Defamation hearing involving LHY, Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan swiftly concludes as defendent is unrepresented

The defamation case involving Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) and Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan commenced and swiftly concluded within 15 minutes in the High Court on Thursday (2 May).

The ministers, present and represented by lawyer Davinder Singh, left the determination of damages and costs to the court after affirming details in their affidavits evidence-in-chief, while LHY was absent and unrepresented.

Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan sued LHY for defamation over remarks he made on 23 July last year concerning the Ridout Road saga.

In a Facebook post, LHY wrote that “two ministers have leased state-owned mansions from the agency that one of them controls,” and mentioned having felled trees and “getting state-sponsored renovations.”

Mr Shanmugam oversees the Singapore Land Authority (SLA)  as the Minister for Law.

According to Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan’s allegations, LHY’s post accused them of acting corruptly and for personal gain by having SLA give them preferential treatment and paying for renovations to 26 and 31 Ridout Road.

The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) released a statement a few weeks prior stating that there had been no wrongdoing or preferential treatment given to the two ministers. Ministerial statements were also issued on 3 July last year by the two ministers to profess their innocence in front of fellow parliamentarians.

In July last year, the ministers sent lawyers’ letters to LHY, threatening to sue unless he apologized, withdrew his allegations, and paid damages to be donated to charity. In response, LHY did not apologize and maintains that his statements do not imply corruption or personal gain. He has criticized the ministers for demanding what he considers a “false apology” for accusations he never made.

On 14 August, the two ministers’ legal team initially requested the court’s permission to serve the papers on LHY in the United Kingdom, where he currently resides, considering the Singapore court as the most appropriate venue for the case.

LHY stated in 2017 that he was “being forced to leave the country” amid a dispute over the future of his family home at 38 Oxley Road, which belonged to the late founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. He and his wife have been hounded by the Singapore Police Force for an investigation into an alleged case of perjury.

In their affidavits, Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan highlighted their prominent roles as ministers in Singapore and underscored the relevance of the alleged defamatory statements to events in Singapore.

By 16 August, the court permitted the papers to be served on LHY outside its jurisdiction, the two ministers served legal papers concerning a defamation suit LHY via Facebook Messenger on 15 September last year.

LHY, who did not enter into appearance, had previously expressed a preference for UK as the venue for the litigation. However, the two ministers, advised by their legal team, argue that Singapore is “clearly and distinctly the most appropriate forum for the trial.”

The Cabinet ministers sought permission from the court and then served papers to him via Facebook Messenger.

As LHY did not enter an appearance against the lawsuits, Justice Goh Yihan ruled in favour of the two ministers in November last year, ordering that LHY pay both ministers’ costs.

Justice Goh also granted injunctions against LHY, restraining him from making defamatory allegations against the two ministers.

The judge noted the relevance of the court’s indignation to the “injury” in the ministers’ opening statement, where he highlighted that the cases the ministers cited do not support the proposition as submitted.

The ministers stated in their opening statement, “The natural indignation of the court at the injury caused to the claimant is a factor to be taken into account in determining the appropriate quantum of general damages to be awarded in any given case. It is also a factor that the court will consider in awarding aggravated damages.”

Mr Singh responded by saying that he would address the question of the gravity of the allegations made and, in this connection, the court must take into consideration the indignation or reaction of the court for the assessment of damages, as stated in his written submissions.

Justice Goh further directed the counsels to create a table of damages awarded in previous cases, noting that the closing statement submitted includes a table concerning many cases involving the Prime Minister.

In response, the counsel acknowledged the direction and said that they would submit on the relevance of the Prime Minister’s cases and LHY’s Facebook publication, and would also address the distinctions in cases involving the Prime Minister. A more comprehensive table of defamation cases, including those not involving the Prime Minister, will be made.

The ministers previously proposed a S$25,000 charity donation as part of a broader retraction and apology before the commencement of the legal proceeding; however, they did not suggest a specific amount for court consideration. Typically, defamation damages in Singapore begin at S$250,000 in high court cases.

Justice Goh directed the counsel for the two ministers to tender the written submissions by 9 May 2024. While the hearing was scheduled for two days, there will be no more hearings on this case, with the remaining proceedings to be conducted via correspondence.