K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan seek court’s permission to serve Lee Hsien Yang legal papers via Facebook messenger

SINGAPORE: On 2 August, Singapore’s Law and Home Affairs Minister, Mr K Shanmugam, along with Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, officially initiated a defamation lawsuit in the Singapore High Court against Lee Hsien Yang, the son of Singapore’s founding father, Lee Kuan Yew.

As reported by the Straits Times, the court records indicated that attorneys representing the two ministers have requested permission to deliver legal documents to Lee Hsien Yang through Facebook Messenger.

This request was made on the basis that serving the court papers to Mr Lee personally in the United Kingdom was deemed impractical.

The two ministers are represented by three lawyers from Davinder Singh Chambers, including the prominent senior lawyer Davinder Singh, who previously represented Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in previous high-profile defamation cases.

The legal team argued that the Singapore court provided the most appropriate venue for the case

On 14 August, the legal team representing the ministers initially requested the court’s permission to serve the legal papers on Mr Lee “wherever he may be found in the United Kingdom.”

This request was made on the basis that the Singapore court was considered the most suitable venue to hear the case.

In their affidavits outlining the reasons for this choice, Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan highlighted their well-known status as ministers residing in Singapore.

They also pointed out that the alleged defamatory statements related to events in Singapore and that these statements had been republished in Singapore and accessed by various individuals in the country.

On 16 August, the court granted the ministers permission to serve the legal papers on LHY outside the court’s jurisdiction.

The court order stipulated that within 21 days after being served with the papers, LHY must submit a document indicating whether he intended to contest the claim.

However, on 28 August, the lawyers representing the ministers submitted an application for substituted service through Facebook Messenger.

The lawyers stated that “substituted service by Facebook Messenger will probably be effective in bringing the court papers to the notice of the defendant”.

Substituted service involves alternative methods for delivering court papers when in-person service is unsuccessful, including posting documents on the defendant’s premises, sending them via registered post, email, or placing newspaper ads.

The ministers are requesting a court order to officially recognize the service of documents via Facebook Messenger, using the portable document format (PDF), to Mr Lee’s profile page on the social networking platform.

In 2016, the High Court established that court papers can be served through digital platforms such as Facebook, Skype, or internet message boards for defendants who are inaccessible in person.

The two ministers threaten legal action against LHY over defamatory allegations

According to the court documents, the lawyers of the two PAP ministers had sent a letter to Mr Lee on 27 July, demanding the removal of his post and all related comments.

Additionally, they insisted on a prominent four-week public apology on his Facebook page.

LHY is accused of suggesting that the ministers acted corruptly, receiving preferential treatment by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) through unauthorized tree felling and state-funded renovations of 26 and 31 Ridout Road. Both ministers have categorically refuted these allegations.

In the letter, each minister also sought $25,000, which they said they would donate to charity.

The letter stated that the sum was a fraction of the substantial damages each minister was entitled in law to recover if they were to start legal proceedings.

The statement of claim filed by each minister did not specify a specific figure for the damages they are pursuing. Typically, the claim amount in High Court civil litigation starts at S$ 250,000.

LHY dismissed the minister’s claims, defending that he was “simply stating the facts”

In a Facebook post, Lee Hsien Yang dismissed the claims made by the two Ministers.

He has further challenged the ministers to sue him in the UK, a response following their threats of legal action unless he retracted his statements and issued an apology.

In a Facebook post on 29 July, LHY addressed the controversy, stating, “My post did not assert that Shanmugam and V Balakrishnan acted corruptly or for personal gain by having the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) give them preferential treatment by illegally felling trees without approval and also having SLA pay for renovations for them. ”

“My post simply stated facts that were already widely published in the Singapore and international media.”

Lee Hsien Yang on 31 July further alleged that the two ministers were pressuring him to issue a public apology that he perceived to be falsified.

He claimed the ministers demanded he make a specific statement: “I recognise that the Post meant and was understood to mean that Mr K Shamugam/Dr Vivian Balakrishnan acted corruptly and for personal gain by having the Singapore Land Authority give him preferential treatment by felling trees without approval and illegally and having it pay for renovations to 31 Ridout Road.”

LHY staunchly defends his initial words: “Two ministers have leased state-owned mansions from the agency that one of them controls, felling trees and getting state-sponsored renovations.”

He believes his original statement does not equate to an allegation of corruption or personal gain, and criticizes the ministers for insisting on a “false apology” for words he claims he did not utter.

LHY: Public to judge why the two Ministers suing in Singapore and not UK

In his latest Facebook post on Monday (4 Sept), Lee Hsien Yang, the younger brother of Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, said he invited the two PAP ministers to pursue legal action against him in the UK, where he “made the statement that upset them”.

“Instead, they have chosen to commence legal action in Singapore. It is for the public to judge their reasons.”