Singapore’s K. Shanmugam, Vivian Balakrishnan sue Lee Hsien Yang for defamation over Ridout rental allegations

These allegations are false, Shanmugam added.

The issue surrounding the rental of the two Ridout Road state properties surfaced in early May when opposition politician and Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam questioned if the ministers were “paying less than the fair market value” for the bungalows.

The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) was tasked to investigate whether there was any misconduct related to the transactions and found no wrongdoing.

The CPIB report, released on June 28, said the two ministers did not benefit from getting any privileged information. They were not given preferential treatment and their rental rates were comparable to that of neighbouring properties, the report stated.

Singapore invokes fake news law against Lee Hsien Yang over Facebook post

Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean reiterated his findings that Shanmugam and Balakrishnan had conducted themselves properly in rental transactions and took appropriate steps to avoid any conflict of interest.

Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong, meanwhile, explained in parliament why some trees within the two Ridout Road properties were felled.

Lee has made at least eight Facebook posts on Ridout Road before and after CPIB’s report and the parliament debate.

A Facebook post on July 23 resulted in a correction direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma), with the Law Ministry saying that it contained untrue statements.

Singapore ministers demand Lee Hsien Yang apologise for ‘defaming’ them

Although Lee had put up a correction notice as required, he also published a new post two days later saying he stood by what he wrote.

After Shanmugam and Balakrishnan said they would sue if he did not withdraw his allegations, Lee said in a Facebook post on July 29 that the ministers were “wrong” about what he said, adding that his post on July 23 “simply stated facts that were already widely published in the Singapore and international media”.

Lee added that his post was made in the United Kingdom.

“If K Shanmugam and V Balakrishnan believe that they have a real case, then they should sue me in the UK,” he said.

Although Lee is overseas, he can still be sued in Singapore.

Lawyers said this is possible as long as the Singapore court is the “appropriate forum” to hear the matter.

“If a defamation lawsuit is filed against Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the Singapore court would be an appropriate forum to hear the matter because the allegations relate to matters in Singapore and the ministers’ reputation in Singapore,” said lawyer Sharifah Nabilah from Luo Ling Ling LLC.

Lawyers also said that should a lawsuit be filed, it is most likely that Lee would have to return to Singapore to testify unless the court exercises its discretion and allows an application by Lee for him to testify via video link.

Should Lee fail to get permission to give evidence via a live video link and not return to Singapore to present the evidence, then the likelihood that he loses the case increases, said lawyers.

If Lee loses the case and does not comply with the court order to pay for damages, lawyers said it could result in the seizure and sale of his local assets, and even bankruptcy. If Lee has no local assets, then there are means to seek damages through his foreign assets, said Nandhu, a partner in the RHTLaw Asia LLP’s litigation and dispute resolution practice.