​

Mr Ng: May I briefly supplement the Joint Opening Statement, Your Honour?

DR Anand: Go ahead.

Mr Ng: The Defendant shared the RICE Media article on 18 March 2021 — the day after it was published. He chose to republish it. Under Review Publishing v Lee Hsien Loong, every republication is a fresh and separate libel. He is the publisher of that republication, and he has never taken it down.

The sting of the Offending Words is that I am a criminal who exploits vulnerable people and escapes justice. Before March 2021, I was regularly invited to speak at industry events and to participate in press and broadcast interviews. After March 2021, that stopped. My wife will testify to the personal and domestic impact.

I am seeking sixty thousand dollars general damages and ten thousand aggravated. The Defendant's silence throughout — no apology, no response to my demand letter of 27 February 2025, no appearance today — is itself an aggravating factor reflecting total indifference to this Court and to me.

III. Claimant's Evidence-in-Chief​

[Mr Ng affirms. He adopts both AEICs in full.]

DR Anand: Anything to add in chief, Mr Ng, beyond the affidavits?

Mr Ng: Only to stress that the post remains live. Mr Wong has blocked me on Facebook, so I can no longer verify its current status. The injury is not historical — it is ongoing. Every day that post exists is another day it can be encountered.

DR Anand: I see. Let me now put some questions to you.

IV. The Registrar's Questions to the Claimant​

DR Anand: Mr Ng, at paragraph 16 of your supplementary AEIC, you say you became aware of Mr Wong's Facebook Post sometime in 2024 or 2025, through a part-time staff member, one Mr Lee Yi Heng. Do you stand by that?

Mr Ng: Yes, Your Honour. Mr Lee encountered it online and flagged it to me.

DR Anand: The post is dated 18 March 2021. So between March 2021 and 2024 or 2025 — a period of three to four years — you had no knowledge of it?

Mr Ng: That appears to be the case, Your Honour. I receive notifications about people posting about me, but on and off. I cannot monitor everything.

DR Anand: Is Mr Lee giving evidence today?

Mr Ng: No, I did not file an affidavit from him.

DR Anand: Then what he told you is hearsay, and is inadmissible to prove that he actually saw the post in Singapore. You appreciate that?

Mr Ng: Yes, Your Honour.

DR Anand: ✦ Let me also understand your monitoring activities more broadly. I see from your email correspondence at pages 13 to 23 of the bundle that your email signature identifies you as "Raymond Ng, Gazy The Great" and promotes a service called "GetEven.AI — To sue & defend using AI without lawyers." Is that accurate?

Mr Ng: Yes, Your Honour. That's a project I'm involved in.

DR Anand: ✦ And you've also maintained a website at vendshare.net, which includes blog posts describing ongoing litigation and what you call the "Ethical Press Initiative" — where you stated you would "fearlessly take legal action for all future defamatory articles"?

Mr Ng: Yes, I believe in using the legal system to protect my rights.

DR Anand: I'll come back to that. Let me turn to the extent of publication. The Facebook Post attracted one reaction and one share, as visible in Figure 1. The Defendant has approximately 584 Facebook friends. No more than two people appear to have engaged with this post in over three years. Is that right?

Mr Ng: That is what the screenshot shows. But many people read without reacting, Your Honour.

DR Anand: You've pleaded that publication reached a "substantial and indeterminate number of persons." Where does that phrase come from, Mr Ng? What evidence do you have of substantial publication?

Mr Ng: The post was set to public, Your Honour. Anyone could have seen it.

DR Anand: Accessibility is not publication. Qingdao Bohai is clear on that. You must show that someone actually read it. Can you point me to a single person, other than Mr Lee by hearsay, who read this post?

Mr Ng: I — I cannot name a specific person, Your Honour.

DR Anand: You've claimed that professional invitations ceased, industry contacts avoided you, and family members distanced themselves as a result of the Defendant's Facebook Post. Is it your evidence that these consequences flow from this post, by this person, who had 584 friends, and garnered one reaction in over three years?

Mr Ng: The Defendant's post is part of a cumulative pattern of defamation against me. The Online Article is still on the RICE website. Hundreds of shares were made of the original article —

DR Anand: Mr Ng. I understand your frustration with the RICE article. But the RICE website is not the Defendant before me today. Mr Wong is. And on the evidence, not a single business contact, broadcaster, friend, or family member has filed any evidence in these proceedings, or is present today, to say they know who Mr Wong is, or saw his post. Do I have that right?

Mr Ng: You do, Your Honour.

