Shanmugam, Balakrishnan argue for defamation case against Lee Hsien Yang to be heard in Singapore

SINGAPORE: Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam and Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan are seeking to have their defamation suits against Mr Lee Hsien Yang heard in Singapore, according to affidavits filed.

"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 that Singapore, that is baseless," Mr Shanmugam's affidavit stated.

Both affidavits were made in support of the ministers' applications to serve papers on Mr Lee out of Singapore. 

The defamation suits arise from comments Mr Lee made on his Facebook page in July this year relating to Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan's rental of black-and-white bungalows at Ridout Road.

In a Facebook post on Jul 27, Mr Shanmugam said Mr Lee had accused him and Dr Balakrishnan of "acting corruptly and for personal gain by having Singapore Land Authority (SLA) give us preferential treatment by illegally felling trees without approval, and also having SLA pay for renovations to 26 and 31 Ridout Road".

Both Cabinet ministers sent lawyers' letters to Mr Lee on Jul 27, saying they would sue unless he apologised, withdrew his allegations and paid S$25,000 in damages that would be donated to charity. Mr Lee did not comply with the demands. 

Mr Lee is the brother of Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. He and his wife Lee Suet Fern left Singapore after declining to attend a police interview in July 2022 over a separate matter. 

On Aug 28, the two ministers applied to serve court papers to Mr Lee via Facebook Messenger on the grounds that it is impractical to serve papers to him personally in the United Kingdom.

The application involves serving the papers in portable document format, or PDF, and includes an order that service in such a manner is deemed "good and sufficient service of the court papers on the defendant". 

Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan's lawyers from Davinder Singh Chambers have been unable to ascertain Mr Lee's address in the UK, according to the affidavits. 

APPLYING TO HAVE CASE HEARD IN SINGAPORE

After failing to comply with the conditions in the letters of demand sent on Jul 27, Mr Lee said in a Facebook two days later that he was simply stating the facts. He added that the two ministers should sue him in a UK court, as he said he was there at the time. 

The ministers then filed separate defamation suits against him in Singapore's High Court on Aug 2. On the same day, lawyers sent a letter to Mr Lee via Facebook Messenger, informing Mr Lee that defamation proceedings had commenced against him in the Singapore courts.

Mr Lee was asked to let them know, among other things, if he would be engaging lawyers to aid him in the proceedings, by Aug 3. He did not reply. 

In separate Statements of Claim, both ministers stated that the offending words in Mr Lee's post were "false and baseless and were calculated to disparage and impugn" both men and their ministerial offices. 

The Statements of Claim did not specify the amount of damages sought. Both are also seeking an injunction to restrain Mr Lee from publishing or disseminating the defamatory allegations, costs and other reliefs.  

In their affidavits, dated Aug 14, Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan set out the offending words mentioned in Mr Lee's Facebook post and gave examples of publications that repeated them to show that they had been "gravely injured in (their) character and reputation, and have been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt".

For these reasons, they suffered loss and damage, they added. 

Arguing for the case to be heard in Singapore, both ministers said they had been advised by lawyers, and believed that Singapore was "clearly and distinctly the most appropriate forum for the trial".

Both gave reasons that they were ministers in Singapore, were residents here, and that the offending words refer to events in Singapore. 

They noted that there had been "substantial publication and republication" of the offending words in Singapore, where various people in Singapore would have read them. 

Both wish to confine claims and reliefs to the publication and republication of words in Singapore, and believe that Singapore law was applicable for the claims. 

The two ministers believe that Mr Lee was likely in the UK, going by his Jul 29 Facebook post. However, lawyers have been unable to ascertain Mr Lee's address in the UK.

"If this Honourable Court grants me leave to serve the Originating Claim and Statement of Claim on the defendant out of Singapore, my lawyers will make a further attempt to invite the defendant to nominate lawyers in Singapore or inform DSC (Davinder Singh Chambers) of his residential address for service," both Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balalakrishnan stated in their respective affidavits. 

"If the defendant provides a residential address outside of Singapore for service, my lawyers will endeavour to serve the Originating Claim and Statement of Claim on the defendant at that address."