Connect with us


Netizens question if the ministers are unwilling to sue in UK due to the lack of confidence in their winning chances

As Minister Shanmugam emphasizes LHY’s defense in a Singaporean court, netizens express concerns over the ministers’ seemingly limited awareness of their capacity to pursue litigation in the UK.

Some suggest considering the UK open court option, while others question whether the minister’s legal team may hesitate when confronted with international litigation.



SINGAPORE: In a recent Facebook post on Thursday (5 Oct), the Minister of Law and Home Affairs, K Shanmugam, stated that Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) should seize the opportunity to defend himself in “full view of the Singapore public” if he believes the defamation claims against him are baseless.

This statement comes in response to LHY’s suggestion for independent arbitration as an alternative to court proceedings in Singapore.

Mr Shanmugam and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan, have chosen to sue LHY for defamation in Singapore, despite LHY’s earlier recommendation to settle the matter in UK courts.

Although Minister Shanmugam has stressed the importance of LHY defending himself in a Singaporean open court with the public as spectators, social media reactions to Mr Shanmugam’s recent Facebook post are diverse.

Some netizens raise concerns about the apparent unawareness of the two ministers regarding their ability to pursue their civil legal dispute in the UK. In the UK, they would also have the opportunity for cross-examination in an open court.

The legal dispute background

The heart of the dispute emerged in September when the ministers accused LHY of hinting at their potential corrupt actions in a Facebook post dated 23 July.

They assert that LHY insinuated they had received special treatment from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), manifested through unauthorized tree felling and state-sponsored renovations at 26 and 31 Ridout Road.

These allegations have been steadfastly refuted by the ministers, who deem them as unfounded and injurious.

Following the post, the ministers, through their legal counsel, pressed LHY to retract his statements, offer a public apology, and make a S$25,000 charity donation.

This suggested amount is seen as a fraction of possible legal damages, as damages in High Court cases often start at an imposing S$250,000.

In mid-September, the two ministers successfully served legal documents to LHY through Facebook Messenger.

They opted for this unconventional method with court approval, citing the difficulties of serving him in the United Kingdom, where he presently resides.

Lee Hsien Yang proposes independent arbitration

Reacting to the legal action, on Thursday (5 Oct) LHY disclosed in a Facebook post that he had suggested the ministers pursue their suit in London’s courts.

In the hopes of finding a peaceful resolution to the growing discord, LHY proposed independent arbitration.

He detailed, “We could each select an arbitrator of high international standing. This would ensure fairness and impartiality. While proceedings would be conducted in private, the decision would be made public, guaranteeing transparency and closure.”

Shanmugam urges LHY to defend himself in Singapore court amidst LHY’s intentions of staying abroad

However, Minister Shanmugam has responded to LHY through a Facebook post, claiming that LHY should embrace the opportunity to defend himself in “full view of the Singapore public” if he believes that there is no merit to the defamation claims against him.

He argued that Mr Lee’s statements pertain to events in Singapore and were primarily intended for a Singaporean audience. His primary audience was not in the United Kingdom.

“We have sued Mr Lee for a libel that was published to the people in Singapore, which concerns Singaporeans, and which is based on the laws of Singapore.”

Minister Shanmugam further alluded that what LHY really wants is special treatment.

“He wants to be treated differently from Singaporeans (and even foreigners) who are sued in Singapore for defamation. Mr Lee should explain why he is entitled to make libellous statements, and yet be exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of us.”

Netizens suggest the prospect of cross-examining LHY in a UK open Court setting

Despite Minister Shanmugam’s emphasis on LHY defending himself in a Singaporean open court with the public as witnesses, reactions on social media to Mr Shanmugam’s recent Facebook post vary.

On the Singaporean online forum, HardwareZone and CNA’s Facebook post, certain comments express concerns about why the two ministers seem unaware that they can pursue their civil legal dispute in the UK, where they also have the opportunity for cross-examination in an open court.

Some have reminded Minister Shanmugam that he should also consider welcoming LHY’s challenge to defend his case in a UK open court—an impartial and larger legal platform to assert his legal rights against LHY.