The DC 1231 Dismissal​

DR Anand: Let me turn to DC 1231 of 2021, your earlier action against Rice Media. At paragraph 6 of your supplementary AEIC, you describe its dismissal as arising from "procedural and evidential issues, in particular the failure to produce documents concerning the financial performance of the two corporate plaintiffs." Is that your characterisation?

Mr Ng: Yes, Your Honour.

DR Anand: That is not a complete account, is it? The Discovery Order of 3 March 2022 required disclosure across six categories, one of which was your correspondence with the Singapore Police Force concerning investigations into the Vendshare scheme. That was not complied with either.

[Pause.]

Mr Ng: That is correct. That was one of the categories. There were — challenges with certain categories.

DR Anand: The police at the time told franchisees there was "not enough evidence" to proceed. By 2022, however, you had been asked by Rice Media's lawyers to produce your correspondence with SPF about the very scheme at the centre of the allegation. And you did not. Why?

Mr Ng: There were difficulties obtaining and compiling those documents, Your Honour. And I had legal advice at the time —

DR Anand: You subsequently applied to set aside the dismissal in SUM 3112. That application was dismissed in July 2023. You did not appeal. Is that correct?

Mr Ng: I did not appeal, Your Honour.

DR Anand: So the RICE article remains on the RICE website, unretracted. The action you brought against its publisher was dismissed for want of disclosure. And this action — OC 1154 — is against a Facebook user who shared that article once, garnering one reaction and one share, three years before you even became aware of it.

Mr Ng: Yes, Your Honour. Each defamation is actionable independently. I am entitled to pursue —

DR Anand: And there are three other pending actions, I understand. DC/OC 1874/2024, MC/OC 3025/2025, and DC/OC 1167/2025. All in connection with the same Online Article?

Mr Ng: Yes, Your Honour. Separate defendants who have republished or referenced the same defamatory material.

The Broader Litigation Pattern — Geno Ong​

DR Anand: Mr Ng, I want to raise a matter which is by now a matter of public record and which goes to the assessment of your reputation. I want you to have the opportunity to address it.

On 6 September 2024, a woman by the name of Geno Ong Kay Yong died after falling from a height at Block 208 Boon Lay Place. On 12 December 2024, State Coroner Adam Nakhoda ruled her death a suicide. In his findings, he noted that the triggering factor for her decision to end her life was the court actions initiated against her by you, and the mounting legal costs she faced. You had filed four sets of proceedings against her between August 2021 and June 2024, including two defamation suits each seeking six-figure compensation. At the time of her death, her legal fees were estimated at fifty-five to sixty-five thousand dollars. She left notes naming you, and a Facebook post stating she could not afford to continue. Are you aware of these findings?

[A pause. Mr Ng sits forward.]

Mr Ng: I'm aware of the coroner's proceedings, Your Honour. I strongly disagree with the characterisation —

DR Anand: I'm not asking you to accept or deny the coroner's findings. He made them; they are public. What I'm asking you is whether you regard the Vendshare scheme, and your pattern of litigation in connection with it, as being consistent with the reputation of "trust, integrity and public confidence" that you now ask this Court to vindicate.

Mr Ng: I did not cause Ms Ong's death, Your Honour. I filed legitimate defamation actions. She was making serious and false allegations about me, including to government agencies. My blog post at the time — which I acknowledge was perhaps poorly titled — was expressing that she appeared to be acting out of fear of criminal prosecution for what she had said and done.

DR Anand: You titled the post "Suicide Due to Fear of Criminal Prosecution — Geno Ong Took Her Own Life." Those were your words, published publicly, about a woman who had just died.

Mr Ng: I understand, Your Honour. In hindsight the framing was unfortunate.

DR Anand: The coroner found that your declining mediation was a material factor. Inspector Kuan testified that when offered mediation, you said there was "no point" unless she stopped her online activity — and that you could not substantiate the claims she was continuing to attack you.

Mr Ng: I stood by my legal rights, Your Honour. Mediation requires both parties to be acting in good faith.

DR Anand: Mr Ng, you told Inspector Kuan that you would "sue everyone that defamed" you. Was that an accurate statement of your intention?

Mr Ng: I believe in using the legal process to protect myself. That is everyone's right.

DR Anand: Is it a characterisation of someone whose reputation for "trust, integrity and public confidence" you say this Court must repair and vindicate?

[No response.]

