SG influencer Rachel Wong ordered to reveal diary entries and correspondence in defamation suit

Singaporean social media influencer Rachel Wong, who recently filed a defamation suit, has lost in her objection to turn over her private correspondence and diary entries to the defendant. The high court judges upheld the lower court’s decision in allowing a woman who publicly accused Wong of infidelity to obtain correspondence between Wong and two men.

The defendant, Olivia Wu called out Wong on Instagram as “Cheater of 2020” with six Instagram Stories, and alleged that Wong had cheated on her ex-husband, national footballer Anders Aplin, on multiple occasions.

According to reports on Today, Wu is said to be acquainted with Aplin’s current girlfriend. This led to Wong suing Wu for defamation, and seeking damages of SG$150,000 including aggravated damages. Wong, who currently has around 44.2k followers on her Instagram, also said that the posts caused a damage to her reputation as a full time social media influencer and that her image was crucial in attaining business deals and partnerships, which she relies on for a living, reported ST.

On Instagram Wong describes herself as a host, livestreamer and content creator in the wellness and lifestyle space. A quick check by MARKETING-INTERACTIVE found that some of the brands being posted about by Wong, and likely to have worked with her, include OSIM, Shopback, Hooga, Nood, The Face Shop, Class Pass, PHS Hair Care, amongst others.

Following Wong’s defamation case against Wu, Wu had requested the correspondence between Wong and the two men she allegedly had an affair, along with her diary entries to be made available to bolster her defence that her accusations were true.

The high court judge said in his ruling that Wu had “adequately shown” the need for the documents for the defamation trial, and that it was essential to understand the narrative of the situation. He also added that current narrative was not clear due to the “Instagram-speak” and the “utter failure of counsel to translate that into English, [Wong’s] statement of claim is filled with chaff." Meanwhile the judge also responded to Wong’s lawyer’s argument that Wu was on a “fishing expedition” with: “In this case, samples of relevant material had been produced, and, to extend the fishing analogy just a bit more, it is not a mere fishing expedition if fish has in fact been spotted.”

While Wong said she was disappointed with the outcome, she plans to continue to carry forth to fight against online abuse and defamation.

Photo courtesy: Rachel Wong's Instagram