Netizen questions Minister Shanmugam’s legal strategy amid UK’s open Court option

A user expressed astonishment at Minister Shanmugam’s apparent oversight regarding the availability of an open court in the UK where he could file a lawsuit against LHY.

Furthermore, some netizens questioned whether the minister was implying that the UK Court is not open.

They emphasized that the minister should also take advantage of the opportunity to showcase his cross-examination skills within the framework of English law by initiating legal proceedings against LHY in England.

Questions arise over legal distinctions between Singaporean and UK Courts

One user raised a question, suggesting that Minister Shanmugam should first clarify whether there are significant differences in handling a civil suit in Singaporean courts compared to UK courts.

“If the impartiality he claims exist here….then does it not exist in the UK?”

Others emphasized that since LHY’s statement in question was made in the UK, the two ministers should pursue the case against LHY in that country, rather than insisting that LHY return to Singapore for the legal dispute.



Another comment provided a parallel example, noting that it appears the minister’s logic is that if he were to defame a US congressman in Singapore, the congressman would ask him to go to the US court to clear his name, and he would be willing to do so.

A forum user implied that LHY might simply be seeking a level playing field for their legal dispute. Unfortunately, the Minister had suggested that LHY “wants special treatment.”

Legal fairness beyond borders

A netizen suggested that instead of confining the cross-examination to a Singaporean court “in full view of the Singapore public,” the high-profile case should be made accessible to an international audience.

The comment proposed that the British court is fully capable of conducting the necessary interrogations.

This viewpoint underscores that financial considerations should not hinder pursuing the case in the UK and emphasizes the ministers’ duty to prioritize justice over personal reputation.

Skepticism over minister’s legal team in international litigation

In a sarcastic vein, a user couldn’t help but wonder if the minister’s legal team excels only in local court cases but gets cold feet when faced with international ones.

In response, another comment shed light on Singapore’s founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, who brought a defamation lawsuit to the Ontario Court in Canada against the former President of the Republic of Singapore, Devan Nair.

Lee Kuan Yew had taken offence to Nair’s remarks, which labelled him as “an increasingly self-righteous know-all” surrounded by “department store dummies.” The former Prime Minister alleged that these statements had harmed his reputation, subjecting him to “hatred, ridicule, and contempt.”

Yet another forum user noted that despite Lee Kuan Yew’s loss in the Canadian court, he had earned respect for his actions.

Police seeking the return of Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern

It’s noteworthy that the Singapore Police – which Mr Shanmugam oversees – are also seeking the return of LHY to Singapore to assist with investigations against both him and his wife, Lee Suet Fern, regarding allegations of providing false evidence in judicial proceedings.

Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security, Mr Teo Chee Hean, revealed the police investigation into the Lees in response to a written parliamentary question by Member of Parliament (MP) Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (PAP-Chua Chu Kang) on 2 March. This question pertained to an e-book published six months prior.

This topic also became a point of debate in the Singapore Parliament in March, where Mr Shanmugam and the Progress Singapore Party’s Leong Mun Wai sparred over Mr Shanmugam’s description of the Lees as having “absconded” from Singapore—a term suggesting a criminal offence.

Mr Leong highlighted that the couple hadn’t received written orders to report to the police for an investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code, a fact confirmed by the Minister in Parliament during his earlier response to questions filed by MPs regarding Mr Teo’s disclosure of the police investigations in the Lees.

Thus, Mr Leong contended that using the term “absconded” was inappropriate and wondered if such language implied ill intentions and a presumption of guilt on the Lees’ part.

In defending his use of “absconded”, Mr Shanmugam recounted the events leading up to the couple’s exit from Singapore. He noted that the police had requested the couple’s cooperation in their investigations, but they did not attend the interview and had already left Singapore by then.

Furthermore, the Minister mentioned that LHY had labeled himself a “fugitive” and told the media he wouldn’t be returning to Singapore.

Considering this, it seems somewhat contradictory for Mr Shanmugam to sue LHY in a Singapore court, knowing LHY’s current intention to stay out of Singapore, instead of pursuing the case in the UK where LHY resides.