DR Anand: Let me ask about the arithmetic. The twelve charges laid against you on 7 February 2025 under Section 420 of the Penal Code relate to alleged cheating of twelve people, involving total amounts of approximately sixty thousand and eight hundred dollars. The general damages you seek from Mr Wong in this action are sixty thousand dollars. I presume that is a coincidence, but I note it for the record.

Mr Ng: Yes, Your Honour, it is a coincidence. The charges are entirely separate. I maintain my innocence on all counts.

DR Anand: I draw no inference from the charges. As you know, charges are not convictions. Let me hear from Ms Koh.

V. Evidence of Ms Iris Koh Hsiao Pei​

[Ms Koh affirms. She adopts her AEIC of 2 January 2026.]

DR Anand: Ms Koh, before I put questions on the substance of your affidavit, I need to raise something with you, since you are being called as a character witness to speak to your husband's reputation and standing in the eyes of his family, friends, and the community.

Ms Koh: Yes, Your Honour.

DR Anand: You are, as of this date, facing a total of fourteen charges, which include criminal conspiracy to cheat arising from alleged falsification of COVID-19 vaccination records, charges of instigating your followers to harass medical staff and obstruct public servants, and additional charges including one of fabricating evidence. These matters are well reported and a matter of court record. Are you aware that this Court may take your credibility as a witness into account in the light of your own pending proceedings?

Ms Koh: I'm aware, Your Honour. I have pleaded not guilty to all charges and am contesting them. They do not reflect the truth of my character.

DR Anand: I note that. I note equally that as recently as 4 March 2025, your social media posts were flagged by the courts as potentially sub judice. Do you understand that I am obliged to assess your evidence with these matters in mind?

Ms Koh: I understand, Your Honour.

DR Anand: Now, at paragraphs 28 to 30 of your AEIC, you describe family members — on both your side and Mr Ng's side — distancing themselves from your husband after "the publication(s)." You say there was reduced communication, reluctance to meet in person, a noticeable change in tone. Yes?

Ms Koh: Yes, Your Honour.

DR Anand: Have any of those family members said, in terms, that they saw Mr Wong's Facebook Post?

Ms Koh: Not specifically by name, no.

DR Anand: Have any of them said they were aware of Mr Wong at all?

Ms Koh: No, they would not know him. He is a stranger.

DR Anand: ✦ Is it possible that the changes you observed in family and social relationships since March 2021 have at least as much to do with the public reporting of the criminal charges against you in January 2022, against your husband in February 2025, or the coroner's inquiry into Ms Ong's death in November and December 2024 — any of which is far more likely to have reached your respective families than a Facebook post with one reaction?

Ms Koh: Your Honour, our families know the truth of the situation. They support us.

DR Anand: You say some family members distanced themselves and others supported you. At your AEIC paragraph 28 to 30, you speak of distancing. Was that distancing specifically because of the RICE article and Mr Wong's share, or more broadly because of events since 2021?

Ms Koh: I cannot fully separate them, Your Honour. 2021 was when it all began.

DR Anand: I see. No further questions. You may stand down, Ms Koh.

VI. Oral Closing​

DR Anand: Mr Ng, closing submissions.

Mr Ng: I'll be brief, Your Honour, and rely mainly on the Joint Opening Statement.

The presumption of damage operates in my favour. The Defendant chose to republish. He has shown no remorse and made no appearance. The sting — that I am a criminal who escapes justice — was false when published in March 2021. ✦ Despite what Your Honour has raised today, I have not been convicted of anything. The charges against me are contested. The coroner's findings about Ms Ong are contested — I have applied to testify at that inquiry to correct what I say are inaccuracies. I am using the legal system, as every citizen is entitled to do.

As for the quantum, sixty thousand dollars general damages is well within the range established in Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian and Shanmugam v Lee Hsien Yang for imputations of dishonesty published online.

I ask the Court to vindicate me.

DR Anand: Thank you, Mr Ng. Let me make several observations.

First, on the presumption of damage — it exists but is not absolute, and where the evidence of actual reach is minimal, the damages will be nominal.

Second, on reputation — the law protects the reputation actually possessed, not the reputation claimed. Tang Swea Phing, paragraphs 85 to 96. Wright v McCormack, paragraphs 68 to 76. If a claimant's conduct, whether before the court or in the course of proceedings, reveals that the reputation sought to be vindicated is not what it appears, the award must reflect that.

Third, on the cases you cite — those actions involved public figures of established standing, large audiences, and defendants who chose to fight. This case involves a private individual who shared a news article once, drew two responses from no identified member of your professional or personal world, and has not appeared.

