It is actually similar to the test for defamation in US law. Public figures just have a much harder time prevailing as plaintiffs in the US due to the precedent

It is actually similar to the test for defamation in US law. Public figures just have a much harder time prevailing as plaintiffs in the US due to the precedent of NYT v. Sullivan. Even if you rereport a defamatory statement you can also be liable. Singapore has an opposite standard for public figures. In the US you can defame or libel public figures and our precedent considers first amendment concerns to be exculpatory in most circumstances. E.g. I can say "Cillary Hinton killed Beffery Jepstein" without being held liable for defamation, although if I made the same type of accusation against a nonpublic figure like my neighbor that caused actual damages, I could be lose my shirt in any state court for defamation. I could also be held liable for defamation if I was merely restating what I had heard elsewhere or read in a libelous article. That is not a valid defense. There have indeed been defamation cases involving Facebook posts that resulted in substantial judgments or costly settlements here in the US (example: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/facebook_comment_leads_to_500000_settlement_in_defamation_suit/ https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/facebook_comment_lea...) As some others have said, just because another country has different standards around a body of law doesn't necessarily mean that their interpretation is right and ours is wrong. The American interpretation of the first amendment and its applicability to defamatory statements against public figures could change, and it wasn't the same as it is now in previous eras of American history. NYT v. Sullivan is not the Constitution or one of the tablets handed down to Moses: it's a lot easier to reverse.