This especially raises eyebrows given the awareness that the police might detain LHY upon his return to Singapore.



Share this post via:
Continue Reading
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments





“Although Minister Shanmugam has stressed the importance of LHY defending himself in a Singaporean open court with the public as spectators,…..”

What the fuck “spectators” ! If it happened in Singapore’s court, there is nothing to see. It is like spoiler movie with a known ending. We already know the verdict before the hearing even started!

It would only be interesting when this case is heard outside Singapore’s court. Let’s see if the Davinder’s team dares to go to UK!

They’ll never litigate outside of the “pliant” red dot, … period !!!

Why would they, … when they can get away with murder (HepC2015), which just about says it all don’t it !!!

As an “aside”, just because their very own comrades cleared the RidOut pair of breaches, abuses and conflicts of interest, … it don’t mean there doesn’t exist an alternative view, opinion or thought.

Neither POFMA or litigation will remove this “alternative” !!!

They’ll never litigate outside of the “pliant” red dot, … period !!!

Do us all a favour and resign. Take VB and Iswaran along with you. Or jump of Benjamin Sheares Bridge. I promise to burn incense for you for three days, once a day. Other citizens might do the same. So you will have a nice send off. Think about it please.We are terribly tired of your lies, misconduct, misbehaviour, incompetence, your cruelty to drug mules etc

Whatever happens , there is still the 86%



Being Sinkie ministers….of course use Sinkie Court lah or else use what?




How did a small island state fck up so BIG TIME, is the stupid Singaporeans choosing this kind of living and governing, why the complaints now…fck stupid idiots gene of the Singapore

Actions by the PAP has never been criminal. At least not proven in court, and not even charges have been filed. All the acts that PAP has accomplished is viewed as unethical or immoral. Some examples: 1. The Town council sofware being sold to a $2 company 2. The statement whether to eat at 3 meals at restaurants or hawker food. 3. Approval of having casinos 4. Approval of allowing Indians to work here as opposed to Africans 5. Redrawing of electorial boundries And of course, making Parliamentary statements as opposed to filing police report for a criminal act or… Read more »

In a system when a judge interpret and decided within is NOT INSIDE – can one DISBELIEVE there’s a SUPPORTIVE JUDGE with CORRUPT thinking BEHIND the interpretation?
Perhaps a certain Davinder can defend this judicial interpretation descriptive lean retrospectively.

Aiyoh, when judging the standard of our MSM, Ownself says Most Trusted, but international body says 130-155th ranking. So of course they must use the Ownself standards wherever possible.

Face saving 101.

It is not willing or not of the 2 ministers to hear the case in UK. The main reason is Davendar’s ball strunk when he’s outside Singapore court.

If Davendar was to fight the case outside Sg, he might come back with his face covered instead of just his head. He is not willing to lose that glory.

When Lee Hsien Yang bought over his brother’s share of Oxley, he probably thought he & his sister (Lee Wei Ling ) would be in control of the house. Lee Hsien Loong outsmarted his brother & sister. He gained money and at the same time had 100% control over the fate of Oxley. This act alone should have sent a clear signal to Lee Hsien Yang, that the gloves are off. After all the hoo-ha by Lee Hsien Yang, the fate of Oxley remains with Parliament. All other actions henceforth by Lee Hsien Yang are merely to cope with personal… Read more »

comment image

Ridout Ramblers: Come to my private dance party they say. We choose the music and the rhythm and the beat and the venue.
Listen Young: Wait wait, why don’t we dance off at a Euro dance club as it’s more globally recognised?
Ridout Ramblers: Oh No No can’t go there, we don’t know what music they’re going to play.
Listen Young: Thought you guys were pros??

where and how they would hide their faces if lose this case (very likely)?
for they portray themselves as minister of truths (thanks to pofma), pappies never wrong, whiter than white, etc…
100x hara-kiri would still insufficient!

comment image

I always liked B&W bungs

The Empires are just trying to replace a big bad snake with another bigger badder snake. At the end of it all, only they benefit from their wayang show.

At the end of it all, nobody is convince they are White or for the People. Just delaying tactic for the ultimate wars they prep themselves … if they need to show.