Fourth — and I put this as a question of proportion rather than a finding — you've told this Court that you have no evidence any family member, business contact, or industry figure saw Mr Wong's post. You have produced no witness to corroborate any of the specific harms you've described. The Defendant has 584 friends of unknown location. One reaction. One share. And yet you seek seventy thousand dollars. I want you to reflect, Mr Ng, on whether the Court can give you what you're asking for on this evidence.

I will reserve judgment. The Defendant will be notified. Costs will be dealt with at the same time.

Mr Ng: Your Honour, may I say one thing? I understand the Court has concerns. But I want it on record that I commenced this action because I believe the law should protect ordinary people from ongoing online defamation. Not just politicians. Not just celebrities. Businesspeople like me who are facing a sustained campaign.

DR Anand: It is noted, Mr Ng. And the law does protect ordinary people. That is precisely why this Court has spent this morning carefully examining whether Mr Wong's one Facebook share, with one reaction and one share, actually damaged you — or whether what has damaged you, if anything, is rather more traceable to events you have had some part in generating.

Judgment reserved.

VII. Closing of Hearing​

[DR Anand rises. 9 April 2026. Judgment delivered 17 April 2026: $1 nominal damages, no order as to costs.]

Afterword​

The written judgment, read alone, presents a picture of limited scope: a minor internet libel, a claimant who exaggerated, a defendant who never showed up. The research deeper about plaintiff reveals a far denser landscape.

The Geno Ong dimension is the most significant. She died on 6 September 2024 — seven months before the SGDC 136 hearing. State Coroner Adam Nakhoda's ruling of 12 December 2024 — that her death was triggered by the court actions Raymond Ng initiated against her — was public knowledge by the time DR Anand convened on 9 April 2026. Inspector Kuan's testimony that Ng had told him he would "sue everyone that defamed" him, and that Ng had declined mediation without being able to substantiate that Ong was still actively attacking him, drew the portrait of a litigation strategy rather than a genuine pursuit of vindication. The coroner's finding did not make Ng legally responsible for Ong's death; courts do not work that way. But it is the context within which his claim to possess a reputation for "trust, integrity and public confidence" must be assessed.

Iris Koh as witness is a story in itself. By the time she affirmed her AEIC in April 2026, she was the founder of Healing the Divide, herself the subject of 14 charges spanning criminal conspiracy to cheat, obstruction, and instigating harassment of medical workers. Her testimony that family members had distanced themselves from Raymond — without being able to say they had seen Mr Wong's post, or that any distancing was not more plausibly attributable to the avalanche of public proceedings against both her and her husband — was testimony in search of a causal nexus it could not find.

The $60,800 symmetry deserves notice. The twelve criminal charges against Raymond relate to alleged cheating of twelve people for sums totalling approximately $60,800. He sought $60,000 in general damages from Mr Wong. Whether this was coincidence, irony, or some unconscious inversion — the victim-to-claimant arithmetic of the Vendshare story — is a question the transcript is entitled to sit with.

The GetEven.AI persona tells its own story. A man who emails the State Courts' Registry under a signature reading "GetEven.AI — To sue & defend using AI without lawyers / ps: Lawyers are optional," promoting himself under the alter ego "Gazy The Great," is a man who has integrated litigation into his commercial and personal identity. This is not inherently wrongful. But it does make it difficult to maintain, in the same breath, that a Facebook post with one reaction caused his professional world to shun him.

What the Registrar did not say in the judgment — but which the hearing almost certainly surfaced — is that Raymond Ng was a man who had used defamation law as a weapon against critics for years, had driven at least one person to suicide in the process (regardless of legal responsibility), had himself been charged with cheating the very franchisees whose complaints the article reported, and now sought this Court's vindication by suing a man who barely registered on the internet.

The $1 was not merely a finding of law. It was a diagnosis.


Sources consulted:

• [2026] SGDC 136
• DC 1231/2021
• Rice Media article, 17 March 2021 (Ivan K. Wu)
• SC-900861-2025
• STOMP / The Star, 7–9 February 2025 (12 charges laid)
• Mothership, November 2024 (Geno Ong coroner's inquiry)
• Asia News Network / Straits Times, 13 December 2024 (Coroner's ruling)
• Wikipedia — Iris Koh
• vendshare.net ("Ethical Press Initiative"; Geno Ong post)

 

[jsctan]

Surprising Iris is able to stay insouciant.

 

[Scrooball (clone)]

Ok la, still more valuable than the rap singer 50 cents