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

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.

“If Mr Lee thinks that there is no basis for the legal action, he should welcome the opportunity to defend himself in open Court where he can cross-examine us, and we can cross-examine him, in the full view of the Singapore public.”

Minister Shanmugam reiterated that they have received legal counsel indicating that Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s statements about him and Dr Balakrishnan are both false and defamatory.

“We gave him an opportunity to withdraw his statements and apologise. Mr Lee did not do so, leaving us no option but to sue.”

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.”

Lee Hsien Yang proposes independent arbitration

The recent developments on the defamation lawsuit comes after the two ministers successfully served legal documents to LHY through Facebook Messenger in mid-September.

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

Reacting to the legal action by the two ministers, LHY disclosed in a Facebook post that he had suggested to them to pursue their suit in London’s courts.

He added, “London has long been a favored jurisdiction for defamation suits.” Nonetheless, the ministers chose to proceed in the Singapore 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.”

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.

LHY has been firm in his stance, maintaining that his original words neither imply corruption nor personal gain. He voiced his frustration at the ministers for demanding what he views as a “misleading apology.”

In a subsequent post on 29 July, LHY rebuffed the ministers’ claims, emphasizing his intention was to share public information.

He ardently stands by his initial words, “Two ministers have leased state-owned mansions from the agency one oversees, resulting in tree felling and state-funded renovations.”

LHY argues that this doesn’t suggest corruption or personal gain and reproaches the ministers for insisting on a “false apology” for sentiments he denies expressing.

Earlier in September, LHY had highlighted his preference for the UK as the litigation venue, subtly prompting the public to speculate on the ministers’ motives for preferring local courts.

Supporting the ministers is a formidable legal team from Davinder Singh Chambers, led by the distinguished senior lawyer Davinder Singh. He is renowned for representing Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, in prior high-profile defamation cases.

The legal team advised the two ministers to have the case heard in Singapore. Both ministers are of the view that Singapore is “clearly and distinctly the most appropriate forum for the trial.”

“Insofar as the defendant is suggesting that Singapore is not the most appropriate forum for the trial of my claims, or that the United Kingdom is a more appropriate forum than Singapore, that is baseless,” states Mr Shanmugam’s affidavit.

The ministers justified their stance by noting their positions as ministers in Singapore, their residency in the country, and that the alleged defamatory remarks pertain to events in Singapore.

They highlighted the “substantial publication and republication” of the contentious remarks in Singapore, indicating a wide local readership of those words.

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.