Singapore High Court orders Lee Hsien Yang to pay S$400,000 in defamation suit to Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan

On Friday, the Singapore High Court ruled in favour of Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan, awarding them a total of S$400,000 in a defamation lawsuit against Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) over allegations made regarding Ridout estate rentals.

The two ministers alleged that LHY had, in his Facebook post in July last year, accused them of receiving preferential treatment from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), implicating them in corrupt activities.

Justice Goh Yihan, in his written judgement dated 24 May, described the allegations as “of the gravest kind,” targeting the personal integrity and professional reputation of Mr Shanmugam, who serves as Law and Home Affairs Minister, and Dr Balakrishnan, the Foreign Minister.

Both ministers are said to be recognized as leaders with high standing and impeccable integrity.

The judge found that LHY acted with malice in making these claims, indicating a disregard for the truth of the statements and a reckless attitude towards their potential impact.

Despite opportunities to retract the post and apologize, Mr Lee did not take any corrective action, leading to the continued circulation of these damaging statements.

The judge found that, based on the claimants’ interpretation of the offensive statements, the defendant’s accusations targeting their personal integrity, professional reputation, honor, and key personal traits were of the most severe nature. This strongly supported the decision to award higher damages.

Justice Goh highlighted the presence of malice, characterized by ill-will or improper motive, which warranted not only general damages but also aggravated damages.

The judge also acknowledged the ministers’ assertion that LHY is well-known in Singapore, a factor that contributed to the decision to award higher damages.

Justice Goh, in his judgement, identified several critical factors that led to the decision to award higher general damages and aggravated damages, drawing comparisons with precedents set in the cases of Lee Hsien Loong (LHL) vs Leong Sze Hian and LHL v Xu Yuan Chen (XYC) to determine the appropriate quantum of damages.

The judge noted the severe nature and gravity of the defamation, emphasizing that the allegations made by the defendant seriously tarnished the personal integrity, professional reputation, honor, and core personal attributes of the claimants, categorizing them as particularly grave.

Furthermore, the case parallels the LHL v LSH case in terms of the allegations involved—corruption, criminal behaviour, and abuse of position. The judge pointed out that the accusations in this instance were even more severe than those in the LHL v XYC case.

The judgment from LHL v XYC highlighted that while personal dishonesty is severe, it does not reach the level of seriousness associated with corruption, abuse of power, criminal conduct, complicity in endangering a life, nepotism, or misleading the public regarding public funds.

With these considerations in mind, Justice Goh suggested a damages award in line with the $210,000 total awarded in LHL v XYC, reflecting the significant impact of the defamation on the claimants.

The court considered various factors, particularly drawing from the cases of LHL v LSH and LHL v XYC, to determine the appropriate damages for each claimant.

In his judgement, Justice Goh reasoned that each claimant’s total quantum of damages should surpass S$133,000 and approach S$210,000. This calculation reflects the specific circumstances of the case, including the serious and grave nature of the defamation, the standing of both the claimants and the defendant, the breadth of publication and republication, and the defendant’s conduct and demonstrated malice.

However, the judge noted a distinction from LHL v XYC, pointing out that the extent of publication and republication in this case was not as extensive.

Consequently, the court awarded $200,000 in total damages to each claimant—comprising S$150,000 in general damages and S$50,000 in aggravated damages.

Gutzy understands that Davinder Singh Chambers LLC, representing the two ministers, has filed for costs and disbursements totalling S$219,335 to be paid by LHY.

LHY considers the ministers’ demand for an apology as a “false apology” for accusations he never made.

In the Facebook post, which Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan have sued LHY for, 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 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 to LHY’s post, 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, following the publication of LHY’s post, 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 said 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 the 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.